Computing & Information Services
Computing Policy Committee Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2008
4:00 – 5:00 p.m., ETC 309
Present: Alex Botero-Lowery, Chris Deiss, Jim Fix, Michael Gottesman, Vickie Hanawalt, Paul Hovda, Christine Morita-McVey, Marty Ringle, Sonia Sabnis, Peter Steinberger, Kjersten Whittington
Absent: Lily Copenagle, Ed McFarlane, Darrin Pufall, Jon Rivenburg
Jim Fix called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm.
1. Vickie Hanawalt moved to approve the March 28, 2008 minutes. Paul Hovda seconded and the minutes were unanimously approved.
2. Report on the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) requirements for colleges and universities with respect to peer-to-peer file sharing on campus networks; discussion of Reed's position and policies related to the HEOA.
Jim Fix described one of the three items required by the HEOA as an annual disclosure to the college community that sharing copyrighted material using p2p networks is illegal and will result in disciplinary and possibly legal action. Marty Ringle explained that President Diver’s recent memo to Reed faculty and staff fulfills part of this requirement. Marty noted that CIS informs students through other methods but that these efforts could be enhanced. So far this academic year Reed has had four DMCA takedown notices compared to 25 for the entire 07/08 academic year. Michael Gottesman asked if students are warned that specific p2p sites are monitored for illegal file sharing. Jim responded that students are notified that it is illegal and are notified of the consequences if they are caught. Jim wondered if there is increased monitoring; Marty responded that there has been an increasing volume of RIAA notices perhaps in advance of the rule making process for the HEOA.
Marty suggested that CIS draft language describing Reed’s disclosures and that the CPC review and discuss this draft. The President’s staff would then review it and Colin would decide if additional discussion should take place. Marty noted that Reed’s written statement should be prepared by January 1, 2009 despite the fact that rule-making will take some time and details of the requirements aren't expected until July 2010.
The CPC discussed technological steps Reed is taking to prevent and reduce illegal file sharing. Marty described systems some schools purchase which monitor packets entering or leaving the institution’s network. If unauthorized copyrighted material is identified within that stream, both the institution and the system vendor are notified. Marty reported that the CPC decided not to pursue this approach last spring since: (a) this specific type of system is not explicitly required; (b) there are concerns about system accuracy and cost; and (c) such as system has the potential to compromise the privacy of users. As an alternative to this type of system, Marty described "packet shaping" a less invasive, less costly, and more accurate technology Reed currently uses to monitor and control the volume of traffic entering and leaving the campus network. Packet shaping can limit the volume of traffic to an area of campus and can also determine the volume consumed by single IP addresses. If a community member is consuming unusually large amounts of bandwidth, CIS typically contacts that person to confirm that there is a legitimate reason.
In response to questions regarding privacy, Marty explained that packet inspection is more invasive than packet shaping. CIS is also concerned that increased use of packet inspection will lead to increased us of encryption to hide illegal traffic. As this escalates, staffing and technology costs will rise in a technological "arms race." Peter Steinberger questioned how packet inspection could invade privacy. Marty responded that inspecting the contents of every data packet is analogous to listening in on every telephone conversation and notifying both the institution and the vendor of "suspicious" content. In some configurations, such a system would shut down an individual's Internet access immediately, without an actual DMCA complaint being issued. Alex Botero-Lowery added that there are often false results. Marty confirmed that reports from schools using this type of technology indicate that there have been many instances of "false positives."
Kjersten Whittington asked if using packet shaping would increase Reed’s ability to catch illegal file sharers. Marty noted that packet shaping does tend to identify habitual p2p users, though not with perfect precision. Jim added that bandwidth shaping slows large file sharing, deterring its illegal use.
With respect to the third HEOA requirement, Marty suggested that CIS advertise legal file sharing sites and processes on the CIS web pages. This should fulfill the HOEA requirement to provide students with legal file sharing alternatives. Vickie and Peter agreed with Michael that the Reed community should be warned file-sharing sites are monitored for illegal activity.
Peter moved that CIS should draft a statement of Reed's positions as discussed and that the CPC should review the resulting document. Jim seconded and the CPC unanimously agreed.
Pending items: Jim will send the CPC the web URL for the current computer user agreement and technology policy statements. The CPC will review these at the next meeting on Friday, October 17th.