Re: Privacy policy question

[Jeffrey Schiller <jis () MIT EDU>]

Actually MIT doesn't distinguish between Faculty, Staff and Students when
it comes to legal process. The official Statement in our Policies and
Procedures is here: http://web.mit.edu/policies/11/11.2.html#sub1

We take this very serious in practice, I know, I've been in the loop on
occasion.

-Jeff


On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Guy Almes <galmes () tamu edu> wrote:

> David,
>  I'm a deep respecter of academic freedom and its relevance in similar
> matters.
>  But there are several reasons why the safeguards below make sense for
> students and staff also.  For example:
> <> fundamental integrity of people's privacy: it should not be presumed
> that all data on university IT stuff is public (the 4th amendment comes in
> somewhere here);
> <> staff deal with students, so various FERPA issues arise; and
> <> while some aspects of academic freedom relate to the customs/rules
> surrounding tenured and tenure-track faculty, many aspects of academic
> freedom relate to students and staff also.
>  Thus, while academic freedom does not grant the "same rights and
> privileges" to all, academic freedom does grant rights and privileges to
> all members of the community.
>  Regards,
>        -- Guy
>
>
> On 6/1/12 11:00 AM, David R. Millar wrote:
>
> > 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<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?


-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
Jeffrey I. Schiller
Information Services and Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue  Room E17-110A
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
617.253.0161 - Voice
jis () mit edu
http://jis.qyv.name
_______________________________________________________________________