and if you can convince the college that there is no way that software could
become operative, thus issuing a guarantee against your human error ("gee, I
just forgot I was now on the university network, rather than my home
network"), or against the software doing something you didn't anticipate
(now we know that NEVER happens), and were willing to permit them to
confiscate the laptop in the event of either of the above scenarios (that's
what I'd require...in writing) you may be able to get them to grant you an
exception. I wouldn't grant you one on those grounds, but they might.
By enacting this policy, the school is limiting:
1. Their legal exposure and liability.
2. Their administrative burden of having to monitor P2P users, and track
them down if they've been found using the software outside legal bounds.
3. Limiting their attack vector.
Other than letting you do something you want to do, that has the potential
to adversely impact their ability to provide service to the entire community
of students, and with respect to the schools mission, has no legitimate
place on their network, what does the school get out of it? While a bit
draconian, they probably just don't want the hassle and burden of dealing
with issues. If they allow it (P2P software installed), it'll only be a
matter of time before someone thinks they can fire it up (thus, making it
operative). That is a very small step.
Not only does this protect them, it protects every one of the students. It
seems like your mind is made up that you want what you want, and expect the
university to allow you to have it.
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Joe Feise <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 13:37, Steven Fischer wrote:
> > This is a poor analogy on a lot of levels...
> >
> > The problem with P2P software on the college campus
> >
> > 1. legal concern - the transfer of copyrighted works across the college's
> > infrastructure without the college being able to track/police it. P2P
> has
> > legitimate purposes, but the risk of illegitimate use appear to outweigh
> > the
> > benefits of legitimate use in the eyes of the administrators and regents.
> >
> > 2. "fair" use concern - ensuring the resource is available to all
> students
> > for the purpose intended. I think we can all agree that the intended
> > purpose is NOT to provide lower-layer transport for P2P
> > software/protocols.
> > Some of these applications can act as denial of service agents, as the
> > bandwidth they consume is not trivial, and can deny use of the resource
> > for
> > the purpose for which it was intended.
> >
> > The resource belongs to the college, not to the students. As such, it is
> > up
> > to the perogative of the college (administrators, regents, etc) to
> > determine
> > the conditions under which students can use that resource. It appears
> > that
> > a student is taking issue with a specific set of rules and regulations
> > governing the use of the college's network resource. I appreciate that
> > indivuals concern, and would invite him, after the current semister, to
> > find a college where the rules and regulations governing the use of the
> > network resource provided by the college are more to his liking.
>
> Yes, that all applies to the _use_ of the network resources. "My network,
> my rules."
> But again, merely having a particular software installed on a computer not
> owned by the organization without actually using it does not fall under
> the rules that govern the _use_ of network resources.
>
> So, again, I differentiate clearly between possession of a particular
> piece of software and the use of that software.
>
> -Joe
>
--
To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his
glorious presence without fault and with great joy
