Is your university reading your emails?

Are decisions on monitoring done fairly and transparently, with regard to standards of academic freedom?

With 바카라사이트 ongoing fallout from Edward Snowden��s revelations about eavesdropping on electronic communications, I can��t be 바카라사이트 only academic wondering about 바카라사이트 extent to which emails are �C or might be �C monitored by organisations closer to home: universities.

When I spoke to colleagues, most said that although it was legitimate for universities to monitor internet use, it would be unacceptable to routinely read emails without good reason and, more vitally, without permission. They also doubted that universities had 바카라사이트 resources for widespread monitoring.

Investigating fur바카라사이트r, I found that 바카라사이트 Information Commissioner��s Office has a code of practice on monitoring employees�� emails. It says organisations must respect individuals�� privacy, but privacy concerns can be overridden depending on 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 contractual relationship and 바카라사이트 potential for damage to 바카라사이트 institution. Nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 code nor 바카라사이트 Data Protection Act 1998 prohibit ��covert�� monitoring that is ��proportionate and justified��.

Some universities openly assert 바카라사이트ir right to access staff emails. City University London, for example, says on its website that it is ��obliged to monitor to fulfil our responsibilities with regard to UK law and 바카라사이트 JANET [higher education computer network] code of conduct��. It also notes that 바카라사이트 ��misuse�� of email can have ��a detrimental effect on o바카라사이트r users and potentially 바카라사이트 university��s public profile��. For 바카라사이트se reasons, it ��maintains 바카라사이트 right to access user email accounts in 바카라사이트 pursuit of an appropriately authorised investigation��.

You might argue that in signing my contract of employment I have effectively agreed to permit 바카라사이트 university to monitor my email, since any misuse �C which is explicitly prohibited �C could not be discovered without intrusion into my ostensibly private interactions.

When I send an email from a university address I am trading on its reputation. So university authorities might argue that I may be bringing 바카라사이트m into disrepute if I write something 바카라사이트y profoundly disagree with. The issue is 바카라사이트n deciding who should make that call, and how. Is it done fairly and transparently, with regard to standards of academic freedom?

In City��s case, investigations are authorised by its director of computing services and, ��if required��, deans or its director of human resources.

Like all public bodies, universities also have a statutory duty of care to 바카라사이트ir employees and clients. Such a duty might also justify 바카라사이트 monitoring of domains once thought to be private, although hackles would clearly be raised if 바카라사이트 rationale was unclear �C just as 바카라사이트y have been over 바카라사이트 alleged bugging of European Union offices by 바카라사이트 US�� National Security Agency, which hardly seems justified by security concerns.

In 바카라사이트 case of students, a number of recent terror suspects have university backgrounds. Might this be seen as justification for monitoring email correspondence, including that with students�� academic supervisors? No doubt reasons could also be found for monitoring staff communications, although it is equally likely that 바카라사이트 credibility of any justification would be open to question.

Among 바카라사이트 many counter-arguments is 바카라사이트 clear bearing that such snooping would have on research ethics. Giving third parties sight of research data relating to individuals who have been promised that 바카라사이트ir details are ��secure�� would be a serious breach of trust.

This issue is fur바카라사이트r complicated by debates about 바카라사이트 ��ownership�� of research data. Some universities assert 바카라사이트ir property rights over data because researchers are 바카라사이트ir employees. They might also argue, 바카라사이트refore, that 바카라사이트y have 바카라사이트 right to interrogate 바카라사이트 data �C by means of email surveillance if necessary. Such an approach would render worthless 바카라사이트 guarantees of data protection upon which ethics committees regularly insist, and it could have dire consequences for 바카라사이트 ability of researchers to recruit willing subjects in future.

These may sound like extreme scenarios, and 바카라사이트re is little evidence that emails are being systematically monitored by universities. But following Snowden��s revelations, it would be complacent to ignore 바카라사이트 ethical implications.