Educating the User, Training the Administrator

The following constitutes the notes and text from the slides from Andrew Charlesworth's presentation at Facing the Legal Challenges of Providing Internet Access in HEIs, organised by The JISC with support from UKOLN

Educating and Informing the User

• One of the key parts of an Internet strategy is to provide adequate information to users about what is acceptable use.
• As such, comprehensive regulations and guidelines are essential - these serve a four-fold purpose
  • Education of the user so they can avoid unintentional breaches.
  • A clear and sound position from which the institution can institute disciplinary proceedings if necessary.
  • A basis for restrictng or reducing the institution's potential legal liability.
  • An ideal opportunity to set out institutional lines of communication and of responsibility.

General

• It is essential to have an institutional policy rather than various departmental policies - but that institutional policy should not just be left up to the computer centre.
• Institutional policy should consider all aspects and consequences of network use - not just content liability (WWW, Intranet, E-mail, Usenet) but also issues such as University monitoring, liability for loss of user data etc.
• It is a good idea to have a single institutional committee tasked with the development of this policy.
• The institutional policy should clearly allot specific responsibilities to specific individuals or offices as the administration of the policy must be taken seriously.

Policy at the University of Hull

• Policy is developed by the Software Policy and User Regulations Advisory Group. Membership is drawn from the Faculties, Academic Services and management.
• The current University regulatory framework includes:
  • Guidelines for personal webpages
  • Guidelines for the CWIS editorial board
  • Guidelines for the acceptable use of e-mail*
  • Guidelines for University monitoring*
  • Computer Software Use Guidelines
• Where necessary, each set of guidelines sets out the disciplinary consequences of breach, and which members of staff have responsibility for the given area.

The WWW

• While it is counterproductive to attempt to prevent users using the WWW and creating webpages, it is sensible to:
  • place precise restrictions on who may set up webservers.
  • ensure clear separation between institutional and personal webpages.
  • to state clearly that the institution has no editorial control over personal webpages.
  • to have a clear administrative mechanism in place to enable the swift removal of damaging material from institutional and personal webpages.
  • Have clear guidelines as to acceptable and legal use of the WWW.

Administration & Regulation

• HE institutions have a wide discretion in deciding what is not appropriate activity on their networks, and may thus ban activities which are not illegal per se.
• Policies must however be comprehensible to both users and those who have to enforce them.
• Administrators who are given tasks under the policy should:
• be given the powers necessary to fulfill that role.
• be given clear instructions as to their remit and powers.
• be able to request advice as to the meaning or interpretation of the policy from the committee or institution managment.

Dealing with Problems

• Should an Internet related problem with legal implications for an HE institution arise, speedy action is likely to be of the essence in limiting liability in financial terms.
• Rapid reaction is unlikely if no-one knows the likely consequences of failing to act, who is responsible for acting, or the proper procedure to be taken.
• Speed is thus of little use, if the action taken is uncoordinated, ill-informed and ill-targeted.

Hypothetical

• A staff member at your institution puts up a webpage on an institutional webserver which states that a prominent MP is a paedophile, and that he is defrauding clients at his accounting practice. The MP is informed of this by an American journalist who phones him from New York to ask questions having found the information on the WWW.
• What are the implications ?
  • Libel (multi-jurisdictional) - unless true.
  • Staff member can be sued, institution may also be liable
  • Court case would mean bad publicity at best, financial loss at worst
• What action should be taken ?

Hypothetical II

• Action
  • Once the University is notified, the relevant member of staff should immediately remove the material.
  • The offending staff member should have all Internet and Intranet access suspended pending investigation.
  • Apologies should immediately be made to the MP from the highest institutional level, and if necessary an offer to make amends should be considered. I
  • f the material is found to be libellous, disciplinary measures should be taken for breach of university regulations, at the least, permanent barring from University computer systems, and the MP informed that this has occurred.
  • The disciplinary measures should be widely publicised within the institution.

The Internationalisation of the Issues

• Despite the attention paid today to the provisions of UK law, it is important never to forget the international nature of the Internet.
• While there are jurisdictions more liberal than our own with regard to freedom of speech, there are many that are not
• While criminal sanctions may be difficult for other nations to apply, offending material might prove costly with regard to other activities of the institution concerned The increased willingness of countries to resort to claiming some form of extra-territorial jurisdiction, means that we may need to be aware of the laws of many more countries, and how these may affect our use and our provision of on-line services.

Obtaining and Protecting Your Own Rights. Issues to consider

• "Information is the lifeblood of HE institutions."
• All HE institutions both create and purchase information.
• In a changing economic and political climate HE institutions are now expected to spend less and earn more.
• In the "Information Age", information is becoming increasingly valuable.
• Are HE institutions giving away their "lifeblood", only to have it sold back to them?

Technological changes

• The advance of IT has made information both more accessible, and more useful, with new concepts such as 'data mining' appearing.
• This increased accessibility and use has resulted in a corresponding increase in the value of information generally, and electronic information in particular.
• The 'owners' of the information want to maximise the benefit from their 'property' via the Intellectual Property Regime (IPR) - copyright, trademark, patent, etc.

HE Institutions and the IPR I

• HE institutions in the UK have been notoriously poor at defending their IP.
• Consider the following sources of information produced by HE institutions: Monographs, journal articles, conference papers, teaching materials.
• All of the above are information, all have value, all are capable of IP protection.
• Yet HE institutions rarely assert their rights, and avail themselves of that protection.

HE Institutions and the IPR II

• The consequences of an HE institution's failure to capitalise on its IP:
  • No additional income for the institution.
  • Often the cost of repurchasing information created by it and other HE institutions in the form of library holdings
• Why HE institutions don't capitalise on their IP:
  • No historical need to
  • A lack of understanding of the issues
  • Administrative inertia
  • Academic resistance
  • No institution-wide strategic plan

An example of the problem

• An academic creates an electronic information resource as part of a distance learning course for X University. The resource is a valuable part of what turns out to be a very profitable course.
  The academic is then poached by ABC Teaching Co. who wish to use the electronic information resource in their distance learning course which will be sold world-wide. The academic created the electronic information resource on his own computer at weekends.
  Who owns the resource ?
• What happens if the academic falls under a bus ?

The New IPR

• If IPR reforms proposed in the USA and the EU are adopted we will see a signal change in the IP rights that HE institutions have long enjoyed.
  • A significant reduction in the scope of 'fair dealing' and 'library privileges' with regard to materials held in libraries, especially electronic materials.
  • A significant reduction in what may be transferred through the Inter-Library Loan system, especially electronic materials.
  • A more aggressive policy of electronic rights enforcement by copyright holders via encryption, watermarking etc.
• HE institutions will need a strategy to deal with this, on both an institutional and HE basis. This is not a problem which will go away.

The Future I

• HE institutions should re-examine their attitude towards their IP rights and ensure they have:
  • An understanding of the issues and their implications at both management and staff levels
  • Guidelines as to the institution's policy on IP.
  • Guidelines for staff and management about how to avoid difficulties and make best use of IP rights
  • An examination of existing staff contracts, and student registration documentation, to ensure relevant IP may be legitimately claimed by the institution.
  • The necessary administrative mechanisms for the acquisition of IP rights in relevant circumstances.

The Future II

• Proposed IPR reforms could significantly damage existing mechanisms for information acquisition. An Institutional Information Strategy should provide for :
  • An assessment of likely IPR outcomes and their implications.
  • An examination of the efficiency of existing information sources.
  • Alternative options for existing information sources.
  • Inter-institutional co-operation with regard to the provision of particular resources
  • Inter-institutional negotiation with information suppliers.

Please note that all material contained in the presentations "Data Protection & Defamation", and "Educating the User, Training the Administrator" at that seminar, and their accompanying notes remains copyright of A.Charlesworth unless otherwise specifically provided. Permission is granted to the JISC and others to provide access to, or make, multiple copies on paper or in digital format, for use in UK educational institutions, as long as the author and his institution are credited on each copy. This includes mounting the material on a web server.

Facing the Legal Challenges of Providing Internet Access in HEIs
Organised by The JISC with support from UKOLN