Re: Privacy policy question

["Shamblin, Quinn" <qrs () BU EDU>]

Sure, I see that point.  And I completely agree that different situations do legitimately lead to different 
requirements.  I just get a bit bothered such differences when they lead (as they do in some cases) to inequities in 
areas that should not be based on role.  If one group gets the benefit of legal due process and another does not, I see 
that as an issue.  But this is the reality as it currently stands, so is just something to be recognized and dealt with 
appropriately when it comes up.

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 David R. 
Millar
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:01 PM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Privacy policy question

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?