Slashdot Mirror
MIT Tracking Campus Net Connections Since 1999
An anonymous reader writes "MIT has been monitoring student internet connections for the past decade without telling them. There is no official policy and no student input." The Tech article says, though, that the record keeping is fairly limited in its scope (connection information is collected, but not the data transferred) and duration (three days, for on-campus connections).
I am curious as to what exactly was setup. It honestly sounds like they setup ntop, which is something I have some what mixed feelings about, but can be amazingly useful for tracking network health and etc.
At our university, the lawyers would have a fit if we weren't.
I'd be very surprised to find a college or ISP that didn't monitor their network in this fashion. Looks like maybe they are keeping DHCP, transparent proxy, and network statistics. Plus they are doing intrusion detection and looking for malicious activity. The good news is that they are not keeping these records long term, but only for a reasonable amount of time. If they are having a problem or suspicious activity then they probably keep it longer. Face it, your internet activities are NOT anonymous no matter how much you'd like it pretend that it is.
I can see the argument that you could in theory back out the web surfing history of a particular mac address.
These are things any self-respecting network should be doing. The issue here is students not realizing that some monitoring and logging is done. I'm willing to bet that consent to monitoring is referenced in an agreement that the students signed, but that the details of the monitoring are not spelled out.
At my work, users sign agreements on acceptable use and consent to monitoring. I only dig into the logs if there is a problem, the IDS flagged something, or an accusation is made. Sometimes the logs prove innocence, btw.
Part of the problem with this sort of thing is, with no policy, where do reasonable expectations of privacy for using someone's pipe they've offered you access to begin and end? In general, with no privacy policy, there is no expectation of privacy, unfortunately.
i just wanted to monitor where you are going and what you are doing. dont worry i delete it after three days. i promise .... ive been doin it for ten years, didnt think you would mind, thats why i didnt ask you. im sorry if you feel 'invadded', clearly its some emotional problem on your part, hysteria or perhaps paranoia. id suggest some anti psychotics.
This doesn't surprise me at all, I don't exactly like it but under stand it. The positive side of this is they are being reasonable on how long they keep the logs. Though if they collect this information the student should made aware of, not just buried in the contract they signed.
or the feds snooping, i am really frankly surprised
you actually want to depend upon the federal government for your security?
you want to depend upon some school, some cable company, some phone company not to snoop on you?
whenever i'm encountered by this strange slashdot groupthink, i really have only one thing to offer: if you put it on a wire, if its outside your control, then the security or privacy of whatever you are doing is nothing you should count on
the outrage seems artifical, contrived, illogical, exasperating
if you want security, if you want privacy DON'T PUT IT ON A WIRE OUTSIDE YOUR CONTROL
beginning and ending of discussion
as if you actually want ot TRUST some other entity to do your security work for you?
hey, how about this: YOU are responsible for your security
you, and you alone
is my pov really that strange?
it seems odd anyone should consider it any other way
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
IT Professionals, working for major Universities, monitor network traffic?
No. Fucking. Way.
but SSH only moves the problem around. Now the ISP can see all the pr0n you're looking at. Still I would rather have the ISP looking at my traffic than the school because, well they hate me.
They hate the complaints they get from the parents of the girls I'm stalking, they hate the fact that I've stolen so much stuff from them yet they can't prove it. They hate the fools day pranks I pulled and they probably hate the fact that I'm using SSH too.
So if you're a student like me and you had only the slightest brush in with the lecturers/staff then you can be sure they're looking for more dirt on you. These people are bored and nothing would please them more than to find a way to have an annoying student expelled.
I mean, really, while it's wrong that they store the data without telling the users, and while users should have better expectations of privacy, you have to look at this in context. They are only storing the data for 3 days, and it's only the connection details rather than the content. And the context that this is in, on Slashdot, is that a few articles down the FBI and the state of california are going to take and warehouse DNA from people that have not been convicted of a crime. I'm not saying this is inconsequential, but considering what's going on in the world in general, from state bodies, what MIT is doing should probably rank fairly far down the list of things to worry about.
Help me out with this?
Seriously, they keep the records for 3 days for most traffic and 30 days for anomolous traffic which might indicate a threat to the network. Most networks I have seen keep data for far longer just because nobody ever bothers to clean out the logs.
The fact that they have a policy for cleaning the logs puts them streets ahead of the most network admins and yet they are being portrayed as the bad guys here.
Storm in a teacup if I have ever seen one.
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
...when you are going to finsh that fucking movie.
The Tech article says, though, that the reco[...]
Look, timothy, little tip that'll make your job easier: Effectively zero Slashdotters read past the reminder that somebody can see them sometime, somewhere. They were all too busy alternating between sputtering gibberish, screaming in panic, and folding new layers on their tinfoil hats at that point.
Next time, you can save yourself a lot of writing trouble by just linking to The Tech with the text "people bigger than you fnord can see you fnord fnord fnord", and the effect will be the same.
As a network admin I can't tell you how useful it is to have at least a little data about where something might have come from in the event of a problem arising. Three days worth of data is hardly something to get in a twit about, and honestly the specifics of the data probably isn't even looked at that much.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
whenever i'm encountered by this strange slashdot groupthink
I wouldn't say it's all that strange, but we find snooping practices to be extremely abhorrent because they almost directly imply an assumption of guilt. Furthermore, ISP logs have frequently been used as a tool for the MAFIAA Lawyers to nail people up on the wall for enough "protection money" to satisfy their business model.
Lastly, years' duration of log-keeping rarely actually benefits the ISP or company in question. It is kinda funny that you posted this in a thread about 3 days worth of logging.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
I Hope They Favoritize P2p
Interesting How The Feds Pursue
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
tee hee
$META_SIG_JOKE
We used to monitor students' internet activities at (insert name giant big ten school here) as far back as the nineties. We recorded every byte of traffic that passed through our internet gateways (it's probably an unmanageable amount of traffic by now) and wrote code that could "play back" a session for various services including recreating an entire X session. Telnet, http, ftp... whatever. But it was all encrypted as it was recorded and could only be accessed by the board of trustees, as I recall.
Ahh, memories.
is something that impinges on my freedom. in the form of assholes driving around implements of death on my streets.
This is one of those occasions where it's not ok to go ass to mouth...
You can't take the sky from me.
This may be routine, but there are no checks on the monitoring and no information about any of this anywhere.
These policies were not publicized -- that's the problem. Students didn't consent to any of this; they didn't know about any of this.
You can read the policies here:
http://web.mit.edu/ist/topics/policies/index.html
This is Quentin Smith reporting live from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. News agencies are reporting that MIT has been keeping records of network activity. It's a practice called "logging" by hackers, crackers, and other computer deviants. Using nefarious software techniques, "loggers" can identify and disrupt innocent users' botnets.
Individuals with limited knowledge of computers like MIT students are particularly susceptible to these types of attacks. To combat these "loggers," experts suggest disabling firewalls and updating account information if you receive an email from your bank.
In other words you are afraid of people with guns. I once got punched in the face, standing at a bus stop. It was terrifying. And yet I don't go around asking that all fists be taken off the streets.
The world we live in is a dangerous place. I could have just as easily been stabbed, or pushed in front of a train. The sooner you learn to deal with the inherent dangerousness of life, the happier you will be.
Qxe4
That's a hot button you got there. Might want to check your logic circuit for shorts.
implement of civil life
a gun isn't
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> Pick a better metaphor.
the students own their computers as we own our cars.
the university provides network access to the students' computers as the government provides roads to our cars.
feel better now?
So, no American has needed to fight an invading power or corrupt government with deadly force on our home soil for a few centuries now. So what? Does this mean the need will never arise in the future? As with the right to sue, we should be happy that we can get through our daily lives without exercising the right to own deadly weapons—but it would be foolish as a society to give it up, and it's unjust to force free individuals to do so.
And fascists don't come out of the 'right-wing-small-government-yokel-in-the-woods' fray. It requires a Socialist leader (Hitler, Mussolini) to create a fascist state: You have to tie industry and finance to the government under the guise of rescuing or improving the plight of the working class. Hey, wait a minute!-
!#&*
Hey! While you're up there, why don't you look around for any polyps. You're that guy with the telescopic vision, aren't ya?
Guns?! He's afraid of people with Shift keys. Baby steps, here. Baby steps.
...is just enough time to figure out:
a) where the bomb threat came from.
b) which building the suicidal student needs to get talked down from.
c) who impersonated the professor to cancel an assignment.
d) how a lab router ended up sniffing for passwords.
All of these things happened while I was in campus IT, but I never heard about an RIAA/MPAA complaint about something that happened less than two weeks prior, so this really doesn't look like undue outside influence to invade student privacy. It's just responsible network management.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
lol yes, plutonium, Jefferson would have approved. Basically what it boils down to is society wants guns, at least enough members of society want them, and the rest are willing to tolerate it, so we have them. And if enough of society wanted plutonium, we would have that too. And I would be unhappy, but I would deal with it.
You really only have two choices: either deal with it, or change people's minds so they are against it, just as they are against plutonium. Whining and complaining that it is your 'right' is just annoying. Find a way to change people's minds, or deal with it. But don't be afraid either way.
Qxe4
...this is an Institute that attracts many, many International students, most seem to be Asians.
Australia has a history of worrying about "Asian invasion"... perhaps this is just the latest incarnation of this senseless, racist phobia.
how the fuck is this news? this is extremely basic monitoring for simple diagnostics and troubleshooting.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I would venture to guess that they do have logs and snort running somewhere like all other universities of this size.
More to the point, if I were in a position to obtain a stash of plutonium, I don't think I'd be very concerned with whatever plutonium-control laws the rest of society might see fit to pass.
I would be no more interested in plutonium-control laws, than criminals are interested in gun-control laws.
I'm sorry about you being punched in the face. It's a stupid argument. But still, being punched in the face beats being shot in the face any day of the week.
There's a big difference between the risk posed from the presence of guns to the presence of fists or even knives if there is any sort of stand off. You couldn't have been as easily stabbed - it's much harder physically and mentally to stab someone than it is to pull a trigger in the heat of the moment. For some reason apologists for the level of gun violence in the US don't seem to realise this.
There is inherently some danger in life, but the level of danger is hardly a constant.
And there's the fact that guns are completely different things from hands: one is expressly designed to kill things. If for some reason you were born with a gun in the place of a hand we could probably make an exception for you. I'm just boggled at the arguments people trot out to rationalise that sort of thing.
First, I'd like to thank the GP for pointing out your hypocrisy. Second, I'd like to point out that "assault weapon" is either redundant or nonexistent. Stop using that made-up scare term.
"Yokels" like me who live in the western USA and "cling to guns and religion" are a very, very poor target for anyone hoping to "rise to power". Farmers are independent people. No Marxists, Muslims or any other -its or -isms come here make speeches. They'd be wasting their time. There's a reason people like Lenin stump in the cities.
As for your statement that guns do not protect democracy (I think you meant a republic), I think you ought to take a look at our very own Revolutionary War. Do you think the Continental Army would ever have been able to defeat a world-class army if nearly every able-bodied male didn't have a gun and know how to use it? You say I'm confusing the arena of a civil setting with outright war. In order to protect freedom, one must be able to stage an outright war (see American Revolution again).
I appreciate most of your posts and often mod you up, but you most definitely have a logical disconnect regarding self defense.
The government can't save you.
As for your statement that guns do not protect democracy (I think you meant a republic), I think you ought to take a look at our very own Revolutionary War.
Specious. America's rampant love of the hand gun has done nothing to stop the PATRIOT Act or rampant abuses of power in the last decades.
Reality is guns provide you with a false sense of security. The more guns there are in a society the more intentional homicides, be it Somalia, USA, or Switzerland (three of the countries with the highest rates of gun violence and homicide anywhere in the world).
why does that translate in your mind into every asshole on the street?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the only reason the usa lags in this common sense of outlawing guns is that it is still more rural than other modern societies, that have outlawed guns, that are more densely populated
that will change, already the usa is majority urban, where guns make no sense
thus, its inevitable
with the passage of time, a more and more urban usa will simply reach the critical mass where guns will be outlawed
enjoy your gun. your time is numbered
and if you think it is unfair rural folk should suffer for urban folk, guess what? right now, the urban majority suffers with needless deaths for the sake of the rural minority
in other words, the status quo is already undemocratic, and simply lags out of nostalgia for some davey crocket era
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if something is illegal, less people can get it
do you understand that? its really that simple, and the whole fucking point. no one, no one imagines that you can get rid of every gun, or that this is necessary to do
marijuana is illegal, and its easy to get. but if it were legal, it would be even easier. all making something illegal does is make it less prevalent
of course there are always committed assholes, who will get whatever the hell you outlaw no matter what. such committed assholes don't matter to a simple measurement of bulk quantity available on the street
we're talking about the ease of onwership, the casual hoodlum, not the committed psychopaths
gun control simply leads to less deaths at the hands of random assholes who aren't carrying guns, simply because they are too hard to get. random domestic situations and public pride bruisings turn into knifeplay rather than gunplay. you do realize you can kill 10 people in a minute by spraying a street party with a gun, you'd probably get one or two at the most with a knife. its a matter of reducing the firepower easily available to your average retard, that's the whole point
its not a complicated concept for you to grasp
not everyone has some burning desire to have a gun. some just have it because its in easy reach. put it a little further out of reach, and the committed gun fetishists will of course still have their gun stashes to guard against whatever bogeyman they are afraid of. but your average casual owner simply will give it up as an option. these gun owners represent the majority of current owners
thus: you outlaw guns, you end thousands of needless deaths
what the hell is more important than that?
some fantasy of armed yokels in the woods saving us all from a secret antidemocracy?
some fantasy of dirty harry righting wrongs as a one man judge and executioner?
pffffffft. grow the fuck up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, what's your solution then? A gun prohibition? I suspect that will work about as well as Alcohol Prohibition or the "War on Drugs", which is to say not at all.
The current arrangement in no way perfect. But there's no way to prove that a divisive campaign to rid the public of its arms wouldn't be worse. And even IF there are less bodies in the end, at some point one needs to consider how the people live rather than how many die. Being servants of the state or victims of the largest, meanest group aren't exactly desirable outcomes. And what about the will of the people? If the majority of voters see a place for firearms in private hands, why should they be denied that in a Democratic country? Because you know better? For their own good? Such is the mindset of an oligarch, an authoritarian.
-Grym
"As for your statement that guns do not protect democracy (I think you meant a republic), I think you ought to take a look at our very own Revolutionary War. Do you think the Continental Army would ever have been able to defeat a world-class army if nearly every able-bodied male didn't have a gun and know how to use it? You say I'm confusing the arena of a civil setting with outright war. In order to protect freedom, one must be able to stage an outright war (see American Revolution again)."
really?
this is a nice fantasy life. what the fuck does it have to do with reality?
you know, red dawn wasn't a bad movie
neither was star wars
BOTH OF WHICH ARE FUCKING FICTIONAL FANTASIES
all your retarded fantasy life results in is thousands of needless deaths due to random retards on the street with guns
so you put wagner's ride of valkyries on repeat mode and fantasy about protecting the usa from assorted imaginary land invasions. please keep your fucking fantasy life out of my public policy. thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
how could you define it as anything other than simple democracy at work? the only reason the usa lags in this common sense of outlawing guns is that it is still more rural than other modern societies, that have outlawed guns, that are more densely populated. that will change, already the usa is majority urban, where guns make no sense. thus, its inevitable. with the passage of time, a more and more urban usa will simply reach the critical mass where guns will be outlawed. enjoy your gun. your time is numbered
and if you think it is unfair rural folk should suffer for urban folk, guess what? right now, the urban majority suffers with needless deaths for the sake of the rural minority
in other words, the status quo is already undemocratic, and simply lags out of nostalgia for some davey crockett era. in other words, the continued free ownership of guns is the oligarchical, authoritarian existence you refer to. rural folk's influence on our laws is already out of proportion. due to the senate, for one, but also due to simple lag, the laws lagging behind the times. and if you think its unfair that rural folks hould ever suffer due to laws that make life easier for urban folk, remember: gun ownership is nothing more than a pact to let thousands of urban folk die for the sake of your quaint antiquated gun hobby. where's the oligarchy now buddy?
"at some point one needs to consider how the people live rather than how many die. Being servants of the state or victims of the largest, meanest group aren't exactly desirable outcomes"
i agree 100%. i no longer want to a victim of low iq hotheads with guns. i wish to live free of that scourge
as for prohibition, if something is illegal, less people can get it. do you understand that? its really that simple, and the whole fucking point. no one, no one imagines that you can get rid of every gun, or that this is necessary to do. marijuana is illegal, and its easy to get. but if it were legal, it would be even easier. all making something illegal does is make it less prevalent. of course there are always committed assholes, who will get whatever the hell you outlaw no matter what. such committed assholes don't matter to a simple measurement of bulk quantity available on the street. we're talking about the ease of ownership, the casual hoodlum, not the committed psychopaths
gun control simply leads to less deaths at the hands of random assholes who aren't carrying guns, simply because they are too hard to get. random domestic situations and public pride bruisings turn into knifeplay rather than gunplay. you do realize you can kill 10 people in a minute by spraying a street party with a gun, you'd probably get one or two at the most with a knife. its a matter of reducing the firepower easily available to your average retard, that's the whole point
its not a complicated concept for you to grasp
not everyone has some burning desire to have a gun. some just have it because its in easy reach. put it a little further out of reach, and the committed gun fetishists will of course still have their gun stashes to guard against whatever bogeyman they are afraid of. but your average casual owner simply will give it up as an option. these gun owners represent the majority of current owners
thus: you outlaw guns, you end thousands of needless deaths. what the hell is more important than that? some fantasy of armed yokels in the woods saving us all from a secret antidemocracy? some fantasy of dirty harry righting wrongs as a one man judge and executioner?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
as if hamilton or madison didn't know what they were inviting?
as if hamilton or madison expected protection from the crown?
you say that my attitude is akin to the attitude of kind george the third goons. no, rather my attitude is to say that king george has goons that don't respect you, and never will, and you should know that. when you criticize me for this, you're simply shooting the messenger
do you think the answer is to hold the goons to some sort of expectation of behavior?
the american revolution would have been unnecessary if king george's goons were nice and behaved? pfffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... don't they? They can do whatever the hell they want with their network, including monitoring, shaping, filtering, or whatever. If students are that worried about privacy, they can get their own private connections.
Perhaps its that many slashdotters appreciate others with intelligence that know what they are doing?
I realize this is beyond your comprehension, which is why I'm enlightening you.
Just because you don't understand it or the logic in it doesn't mean its a fairy tale.
I presume you're all bitchy because you think logging is bad. I feel I should warn you that every website, every mail server, every thing you do on the Internet is logged along the way unless they specifically go out of their way to disable logging. We computer geeks like to be able to figure out what the hell is going on in our little domain so we have a tendency to log EVERYTHING that happens, and do so by default. We don't do it so we can figure out what porn your looking at, we already know better sites than you do. We don't do it because we want to read your email, we invented it so we WOULDN'T HAVE TO talk to you. We don't do it because we want to report you to OMGBADGOVERMENTEVIL.
We do it because when your retarded ass comes up to us and tells us that your computer just stopped working and you 'didn't do anything' that we can figure out what you DID do without trying to pry it out of your clueless thick skull and save ourselves hours of digging through shit where we DO have to see your sheep porn websites and pedophile emails.
We write the software so it logs be default because we've dealt with too many clueless fucking idiots like yourself and we're tired of your ignorance wasting our time.
Had you not be so paranoid about your privacy and been a little more up front with us to begin with we would have not only NOT given a fuck, we would have been able to solve the problem long before we got into the habit of logging every god damn detail to figure out what the fuck you screwed up and aren't telling us.
Okay, so thats not the only reason there is so much logging, hell its not even a secondary reason for most developers. It is however, the most fitting for idiots like you.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The service: Car rental
You paid for: Unlimited mileage
The data collected: Record odometer when car leaves and when it returns.
The reason: To determine actual miles added to that car and average mileage for users who choose "unlimited" mileage.
Results:
We know if the car is due for service.
We know how much we should charge for "unlimited."
We know how many miles you drove.
Did we violate your privacy?
Now we are going to put in a GPS and theft recovery (LoJack) transmitter to reduce costs brought about by vehicles that fail to return.
We get more efficient use of our vehicles and you get a lower price.
We didn't use it to prove you were speeding.
Did we violate your privacy?
We didn't put a camera in the car to make sure you aren't drinking, sleeping, texting, or intimately distracted at the wheel, but to protect our cars, keep our costs low, and improve our service to the customers who behave, maybe we should.
We own the cars, and we have a responsibility to all the customers who use our service to take care of them and protect them from the few who will abuse them.
And we don't charge $8 a gallon to top up if you fail to bring it back with the tank full.
if it were legal
which is my whole fucking point
who's the retard?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Way to fail at reading comprehension. I said nothing about logging. In fact, I have probably done more work in involving it (in law enforcement and several aerospace companies) than you can imagine. You have no need to question my technical ability. No, I was pointing out that because this had to do with MIT it made the front page. Anytime anyone at MIT so much as farts it makes the front page of Slashdot; its downright silly. But thanks for writing a huge comment about an assumption that you made, it was entertaining.
when will my acount be re vived
are there on slahsdot?
its the same fucking thing, the difference is that geeks love power in their own omain, but dont want anyone having power over them.
ie, geek power alwyas good (see the defense of shitty dumb terminals, centralized control etc) vs power over geeks always bad.
> Pick a better metaphor.
the students own their computers as we own our cars. the university provides network access to the students' computers as the government provides roads to our cars.
feel better now?
... and the government monitors the roads. Ever heard of The Police? They make music. But there's also these people called cops. They watch our roads and keep us safe. So your metaphor is still retarded. Pick another one.
if you have to meet someone shady behind an alley to get [x] versus walking into your average walmart to get [x], it might be that one world has more of [x] than the other
i leave it up to your boundless imagination and massive intellect to imagine which world that might be
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ok, I was being a little mean there -- I concede no one really thinks what I was ascribing to you. I was just exaggerating a little to make a point. But you must concede that no one actually thinks what you are now ascribing to me!
First, I'm making no claims about Madison or Hamilton. My little historical fantasy was an absurd anachronism: as best I gather, Hamilton and Madison had nothing to do with helping incite revolution, and I only mentioned them as political philosophers who were vocal about individual liberties. Their period of activity was from a decade after the revolution, by which time the Crown was not so relevant.
Second, what I am attributing to you is an attitude of accommodation, and not that of a goon at all. Now, often there is much of value in accommodation. It's pragmatic; it's prudent. And it was characteristic of those who advocated conciliation with the colonies' imperialist masters. Whereas it was the staggering idealism and hubris of the American Revolutionaries to believe in the existence of Natural Rights, and to think them worth killing for. I'm not saying you don't believe in a natural right of privacy; maybe you do. But if you do, you seem to be ... hmm ... very well adjusted to the idea of your own rights being continuously violated by all and sundry.
What I'm saying is, the Founding Parents of America were crazy enough to think that they really ought to have public institutions that respected their natural rights, including privacy. So I think your sense of surprise that "anyone considers it any other way" should be piqued whenever (if ever) you hear the names Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc. (If you are not American, that might be seldom.) They considered it another way.
Short answer: yes, I think the answer is to hold the "goons" accountable. I feel I'm in good company. I wish other Americans were less used to being outraged. And I'm not talking about those foolish "tea parties" they just had.
$META_SIG_JOKE
I have not watched, Red Dawn, Star Wars or Dirty Harry. Please make a more relevant argument.
The government can't save you.
Really, unless the people paid by the university who aren't students monitor the network, nothing happens. My school has our residential network monitored by students. Yes, you heard me right, Students. This is why a major file sharing client was allowed to run on someone's computer for several years. Why? Because why is the student going to say anything and get them riled up? They already deal with enough.