Internet Rights and Responsibilities:
A
Student Development Lens on Computing Resources Misuse
Amy Ginther
Project NEThics Associate
Office
of Information Technology
University of
Maryland
Student affairs practitioners often feel inadequate in addressing issues of
reported Internet misuse by students. Aside from the complex legal and policy
environment that is evolving for the area of student discipline, most campus
administrators are intimidated by the effects of rapid changes and advances in
technology combined with a growing number of students who are fluent and thrive
on networked technologies. This column extends the threads of our earlier
articles to examine the strengths readers can bring to our
technologically-enhanced college and university environments while fearing they
may be discovered at any moment for being technologically "challenged".
That is, the educator who applies tenets of good student affairs practice when
working with students involved in computing resources misuse provides
appropriate levels of challenge and support (Sanford,
1966) to them in their encounters with various psychosocial and cognitive
developmental tasks.
Potential Perpetrators of Port Probes
We frequently receive reports of university Internet Protocol (IP) addresses
making unauthorized contact (worried complainants will use words like "probe,"
"attack," "intrusion," and promises of legal action are typically included) with
systems outside our network. Anecdotally, we believe one of two of the following
explains most of these events:
- The connection attempt is a result of a "false positive" report generated
when our student has been participating in an Internet game in which the
external opponent has logged off, and their Internet Service Provider (ISP)
has reassigned the dynamic IP address to another user whose firewall software
detects the probe and reports it as
suspicious.
- The port scanning is, indeed, a malicious act but the IP address in our
network has been used in an intermediary fashion to perpetrate a denial of
service attack (an attempt to deny others access to the system); a student
whose system has been compromised in this manner should run virus-protection
software to detect problems with their system.
In our experience, it is common for students to resist our invitations to
meet in person. This is particularly true with those whose hibernation
instincts are strong or for whom Quake (or other Internet games) could be a
second major. With the above explanations in mind, it could be easy for the
"computer affairs" professional to yield to the temptation to handle what may be
a simple matter over the phone, or even by ping-ponging emails back and
forth. We discourage such an impersonal approach.
The face-to-face meeting, whatever the etiology of the report, has important
potential benefits:
The student might learn a few things about security or privacy in
a networked environment, increasing an area of their competence (Chickering
& Reisser, 1993). (Some firewall software detects the hostname of the
computer associated with the offending IP address. Many of our students use
their full names as their hostnames; this could lead an angry complainant more
directly to the student, rather than through our office as the ISP.)
Issues of moral development may be explored with the individual who
acknowledges some experimentation with scanning tools. While a phone call may
serve the student’s desire to avoid punishment, the in-person conversation is
the milieu in which the value of being a positive and ethical member of the
world-wide Internet community could be discussed.
In the case of a student whose Internet use is competing with productivity
in other areas of life, a counseling center referral may be appropriate for
him/her to examine issues of time management or Internet addiction. Or,
perhaps the interaction will serve to identify frustrations the student has
with learning, prompting a contact with the learning assistance center.
Our practice of asking the student to provide some type of identification
prior to a discussion of the case is a supportive measure intended to
communicate our commitment to the nondisclosure of student education records.
It also symbolizes the seriousness of authentication and authorization
practices for Internet access and serves as a reminder of a fundamental policy
principle: users should safeguard access to their computing accounts or
network privileges since they may be held responsible for incidents of misuse
that result from careless behavior.
Contexts for Commercial Use
The initiation of a residentially-based program at the University of Maryland designed to support
upper-class students in the establishment of their own businesses (see http://www.hinmanceos.umd.edu/) has
exposed issues of the congruence of university policies with legitimate
ecommerce activities. Our acceptable use guidelines prohibit commercial use of
computing resources without written authorization. Residence life
policies at many institutions forbid operating business enterprises in residence
hall facilities. We anticipate situations in which students will pursue
unauthorized business uses of computing resources based upon the assumption that
there is no distinction between their use and that of our student entrepreneurs
who are participating in a sanctioned University program. How will a
developmental approach be effective in discussing this reality?
The formal structure and supervision of the University-sponsored program
provides a critical framework and justification for promoting student learning
opportunities while protecting the University’s interests. Lack of program
oversight could result in enterprises reminiscent of the quality of the start-up
featured in Garry Trudeau’s "Doonesbury" comic strips in which college roommates
(Zipper Harris and Jeff Redfern) dream up the myVULTURE.com business plan.
myVULTURE is conceived as a website for selling the discounted merchandise of
failed ebusinesses. (See www.doonesbury.com/flashbacks
for threads of the story from April, May, June, and July 2000, especially if
your institution is considering relaxing its policies on sales or solicitation
activities.)
When faced with the student whose insurgent business plan is about to be
quashed, keep in mind the following:
Offering a "because we say so" explanation without any rationale
in response to what is perceived as a double standard probably underestimates
the student’s level of cognitive development.
Discussing the contextual nuances of the codified program vs. the fictional
myVULTURE.com venture may challenge the multiplistic thinker to move into the
more complex stage of relativism (Perry,
1970) or into the contextual knowing pattern identified by Baxter
Magolda (1992).
Encouraging the student to explore the potential for policy change through
the residence hall association or institutional governance structures, and
supporting them in an appropriate manner through the process, is consistent
with the "Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs" (http://www.acpa.nche.edu/pgp/principle.htm)
notions of active learning; ethical development; setting the learning bar
high; forging educational partnerships; and building communities that foster
discussion and debate.
One-to-One and One-to-Many Communication
The instantaneous ability of the Internet for communication purposes is
sometimes problematic. The ease by which the "send" command can be used to
instigate conversation (typically in place of a phone call or face-to-face
encounter) often results in the launching of messages that the sender
immediately wishes were retrievable. The receipt of provocative messages also
fuels tempers that result in emotionally-based replies and tirades that are sent
to individuals or posted to public newsgroups, listservs and discussion
lists.
In several cases of netiquette breaches handled by Project NEThics, much of the reflective
work has been done by the student in the time lapsed between our initial contact
and the scheduled face-to-face meeting. One student in particular was quite
remorseful about his behavior on a newsgroup, pronounced it immature, had spoken
with his parents about his actions, and had new insights about Internet
communication. He acknowledged he had been trying to "get a rise" out of people
and had been insensitive to peoples’ feelings since he considered the Internet a
medium which did not require the same civil behavior as person-to-person
contact. At least some peer-group influences were consistent with his
ill-mannered behavior and consensus-thinking among students that there is no
accountability for behavior on the Internet (e.g., his roommate encouraged him
to avoid responding to the request to meet with us but he knew he needed to
follow-through and accept consequences for his actions.)
These are fruitful moments for exploration of:
Managing emotions&endash;can I manage anger appropriately?
Developing mature interpersonal relationships&endash;can I appreciate
differences of opinion and life experience?
Establishing identity&endash;what does my communication style and how
others perceive me say about who I am?
There is much to learn about students and their on-line culture, and some of
it may challenge our own technological competencies. But the educational role we
play in this area of their lives can be rich as we bring to it our enthusiasm
for the task and our commitment to developmental approaches that promote student
learning.
References
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in
college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass..
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993).
Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and
ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York:
Atherton Press.
Submit a
Letter to the Editor |
Printer
Friendly Version
|
