Acceptable+Use+Policies+and+Social+Media

__The Internet and Legislation that led to AUP __ The internet, as we currently know it, came into being during 1993 when the National Center for Super Computer Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois created Mosaic 1.0, allowing the World Wide Web to be formed; within three years internet access in public homes was common place. (An Internet Encyclopedia,1998 )

With the importance of the burgeoning technology for learning and public life applications becoming more apparent, Congress and the Clinton Administration reacted quickly to enact legislation for the appropriate use of this new technology. Specifically, these pieces of legislations were meant to link current sociological ideals to the internet identity of those who resided on cyberspace and resolve the issue of what Dr. J. Suler would later coin as “Dissociative Anonymity”. (Suler, 2004)

As such we see the quick legislation of bills meant to regulation business and behavioral actions on the internet in the way of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, essentially an update of the 1934 version of the same bill, so that it might better be suited to the times. Congress additionally introduced the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (Title V), the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 two years later, and the Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection Act (NCIPA) of 2000 so that the government might seek to protect individuals for unforeseen events.

[|Telecommunications Act of 1996] The bill was signed into law on February 9th 1996, by the Director FCC at the time, Reed Hundt. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as a law controlling communications of any kind within the United States, is housed within the domain of the FCC. According to Roberts, “Hundt noted that the bill established incentives for the FCC and the States “to bring the Internet to every classroom in America” (Roberts, 1996)

What else did the bill do?

This was the bill that opened up monopoly circuit amongst telecommunications provides, in particular phone and cable providers, previously held only by a few choice companies. In regards to Universities, as Robert's (1996), the bill will “Bring some relief to the excessive rates universities pay for telephone service and generally low level of innovation and new technology provided by the local telephone company monopolies.” The difference of course being that the monopolies Universities were paying prior to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 were government orchestrated to a degree, much like the postal service before it went “semi public”. As we see currently, corporate monopolies are quite possible under today’s Telecommunications Act and can also be cross industry as allowable under the same act; see GE and NBC.

[|Telecommunications Act – Title V – The Communication][|s Decency Act of 1996] media type="youtube" key="Ha-AEgJsXmo" height="314" width="382" align="right" - The Indecency Clauses - Held Unconstitutional ====The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was part of Telecommunications Act of 1996, Title V, signed into law by President Clinton and passed by congress, which attempted to criminalize “obscene and/or indecent speech” (Bear Cave, 2003) ==== ====Due to this clause, namely the criminalization of “obscene and indecent speech” (Bear Cave, 2003) the 3rd circuit federal appeals court “granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Communications Decency Act.” (Bear Cave, 2003) ==== ====Following this injunction the case made it to the Supreme Court in //Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union//, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) in which a seven to two decision was found in favor of upholding the previous court’s ruling. The two dissenting opinions, Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice Reinquist, agreed with the opinion of the court but expressed some degree of interest in establishing an "adult zone" within the confines of the World Wide Web.====

The summary opinion can be found at [|Cornell]; an excerpt below.
“ //We find this argument singularly unpersuasive. The d ////ramatic expansion of this new marketplace of ideas contradicts the factual basis of this contention. The record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet has been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere ////with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a demo- cratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.” (Supreme Court, 1997) //

[|Child Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998]

The Child Online Privacy Protection Act, which was passed in 1998 and became effective in 2000, applies to an online collection of websites specifically targeted at a child, or as stated in the act, “an individual under the age of 13”. (TITLE XIII, 2004) The act only applies within the United States jurisdictionally and gives specific regulations as to what information may or may not be collected, what must be included in the privacy policy and, most importantly, specifics on “verifiable consent” in regards to parental figures. The act also details what the operator of the site must do to protect the child’s privacy and safety online.

- __Internet Filter, Parental Controls; Net Nanny!!__ The sheer amount of paperwork involved with child access, accidental or otherwise, caused a number of companies to spring up in response to the “Child Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998” to ensure that individual’s 13 years or younger would be unable to gain entry into certain sites. These “Trackers” and subsequent subscription technologies were utilized to limit access to minors in a post COPPA world and invariably create the "adult zone" theorized by Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice Reinquist during //Reno v. ACLU//.

[|The Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000] The Children’s Internet Protection Act, signed by President Clinton in 2000, requires public facilities, that provide internet service to children, to have a stated “Internet Safety Policy” (Jansen, 2010) According to Jansen (2010), “requirements of the act vary slightly depending on the funding source (of the school): Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) or Universal Service Discount (E-rate).” (Jansen, 2010) The end result of the bill however is to limit the exposure of minors, previously defined in the Child Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 as “any individual under the age of 13” (TITLE XIII, 2004) , from anything considered by the government as “Harmful to Minors” (Jansen, 2010). As stated and reference within the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 by Jansen (2010), this means “any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that taken as a whole and with respect to minors appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; depicts describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, politics or scientific value to minors.” (Jansen, 2010)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">[|“TEACH” Act: Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002]

The “TEACH” Act was passed by congress in reaction to the growing demand for and in consideration of “distance education”. The growing demand for distance learning posed a challenging question for higher education institutions and government bodies alike in regards to “Fair Use” as “face to face” communication, a situation where “Fair Use” could be applied, was limited. However, with the signing of the act into law by President Bush in 2002 higher educational institutions were allowed to expand their distance learning programs thanks to the following segment of the act:

“<span style="color: #233640; font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The performance or display must be made as a regular part of systematic instructional activity by a nonprofit educational institution or governmental body; it must be directly related and of material assistance to the teaching content; and it must be made primarily for reception in classrooms or places of instruction, or to persons whose disabilities or other special circumstances prevent their attendance in classrooms, or to government employees.” <span style="color: #002060; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">(Peters, 2001)

So long as the material is used in regards to a governmental or educational (nonprofit) endeavor, or otherwise is in compliance with the act, free exchange of information without the conditions of “Fair Use” first having to have been met. However, should the conditions of this policy not be meet “Fair Use”, of course, must apply.

__ Education and the Acceptable Use Policy __

With all of the legislation coming out of the introduction of the internet to the public world it became imperative for the educational world to respond in kind, protecting itself from liability as much as possible. While secondary and elementary level institutions would be required to have a “internet safety policy” as of 2002, through the “Neighborhood Child Internet Protection Act” Institutions of Higher Learning, who had had access to internet since before it’s public launch (An Internet Encyclopedia, 1998.), were expected to have an “Acceptable Use Policy” in place, and have it “signed by students, their parents, and teachers…” (iSAFE, 2001)

__ What is an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)? __

An acceptable use policy, or AUP, is “an instituted contract between a user and the providing university.” (Smith, 2001) More specifically defined it, “must be signed by students, faculty and users of the university internet provider, outlining terms and conditions of internet use. It specifically sets out acceptable uses, and rules of on-line behavior and access privileges.” (iSAFE, 2001) Acceptable Use Policies attempt to merge traditional expectations of conduct amongst students to the electronic resources that students are provided by the university, whether those resources are accessed through personal computers or not. As Pauken (2008) states, “AUPs should offer sets of “do’s” and don’ts” for computer users.”

__ What is commonly is commonly included in an Acceptable Use Policy? __

__Advising Users__ The most common function of the modern Acceptable Use Policy is to “advise users that their use of computer resources is subject to monitoring…for misuse and that they should not expect that their computer use…will be private.” (Anderson) Acceptable Use Policies often go further to advise users on how to avoid illegal activity, and advise on possible “penalties for infractions” (ex. Loss of access). (Anderson)

__Violations of Law – Example Copyright Law – P2P__ The AUP will generally list exactly what the University or Institution does not want you to do on its network.

For example; under the “TEACH” Act, anything being downloaded for a part of a “performance or display must be made as a regular part of systematic instructional activity” (Peters, 2001), should this not be the case “Fair Use” must apply.

In the case of the University of Mississippi’s Appropriate Use Policy, copyright law features a central stage. Specifically in the form of peer to peer file sharing programs, which have no legal right in “Fair Use” or in the protections provided by the “TEACH” Act and are therefore illegal and directly mentioned by University of Mississippi’s AUP (University of Mississippi, 2011)

__Due Process Rights__

Of major concern in the implementation of Appropriate Use Policies is the application of due process amongst the student population. The appropriate use policy must inform students of the punishments associated with various violations of the policy and due process actions taken therein. As Pauken (2001) states, “Any provision of an AUP that subjects the violators to such punishment should be spelled out with great clarity in terms of the nature of the infraction and the nature of the punishment.” Due to the implicit nature of computer use at institutions of higher learning, it being provided rather than earned, obligations on the part of the school are far less than otherwise might be yet, as Pauken states once again, “both liberty and property right under the fourteenth amendment” must be observed and applied.

__Telecommunications Act of 1996 – Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996__

“ The Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996” under the auspicious of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, was the first federal anti-cyber stalking legislation passed in the United States. An excerpted by WiredSafety, if an individual, “makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device…without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass…” (WiredSafety)

The legislation thereby made it immediately illegal to utilize the electronic realm as a hiding spot to stalk individuals. Additionally, it now allowed Higher Education institutions to add addendums to their appropriate use policies to protect their students from such an abuse through electronic communication as when they had reached an “intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass” (WiredSafety) it was no longer protected speech but classified as “stalking”.

As an excerpt from the University of Mississippi’s appropriate use policy shows, “ email communications must not be unethical, fraudulent, harassing, obscene, or perceived to be a conflict of interest or contain sensitive/confidential information (i.e. credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc.)” (University of Mississippi, 2011) protections of harassing or obscene communications through telecommunications are currently in effect under this act through the AUP.

It is of note that, while portions of the CDA have been struck down, the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 has rarely been challenged and always been upheld.

__**On-Campus vs. Off-Campus Speech**__
The disassociation between on campus and off campus speech has become increasingly important over the years as debate over a link to the school, or **“sufficient nexus”**, are often high. (Wheeler II, 2004) As Wheeler (2004) stated in regards to location of speech, “With oral speech, it is fairly easy to determine (location) since both transmission and receipt takes place at the same time, as in the student assembly in //Bethel.//”

However, cyber speech is more complicated, as it is simply written on the World Wide Web with no regulation; per the nature of the internet, once it is on the internet it is on the internet. This “dumping of data”, coupled with the idea **“Substantial Disruption”**, taken from //<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">[|Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District] //<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">[|, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)], or as Wheeler states, “Facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” have caused courts to take a peg from underground newspaper cases and look to where the “websites” were accessed from.

__Examples of On vs. Off Campus Speech__
[|Emmett v. Kent School District, No. 415 (W.D. Wa. 2000)]

In Emmett v. Kent School District, a student created a website on his own home computer titled, “Unofficial Kentlake High Home Page.” (Wheeler II, 2004) The website held, “two mock obituaries encouraging visitors to vote for the next one to “die” and was highly critical of the administration of the school.” (Wheeler II, 2004) The student was subsequently suspended by the school and sued in response. The ruling of the court was specific in regard two to issues: 1) the speech of the student took place “entirely off the school’s campus” (Wheeler II, 2004) and there was thereby no discernable nexus and 2) the “school was unable to provide any specific evidence of significant disruption caused by the student’s site”. (Wheeler II, 2004)

[|J.S. V. Blue Mountain School District] In //J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District// a middle school student, J.S., was suspended for ten days for creating a “parody profile of her principal on myspace.com”. (ACLU, 2010)

The parody, which had been created off campus, was ruled on by the Federal Judges in September 2008 and, more importantly, February 2010 by the Third Circuit of Appeals with the decision upholding that the, “school officials…authority to punish “lewd and vulgar speech” about the school officials, even if the speech occurs outside of the school.” (ACLU, 2010) What is important to note is while the website was made “off campus” the website itself, according to Wheeler (2004), “accessed by J.S. at school, and shown to a fellow student…importantly, the web site was aimed not at a random audience but at the specific audience of the school.”

Informational:

On the same day, another panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on //Layshock// //v. Hermitage School District//, a case with similar circumstances, in favor of the student. Arguments were reheard on June 3rd, 2010 with the full third circuit court and a decision has yet to be rendered.

[|Layshock V. Hermitage School District]

In 2006 the American Civil Liberities Union of Pennsylvania, on behalf of Justin Layshock, filed suit against Hermitage School District for a ten day suspension based upon a parody profile on “myspace.com” of Hickory High School’s Principal Eric W. Trosch by Mr. Layshock.

On July 10th, 2007 a federal judge ruled that the school’s suspension was “unconstitutional and ordered a jury trial to determine…entitlement to compensatory damages for violation…of Justin’s first amendment rights.” (ACLU: Layshock, 2010)

This was then appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by the school district culminating in a three-judge panel ruling that the “school district had violated Justin’s First Amendment free speech rights.” (ACLU: Layshock, 2010)

However, similar circumstances to //J.S. v. Blue Mountain School Distric//t were present. Mr. Layshock did access the website from a classroom within the school boundaries, much like the student in //J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District// thereby creating the same "sufficient nexus" as in that case. However, whether or not there was a "sufficient disturbance" in accordance with //J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District// is not comparable at this time.

Informational: //J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District// was ruled in favor of the school district with similar circumstances causing both verdicts to be overturned and retried. The full third circuit court reheard the case on June 3rd, 2010; a decision has yet to be rendered.



Major causes for rise in Social Media Cases: Problems that must be confronted by Social Media:
media type="youtube" key="DONBLaHq8HA" height="279" width="448" align="right" The impetus of individuals to place information on the world wide web without care of content or impact to future event is on the continued rise, and was defined by Suler (2004) as “asynchronicity, or where the delays in feedback allow for deeper expressions of what they are thinking and feeling, also allow for symptoms of “running away” and a lack of responsibility towards what they place online.” In simpler terms this means that a person may say or do anything online, an feel free to immediately log off without reaping the consequences. Additionally, due to the nature of the online environmental, it may be seconds or days until the actions taken by the user is encountered by another.

The basis of all items of interest on the internet is a perceived ability to travel or move throughout it with a degree of anonymity.

However, this becomes more of an issue when the user moves into what Suler (2004) calls “dissociative anonymity”. This is based around the idea that no one can tell who you are, what you know, or what you do past the information you provide; and a presence of mind to be aware of that and control it.

This ability to live in an “alternate” identity of sorts, one free of judgment, completely true to self and, prehaps most importantly, free of societies rules and instead by “an unwritten and consistently changing viewpoint based on content of speech,… rather than title, status, race, creed, etc.” (Suler, 2004) creates a class of individuals online who dissociates the laws of the real world from those of the internet itself.



**Dissociative Anonymity V. Persistent User Identification**
Dissociative Anonymity is a generally accepted, though frowned upon in extremes, norm on the internet as, without it, being able to use items such as Online Banking and Amazon would not be allowable.

However, as cited by the creator of 4chan.org, Christopher “moot” Poole (2010), a striking amount of “Persistent User Identification” or consistent registration of personal information on multiple social networking sites is occuring. Mr. Poole notes, “Most of the information asked for over social networking, if asked for over the phone, would be immediately refused…on facebook we don’t second guess.” [|(Poole, 2010)]



media type="youtube" key="a_1UEAGCo30" height="347" width="558" align="right"

__Why is this a important issue?__
If you take a look at cases such as //Layshock v. Hermitage//, //J.S v. Blue Mountain// and still others, a recurring theme arises; a seemingly general belief that no one of authority, in the real world, can do anything about an online activity.

The conflicting concepts of "Dissociative Anonymity" and "Persistent User Identification" could be the outstanding issue that causes such actions, from students, to occur. As current students have grown up in a internet world of "Dissociative Anonymity" (WoW, AIM, etc.) they are much more likely to attribute traits to Social Media Applications, which are inherently a "Persistent User Identification" area. This may explain the consistent outcry of foul play on the part of the user against Facebook, Youtube and Google in regards to personal information as there is a lack of transfer between "Dissociative Anonymity" an "Persistent User Identification"; users simply haven't caught up to the idea that they are identified online.

However, as “Persistent User Identification” becomes more prevalent, we should recognize that behaviors related to “Dissociative Anonymity”, such as the “dissociative imagination", "where a individual’s persona online is apart from the responsibilities of the real world” (Suler, 2004) will most likely fail to fade away.

"Dissociative Anonymity" and "Persistent User Identification" will most certainly always have a place, as neither is inherently negative or positive and both can be prevented and protected against. However, with the rise of cases in education of students simply making web pages for the purpose of harassment it can be assumed that the idea of "no laws need apply" still is very prevalent. It would behoove the educational institutions to move forward with further research and teaching within this area, as it should significantly decrease the amount of fall out seen.media type="youtube" key="9Y-bOO-2Ck4" height="279" width="448" align="right"

media type="youtube" key="1O7M2wUTll4" height="314" width="504"

ACLU. (2010). //J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District:: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania//. Retrieved 05 27, 2011, from J.S. V. Blue Mountain School District: http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/jsvbluemountainschooldistr.htm

ACLU: Layshock. (2010). //Layshock v. Hermitage School District :: American Civil Liberities Union of Pennsylvania//. Retrieved 05 27, 2011, from Layshock V. Hermitage School District: http://aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/studentsuspendedforinterne.htm

An Internet Encyclopedia. (1998.). //Internet History.// Retrieved 05 26, 2011, from Connected: An Internet Encyclopedia : http://www.freesoft.org/CIE/Topics/57.htm

Anderson, J. E. (n.d.). //Encyclopedia of Law and Higher Education//. Retrieved 05 23, 2011, from Acceptable Use Policies: http://lawhighereducation.com/8- acceptable-use-policies.html

Bear Cave. (2003). //The Bear Cave//. Retrieved 05 26, 2011, from Free Speech and the Communications Decency Act : http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/cda_main.htm II, T. E. (2004). Slamming in Cyberspace: The Boundaries of Student First Amendment Right. //Computer & Internet Lawyer//, 14-21.

iSAFE. (2001). //iSafe Dig Deeper.// Retrieved 05 24, 2011, from Acceptable Use Policies : http://www.isafe.org/imgs/pdf/education/AUPs.pdf

Jansen, B. (2010). Internet Filtering 2.0: checking Intellectual Freedom and Participative Practices at the Schoolhouse Doore. . //Knowledge quest//, 46-53.

Pauken, P. (2008). //Acceptable Use Policies.// Retrieved 5 25, 2011, from Patrick D. Pauken. "Acceptable Use Policies." Encylopedia of Education Law. 2008.: http://www.omnilogos.com/2011/04/21/acceptable-use-policies/

Peters, M. (2001, March 13). //Technology, Education and copyright Harmonization ("TEACH") Act (S. 487).// Retrieved 05 26, 2011, from U.S. Copyright Office: TEACH Act (Senate): http://copyright.gov/docs/regstat031301.html

Poole, C. ". (2010, Feb 19). //Anonymity is a 'moot' point.// (CNN, Performer)

Roberts, M. M. (1996). The Telecommunications Act of 1996: What's in this Bill for Higher Ed? //Cause/Effect//, 4-5(48).

Smith, C. R. (2001). //Academic Freedom vs. Civil Rights.// California State University Long Beach, Center for First Amendment Studies. Long Beach: California State University.

Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. //CyberPsychology and Behavior//, 321-326.

Supreme Court. (1997, 6 26). //Cornell Law School//. Retrieved 05 26, 2011, from RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html

TITLE XIII. (2004). //Child Online Privacy Protection Act 1998//. Retrieved 05 26, 2011, from TITLE XIII: http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm

University of Mississippi. (2011). //Policy Directory .// Retrieved 05 25, 2011, from UM Policies: http://secure4.olemiss.edu/umpolicyopen/ShowDetails.jsp? istatPara=1&policyObjidPara=10642998

WiredSafety. (n.d.). //Internet Safety, Stalking Laws: US Federal//. Retrieved 25 2011, 2011, from US Federal Cyberstalking Law: http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/us_federalstalkinglaw.html