In a verdict that mirrors that of other college campuses, including Swarthmore College and Harvard University, University lawyers determined last Thursday to prohibit students from posting controversial Diebold company memos on University Web space.
The decision by the Office of Legal Counsel came after sophomore Asheesh Laroia's posting of the download was removed from his University FESTER account Nov. 5.
Laroia, like other students across the country, has been protesting the right to post the 15,000 memos, which were leaked from an insecure server in March and reveal that Diebold was aware of flaws in its electronic voting systems.
The company is retaliating now by citing copyright law, but students claim that the information is of public importance and is invaluable to the security of the nation's democratic process.
Representatives from Hopkins Information Technology Services (HITS) and Student Technology Services (STS) met with Laroia Friday to inform him of the legal counsel's stance.
The University has determined the postings are infringements of copyright law and can not be posted, according to University spokesperson Dennis O'Shea.
"The conclusion by our attorneys' is that Diebold owns the memos," he said. "At this point the University is relying on the advice of its legal counsel's office.
If the courts decide differently [the status of Diebold's copyright], we can re-examine the C case." Unlike Swarthmore and Harvard, Hopkins did not receive a "cease and desist" letter from Diebold, which holds an Internet service provider (ISP) responsible for copyright infringement if it does not promptly remove the postings from its server.
STS coordinator Deborah Savage told Laroia he would regain access to his FESTER account. He may post excerpts of the memos or a link to another download provider, but he can no longer post the download himself to the 15,000 controversial e-mails.
However, Laroia said that as of yesterday, he still had not regained access to his FESTER account.
Since there has not yet been consensus on whether or not the memos can be considered copyrighted, Laroia said he considers the University's decision "censorship" of his postings.
He said he posted on Hopkins Web space instead of his personal Web page "because of the link with the Hopkins network and [Associate Professor Avi] Rubin's work." Rubin, who is faculty in the Department of Computer Science, led a study in July that revealed insecurities in the Diebold touch-screen voter system.
"The public has a right to know just how insecure these machines are, and these memos demonstrate that," Rubin said. "I would have liked to see the University stand behind the students even more and to allow the postings at Hopkins." Rubin sent an e-mail last week in support of Laroia's position to O'Shea and HITS.
In sending letters of "cease and desist," Diebold has invoked the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Since there is no consensus on Diebold's copyright, legal experts are saying that the legal ruling will test the limits of the controversial DMCA.
Laroia said he has the option of filing a counter document to Diebold to obtain permission to re-post the material.
He has contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group that has been backing the student campaign, which referred him to its lawyer at American University.
Cyber law groups at Stanford and Harvard Universities have also come out in support of the student campaign.
They say that students have a strong case against infringement of copyright, because the Diebold memos are being used academically and not for profit.
The Stanford cyber law group has offered free legal advice to Swarthmore students who began the campaign on their Web site, http://why-war.com/.
"The purpose of the Electronic Civil Disobedience campaign is to raise awareness of the memos, as well as to distribute them to journalists and policymakers," Laroia said.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.