A new interpretation of a federal wiretapping law is drawing protests from universities, and Tufts is joining the fight.
In August the Federal Communications Commission issued an order to extend the reach of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to universities. Libraries, airports providing wireless service and commercial Internet access providers would also be included.
The 1994 law requires that, "a telecommunications carrier...ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services...are capable of...enabling the government...to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." The new order would force universities to comply with the law by 2007.
Through two organizations for higher education institutions and related businesses, the University is lobbying to prevent the extension of the law.
On Oct. 24, the American Council on Education filed petition for review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia on behalf of Tufts and its other member institutions.
The petition for review will block the order's implementation while the organization files a lawsuit, according to Vice President of University Relations Mary Jeka.
The biggest problem identified by the Council and the other organization, EDUCAUSE, is the expense universities will incur. "The focus of these efforts is educating the FCC about the inordinate financial burden the law would place on universities," Director of University Information Technology Infrastructure Lesley Tolman said.
In a letter to Jeka, EDUCAUSE Vice President Mark Luker wrote, "CALEA was not intended to cover Internet access, but...if the FCC did so extend it, an exemption should be issued as it is not in the public interest to require every college, school, and library to redesign its networks in the event that a lawful request for surveillance may arise in the future."
EDUCAUSE Policy Analyst Wendy Wigen said the order, requested by the Department of Justice, places an unreasonable burden on universities to overhaul their computer infrastructures.
When a court orders a wiretap at a university, law enforcement agents set up a filter at Internet access points on campus. The Department of Justice considers this process "far too cumbersome" and would rather be able to "flip a switch" to monitor Internet activity, Wigen said.
Wigen said that in 2004 there were about 1,759 court orders for wiretaps at all levels of jurisdiction. Most wiretap orders are made to catch drug dealers and those involved in organized crime, she said.
According to an article in the New York Times, in its defense of the order the Department of Justice wrote that the extension of the law was necessary "'in the face of rapidly advancing technology' [to preserve] law enforcement's ability to conduct wiretaps 'in their fight against criminals, terrorists and spies.'"
EDUCAUSE researched 700 universities and found only a handful had received a wiretap order for security reasons, Wigen said.
The order will not take effect until the lawsuit - which is in the process of being filed - is resolved. The Times article said universities have not raised civil liberties issues with the order because it has not gone into effect.
Political Science Professor Marilyn Glater said, hypothetically, if the Department of Justice received a copy of a student's e-mail that discussed plans for terrorist activities, there would be sufficient evidence for obtaining a wiretap order from the courts.
With additional communications technologies, though, "How do you preserve the values of the Fourth Amendment," Glater asked, in regard to the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Jeka said Tufts has no plans to comply with the order until the issue is resolved by the courts.
Marc Raifman contributed to this article.
Be the first to comment on this article!