Re: Privacy policy question

["David R. Millar" <millar () MIT EDU>]

I accept that faculty need assurances of academic freedom.  It's less
clear to me that staff need the same rights and privileges.

David Millar
Consultant
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
twitter.com/@SecurityTrot






On 6/1/12 11:53 AM, "Shamblin, Quinn" <qrs () BU EDU> wrote:

> I have noticed ever since I started working in higher-ed years ago, that
> this sort of skewing is extremely common.
>
> Quinn R Shamblin
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> Executive Director of Information Security, Boston University
> CISM, CISSP, GCFA, PMP  -  O 617-358-6310  M 617-999-7523
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv
> [mailto:SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU] On Behalf Of Valdis Kletnieks
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:18 AM
> To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
> Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Privacy policy question
>
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:50:21 -0400, "John K. Lerchey" said:
>
> > "Whenever possible and legally permissible, notification must be given
> > to the faculty member whose data are subject to subpoena, search
> > warrant, or order of court prior to compliance therewith, and,
> > whenever possible and legally permissible, sufficient time must be
> > allowed, before intrusion, to allow the faculty member to file a motion
> > to quash. "
>
> Faculty members get time to file a motion to quash, but staff and
> students don't?
> Are you able to share the reasoning there, or is it internal
> sausage-making that we don't want to know about?