Student Life/Codes of Conduct/Fundamental Standard/Honor Code/Student Judicial Charter/Judicial Affairs

There are certain circumstances under which a student's computer-related information such as emails, data files, programs, Leland account, and activity logs can be inspected.  Computer Security and Judicial Affairs can access such information during an investigation. If the investigation is conducted through Judicial Affairs, a student must be suspected of violating a university policy such as the Honor Code or Fundamental Standard.  If the investigation is through Computer Security, a student must be suspected of violating a computer usage policy such as the Computer and Network Usage Policy.  Computer Security and Judicial Affairs both have their own sets of procedures and guidelines that they adhere to when inspecting student information. 

If students are suspected of violating any of the policies in the Computer Usage and Network Policy then there are various steps that a system administrator may take (Computer and Network Usage Policy, Policies, p. 2).  The system administrator will investigate if there is persuasive evidence that a user is involved in the misuse of Stanford computing resources.  For example, a student may be suspected of obtaining another student's data files (Computer and Network Usage Policy, Policies, Information Belonging to Others, p. 3).  A system administrator may notify a student's instructor and the University’s Computer Security Officer of the investigation, but is not required to inform the student.  A user's “files, diskettes, tapes and or other computer-accessible storage media” can be examined if the system administrator receives authorization from the University's Computer Security Officer (Computer and Network Usage Policy, Consequences of Misuse of Computing Privileges, Corrective Action, p. 5).  The Computer and Network Usage Policy does not explicitly specify that students be notified when their information is being examined.  In some circumstances, it is possible that during a Computer Security investigation, a student will be unaware that he or she is being investigated, or that his or her personal information stored on University systems is being inspected.

The system administrator is encouraged to refer the investigation to Judicial Affairs Office when the misuse of computing resources resulted in a violation of the Student Honor Code or the Fundamental Standard (Computer and Network Usage Policy, Consequences of Misuse of Computing Privileges, Student Honor Code and Fundamental Standard, p. 5).  The Judicial Affairs process is the “student judicial process for the University” through which “students are held accountable for adhering to established community standards including, but not limited to, the Fundamental Standard and the Honor Code” (Judicial Affairs Office Page.  Stanford University. 1 June 2001 http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DOS/judicial.htm).   The Honor Code consists of several clauses that set the academic conduct of students, while the Fundamental Standard is a general code that sets the everyday conduct for students.  There is a wide range of activities that can be considered violations of the Fundamental Standard.  Consequently, a wide range of penalties is issued to offenders. In the past, a student's misuse of computer resources, including email, has been found to be a violation of the Fundamental Standard.

The number of Fundamental Standard violations that Judicial Affairs currently receives is roughly one-third of the violations that used to be reported before the adoption of the new Student Judicial Charter of 1997.  A possible explanation for the decline is that the 1997 Charter changed Judicial Affairs to a panel process. Currently, the number of Fundamental Standard violations are on the rise.  Every year, there are a couple of Fundamental Standard violations that involve the misuse of computing privileges, such as a student breaking into another student's account and sending harassing emails.  The number of violations that involve student misuse of computing privileges is on the rise.  As mentioned earlier, Judicial Affairs receives some of their cases from Computer Security.  Other cases are reported by students.  Computer Security and the Stanford student body report about the same number of cases to Judicial Affairs.   There is a discrepancy between the number of violations that occur and the number of violations that are investigated by Judicial Affairs.  Judicial Affairs does not seek out violations of the Honor Code or the Fundamental Standard; it is a selective process because an investigation results from somebody reporting a violation.   (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001)   

If a complaint is brought against a student with Judicial Affairs, the Student Judicial Charter guarantees the student certain rights. Students have the right to be informed of:  the charges brought against them, the name of the individual pressing the charges, and the names of potential witnesses (Student Judicial Charter, p. 1).  All investigations are conducted by the Judicial Officer, a position currently held by Nancy Morrison.  If a student admits to the violation, no further action is necessary.  If a student pleads innocent to a charge, then there are circumstances under which computer files or activities will need to be inspected.  (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001)  

The inspection of a student's computer files and/or computer activities has the potential to validate or refute a student's story.  Students may cite computer files or computer activities as evidence to support their claims.  For example, in response to a charge, a student may cite a transaction on Axess as part of his or her defense.  Judicial Affairs can then have somebody verify the student's Axess activity log for the reported transaction.   If necessary, Judicial Affairs will elicit help from Computer Security in order to gather evidence.  For example, in a hypothetical Computer Science Honor Code violation case, two students turn in almost identical code.  Student A claims that there was no collaboration while Student B admits that they worked together.  Judicial Affairs will then have Computer Security check to see if there was evidence of collaboration between the two students.  For example, they can check to see if Student A accessed Student B's account (and vice versa), and if there were any file exchanges between them. Whenever Judicial Affairs gathers evidence, it its always limited to the information that is necessary for the investigation at hand. (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001)

The Judicial Affairs investigation process requires that a student be informed of any information that is being inspected.  The accused student has access to all evidence, “both incriminating and exculpatory” (Student Judicial Charter, p. 2).  So, if a charge is brought up against a student with Judicial Affairs, he or she will have knowledge and access to any evidence gathered from inspection of their information stored on Stanford computing resources. Even if made aware of the investigation, students may find themselves surprised with the evidence gathered in an investigation.  Students are often unaware of the existence of an “electronic paper trial of their activities” and are often “surprised at how much can be found out about their computing activities” (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001).

Not every reported infraction of misconduct goes through the Judicial Affairs process, since it is designed to deal with the more serious infractions.  The Judicial Advisor stresses that, “Violations should be handled at the most appropriate level” (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001).  If a student is the victim of a privacy violation, then he or she needs to make the decision as to how to handle the situation.  It may be a problem that is appropriate to deal with at a lower level.  For example, if a student discovers that her roommate reads her email when she is out of the room, then she may choose to resolve the problem by using University resources such as her Resident Advisor (RA) or Resident Dean (RD).  Similarly, Computer Security makes the decision whether or not to bring a case to Judicial Affairs by determining what is the most appropriate way to deal with the problem. If they can handle the case on their own, then they will likely do so.  If the situation is more serious, then Computer Security can send the case to Judicial Affairs. Each case is judged by the “level of magnitude” of the violation (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001).  Because Judicial Affairs deals with the most serious violations, it is rare that a computer misuse violation that goes through Judicial Affairs involves just a privacy violation.  Most often, a privacy issue is involved with a more “egregious breach of conduct” (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001).  For example, a case that Judicial Affairs investigates may involve a student who breaks into another student's account, and then uses the assumed identity to send a harassing email.  The case involves a violation of privacy, unauthorized use of another person's identity, and harassment.

Judicial Affairs is designed for cases of a certain magnitude, but every violation that is reported to Judicial Affairs is given serious consideration.  Even if Judicial Affairs finds that a violation is not suitable to process for lack of evidence, the accuser can ask for a panel to review the charge, and is given the opportunity to show that there is enough evidence to go through with the case.   Judicial Affairs is a lengthy, systematic process and is not designed to yield immediate resolutions.  If one wishes to find an immediate resolution to a problem, this will be better achieved at a lower level.  (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001)   

The Judicial Affairs process is a procedure that people can use to report students who are suspected of misconduct involving the violation of somebody's personal privacy.  If the accused privacy violator is a member of the faculty or staff then it will be an “employment issue” (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001).  If students suspect a faculty or staff member of violating their privacy, then they have several possible courses of action.  If they feel comfortable enough with the situation, they may find it best to talk the accused directly.  If not, they could speak to the person's supervisor, department chair, or the University Ombudsmen.   If the privacy violation involves an additional breach of conduct, there may be a specific grievance procedure that is designed to deal with the charge. (Judicial Advisor.  Personal Interview.  May 31, 2001)       

If a student is suspected of violating a university policy, then his or her data files, email, Leland account, and computer activities may be inspected.  During any investigation that is conducted through Judicial Affairs, the accused student’s privacy is protected as he or she is informed of the personal information that is inspected for the case and has access to any information gathered.  If a case is handled through Computer Security, it is not required that the student be informed of the investigation, nor is the student guaranteed access to the gathered evidence. 

Students have several courses of action they can take if their privacy has been violated.  The appropriate course of action depends on the status of the accused.  If the accused is a faculty or staff member, then the victim will need to treat the situation as an employment issue.  If a student suspects that another student has been violating his or her privacy, and if a more serious offense is involved, then the case may be brought to Judicial Affairs.  If the violation is not appropriate for Judicial Affairs, then the student may find that the situation can best be handled by more informal procedures with help from people like the student's Resident Dean.  It is important for victims of privacy violations to determine at what level it is most appropriate to deal with the problem in order to attain the desired resolution.