Hey everyone, I'm seeking some honest advice/opinion as to how what I am describing might fold out.
Please do NOT derail this topic about anything but the topic at hand because I am trying to determine whether I have a legal case or not and if there is enough formation of information against my university as well as possibly other universities.
Ok, my description (I am NOT affected by this as I do not violate University Policies) of possible case:
My University (WSU) has a Network Use Policy as defined here:
http://www.wsu.edu/ElectronicPolicy.html and with such they do prohibit illegal downloads of say music/videos/etc... as they are in direct violation of their Network Policy (that actually DOES include legal music because we are a research University and the School would prefer to have the bandwidth allocated to the Researchers... even at 4:01AM). Anyways, the school monitors bandwidth usage on student computers (nothing else as that is illegal; only monitoring raw bandwidth is allowed). They then look for "bandwidth jumps" as described by a gentleman in the copyright management department who manages RIAA/NPAA/etc... claims for illegal downloading. So when they assume/determine a student is downloading "too much," they suspend the user's account from accessing the internet. In order to retrieve Internet access back, the student must pay the IT department $65 for them to search the student's computer.
Where I believe they violate law:
Searching and seizing computers is illegal without obtaining a federal search warrant. So when they are paid to search the computer, that would in theory be a violation of the set forth federal law. I don't believe this case is as simple as saying "If you signed their contract for network use policy, you must abide by it" because a University's policies do not supersede that of the federal government.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cyberc...l2002.htm#_IB_
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Department of Justice
When confronted with this issue, courts have analogized electronic storage devices to closed containers, and have reasoned that accessing the information stored within an electronic storage device is akin to opening a closed container. Because individuals generally retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of closed containers, see United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 822-23 (1982), they also generally retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in data held within electronic storage devices. Accordingly, accessing information stored in a computer ordinarily will implicate the owner's reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. See United States v. Barth, 26 F. Supp. 2d 929, 936-37 (W.D. Tex. 199  (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in files stored on hard drive of personal computer); United States v. Reyes, 922 F. Supp. 818, 832-33 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in data stored in a pager); United States v. Lynch, 908 F. Supp. 284, 287 (D.V.I. 1995) (same); United States v. Chan, 830 F. Supp. 531, 535 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (same); United States v. Blas, 1990 WL 265179, at *21 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 1990) ("[A]n individual has the same expectation of privacy in a pager, computer, or other electronic data storage and retrieval device as in a closed container.").
|
Advice or opinions on the subject matter would be very much appreciated!
Slmclarengt
__________________