Slashdot Mirror
Internet Usage Records Accessible Under FOI Laws
The records in question are log files created by the schools' proxy servers of what URLs are accessed by the student body. The school district in question isn't censoring Internet access with any sort of censorware product (they use teachers to monitor what students are accessing), and the parent would like to prove that the students are accessing porn sites. I do not believe it is an invasion of privacy to access these records; if there was an invasion of privacy, it occurred when the school district collected the records on their students, not when someone else requested to see them.
Some comments of mine that didn't make it into the Times article: I hope that this situation casts some light on Internet usage at public facilities. Many, many Internet services are set up to create detailed log files by default -- proxy servers, Web servers, various login mechanisms and authentication mechanisms, etc. These records are being collected, and they are just lying around on machines or tape backups here and there, and they are, if the entity that collected them is a public entity, public records accessible under FOI laws. If you want to prove that your local school/library shouldn't be censoring the Internet, request the records. (I'll help! E-mail me.) If you want to prove that your local school/library should be censoring the Internet, well, I won't help, but I still support your right to get access to public files.
And while this situation is about records collected by public entities, the same records are routinely collected by private entities as well. Is your Web access going through a proxy server at your ISP? (The answer is more likely to be "yes" than "no," by the way -- a proxy can be installed that is transparent to the end-user.) Then your ISP is collecting detailed records of every single URL you access through their service. How long are these records being retained? Who is the ISP selling them to? Do you know?
I like his argument, but his .sig really
pisses me off. Slashdot's forum is a public
place. Anything you say here can be quoted
as if you yelled it on the streets of Miami.
That is the result of public expression.
Quoting, or more properly, citation, is covered under fair use. Look it up at Brad Templeton's site: Myth 4, third paragraph:
Fair use is almost always a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary). It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is generally forbidden.)
Also, by simple act of posting my comments here on Slashdot, I obviously implicitly allow copying of my content for the purpose of conducting a discussion on Slashdot. This includes viewing, printing, quoting, and all other uses necessary to have a discussion here on this site. Copyright law explicitly protects such uses.
Use of my text outside of Slashdot, for example in a book published by Andover, or on a Best Of Slashdot CD-ROM, or in other places or for purposes other than discussion here on Slashdot requires a license. That is, I have to explicitly grant you the right to use my words.
Copyright does not cover names, trademark law does that.
Copyright does not cover ideas, patent law does that.
So if you like what I write, but I would not grant you a license to use my words, you could always phrase the ideas I convey in your own words, or express them differently (i.e. using no words at all). That should be differently enough in order not to qualify as a derived work, though.
And finally, when asked, I usually grant the license to use my words for free - completely, unaltered and with correct attribution as well as a pointer to my homepage. I do like to get 1-3 free reference exemplars of printed matter, and pointers to the sites where my words are hosted. Also, I will not grant license to use my words for free, if you sell them. If you make a living by selling my words and my works, I demand a sensible share of that money.
If you want to read my words, and my works, please go to my homepage. You find it at http://www.koehntopp.de/kris. I keep freely accessible online copies of everything I have written and deemed useful, whether sold or not. I make my contracts in such ways that I can maintain this website with my works so that you can access all my published articles and USENET posts as well as my open source projects.
Copyright law may be not an ideal solution, and may be an annoyance sometimes. But there is (or at least was at some point in time) reason behind it and used sensibly and nonoffensively, it can be actually useful to protect the interests of the public as well as the interests of the author. Just try to think, and use Google, before you flame.
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
What if somebody went to the public library and asked to see your reading lists?
Just because someone hasn't reached the age of majority doesn't give anyone the right to traipse through records stripping them of any dignity or privacy.
The next argument will be: Well why should we stop just because they've reached the age of majority?
If its not tied to an individual person, what's the point? The school can also run the list through the IP filter to remove all traces of "unapproved sites" which might have been hit by who knows who?
Major snoops and people who are that invasive about information use should be deprived from it for the very reason that the asked for it!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
OK, I would like to request info. What's the procedure? My high school engages in a (relatively effective -- they are very fast at changeing based on student input) censorware package. I would like to request the log files not to particularly do anything with them, simply to make it widely known that they are public. what is the procedure? I think this might have an effect on both the students and staff. Thanks in advance.
Hello? If you access the internet via a public resource such as a school or publid library, then you shouldn't expect much privacy. As stated, these are logged and as such, are public property subject to the FOI act. Seems like a no-brainer.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
The plaintiff has no direct interest other than a vague legal interest public policy, because, and this is important to understand, his own children are not in the public schools, are not the subject of this inquiry. The articles state that the plaintiffs own children are enrolled in PRIVATE school which specifically is immune from a legal challenge like this. So turnabout in this case is NOT fair play. We could not for example have the access records for his children made public because they are enrolled in private school and it is not a public policy issue.
So in the end this where law and public policy are mismatched to the Net? Why you ask? Well in this case it's not much different that protesting outside of a family planning clinic. the law states that protests have to be a certain distance from the front door so that people going are not only physically prohibited but also that they are not subject to undue emotional stress, verbal abuse, etc. In the case here there is no physical separation so what we have in effect is a protest or vigil that has a chilling effect on using a facility without the protection from figuratively blocking the door.
So the question you have to ask yourself is, is this challenge really about filtering software or is this challenge about using the facility at all. It would be interesting from a legal perspective to see whether this gentleman could be successfully prosecuted if he ever published and identifiable information on minors who access the Net. That is, let's say he is collecting this information in order to pressure the school or the students by publishing the names or addresses of sites they visit. If he refers to any identifaible attribute of a minors access, say, first initial last name could he be prosecuted under a law that bars divulging any information about minors without their guardians' consent?
Thing the first: The guy's children are _not at that school_, and he is requesting the log files for all of the children in the school. He does not have responsibility for any of those kids.
Thing the second: You might have the legal right to go through your daughter's drawers. But I'm not convinced that you have the moral right. Why shouldn't she have the same right to privacy as you? I don't believe your "responsibility" for someone's upbringing suddenly gives you the right to go through their personal stuff.
Wow. Free internet usage stats on a very specific and impressionable demographic. Advertisers are going to eat this up.