Click for Text-Only version CUA Homepage
CUA's Counsel Online Homepage
Office of the General Counsel Homepage
Departments
Front Page
Hot Legal Topics
New Legislation
Archives


Text-Only Version
Contact Us
Counsel Home Page
CUA Home Page

Campus Legal Information Clearinghouse

 I can't even say a student is here?
A report on FERPA implementation
issues at CUA

 

 

Jamming the radar

 

            Can campuses control wireless network access?

 

One of the legal hot potatoes being tossed around in the higher education IT world these days is the extent, if any, to which colleges and universities are permitted to limit the placement by students of wireless access devices in dormitories and other university property.  (These access devices are the little boxes – really antennas or even routers – that we non-tekkies see up in the corner of a classroom or at Starbucks that are the link between our wireless laptop computers and the Internet.)

 

Federal Control of Rogue Access Points on Campus

 

Recent federal decisions regarding who can place wireless devices on premises owned by another party have relevance for the college and university setting due to the proliferation on campus of wireless technology for network access. The higher education community’s interest in this matter was highlighted recently at the University of Texas at Dallas by students protesting the restriction on student-installed access points in campus housing. Colleges have an interest, due to security concerns about access to the university network, in limiting access points in residence halls or other areas that can cause interference with the university’s own wireless service. As a result, network administrators are asking university counsel where the line can be drawn.

Legislative History

The OTARD (over the air receiving devices) ruling at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) governs a person’s ability to place antennae and other reception devices on their premises despite the objections of parties such as landlords, homeowner’s associations, or simply disgruntled neighbors. The legal authority for the ruling is Section 207[1] of the Telecommunications Act, which directed the FCC to promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive video programming services through devices designed for over-the-air reception of television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast satellite services. For the sake of brevity, reference is often simply to the “Section 207 rules.” When the FCC refers to the “protections of the 207 rules,” they are referring to the viewer’s right to receive broadcast signals.  Section 207 rules are codified at 47 CFR §1.4000.

 

The OTARD ruling, originally issued in 1996, has gone through several amendments, including one that extends it to wireless access points. The ruling itself dates back to the issue of satellite dish installation. Considered unsightly, local governments as well as landlords had tried to restrict their use. The FCC ruled that as long as a tenant had signed an agreement granting them “exclusive rights” over the property on which they installed the antennae, the landlord could not restrict them. The ruling spells out the maximum allowable dimensions of the antennae and what constitutes a location that the tenant has the right to use (i.e. a balcony is okay, an exterior wall of a multi-tenant building is not).

 

Recent Airport Access Case

 

On June 24, 2004, OTARD was used to decide a case of whether or not an airline, that leased a location at an airport, had the right to install its own wireless access points for use by its customers. The airport claimed they should be required to use the airport’s wireless network and cited radio frequency interference as a concern. The airport lost, and in the ruling the FCC clarified that this applies to wireless access points in a variety of multi-tenant environments such as hotels, conference centers, and colleges and universities. They also reconfirmed the exclusive right of the FCC to decide matters involving radio frequency interference when unlicensed devices are being used, “regardless of venue.”

 

Exception for University Dormitories

 

Important for universities is the fact that the FCC, in 1998, recognized an exception in the case of campus dormitories that remains in effect after the airline case.  This exception was made in a Second Report and Order on Implementation of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. (CS Docket No. 96-83, Adopted Oct. 14, 1998, released Nov. 20, 1998). The relevant section is footnote 73.[2] Purdue University argued that college housing is unique, and no one responded to Purdue’s comments, therefore the FCC declined to extend the protections of the Section 207 rules to students living in college dormitories.  What the FCC said in the footnote to the 1998 ruling is that unless the university-student relationship bears sufficient attributes of a commercial landlord tenant relationship, such as where a university leases a single family home to a faculty member, the Section 207 rules will not apply.

 

The upshot of all this is most dorm residents may be subject to university imposed rules on wireless access in the dorms without being able to resort to the argument that the 207 rules protect their right to receive access.

 

Key points in adopting policies on campus

 

While universities are not free to adopt policies on the grounds that there will be interference with the wireless reception at the university (the university does not own the airspace), universities retain the right to restrict “access” to the university’s network. In some situations, and subject to the limitations noted above on exclusive use provisions, the university also retains the right to limit the use of certain devices placed on university property.   As only the FCC has the right to control spectrum use, university policies should be drafted in terms of restricting access to their network rather than preventing interference with the network.

 

The FCC has a helpful “facts sheet” regarding OTARD at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html.

 

 

This article was written by Wendy Wigen, Policy Analyst at Educause, with minor changes from the Editors of "CUACounselOnline."

 

 



[1]  SEC. 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Restrictions on over-the-air reception devices.

Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, pursuant to section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive video programming services through devices designed for over-the-air reception of television broadcast signals, multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast satellite services

[2]  Text of footnote 73: In the current record, we decline to extend the protections of our Section 207 rules to college dormitories.  Purdue University argues that college housing is unique and, as such, should be exempt from our rules. Purdue Comments at 4.  No one responded to Purdue's comments, and because no one has shown that a university has the same relationship to a dormitory resident as a landlord to a tenant, that a dormitory room is a leasehold, that landlord-tenant law applies equally to dormitories, or that the practical problems associated with extending our rules to leaseholds can be similarly resolved with respect to dormitories, we have no basis to cover college dormitories by our Section 207 rules at this time.  Where, however, the relationship between a university and a viewer bears sufficient attributes of a commercial landlord-tenant relationship (e.g., where a university leases a single family home to a

faculty member), our Section 207 rules will apply."

 

 

When a Student Places a “Hold” on Directory Information

 

I can’t even say a student is here?!?

 

Introduction

 

Can a Professor confirm to an inquirer that a student in her class is in attendance at the university?  You might be surprised to learn that in some cases the answer is, “No.” 

 

There are many questions that are becoming more common as students express concerns over their privacy, both in the real world and in cyberspace, and exercise their student privacy rights under federal law.  What steps does one need to take before posting an honor or award that a student receives on the Department or School web page, or even before forwarding that information to CUA’s Office of Public Affairs?  What if a parent calls and wants all traces of a student’s presence at the university removed from the CUA web page?  The answers to these and similar questions are determined at least in part by FERPA.

 

Definition of “Directory Information”

 

A federal law known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) sets forth the rules for student record privacy.  A detailed roadmap on how this law is applied at CUA can be found in the CUA student records policy.  This article concerns one of the many exceptions to the law, which is that permission is generally not required for the university to disclose directory information about a student. 

 

Directory information ordinarily means information contained in an education record of a student that would not be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed.  At CUA this includes the following:  name of student, address (both local, including e-mail address and permanent), telephone number (both local and permanent), date of registered attendance, school or division of enrollment, major field of study, nature and dates of degrees and awards received, participation in officially recognized activities and sports, and weight and height of members of athletic teams.

 

Note that Social Security Numbers (SSN) and student ID numbers (even if they are not SSNs) are not considered directory information and therefore cannot be released except under very narrow circumstances.

 

So what is, “Placing a hold on directory information”?

The FERPA regulations allow CUA to disclose directory information to third parties without consent from a student, so long as the school has given public notice of the types of information which it has designated as directory information.  The law also requires notice to the student of his/her right to restrict the disclosure of such information.  At CUA this notice is delivered in several ways:

 

  • On the main registration screen in Cardinal Student
  • On the Home.cua.edu web page phone directory
  • In the paper copy of the Class Schedule

 

A student who completes the appropriate form and submits it to the Registrar has the ability to restrict all university release of the Directory Information that might otherwise be freely and publicly available.

 

How can I tell if a student at CUA has placed a hold on release of directory information?

 

There are several ways to ascertain if a hold has been placed. One is to check with a staff member or other person in your School or Department who has access to “Cardinal Students,” the university’s computerized student information database. Another option is to log on to home.cua.edu and access the phone book. If one types in a student’s name and no information appears, then one can pretty safely assume that the student has either placed a hold on release of directory information or is no longer a student at CUA.  Finally, one can always check with the Registrar, the official responsible for tracking such information.

 

What are the implications of a Directory Information “hold”?

 

If  a student has placed a hold on the release of directory information, it can only be accessed/released if a legitimate educational interest exists or one of the other enumerated exceptions in FERPA applies.  In other words, this data must now be treated like a private educational record.  So as our headline suggests, in such a case even a student’s name is confidential and the university cannot divulge whether a student is even in attendance at CUA.

 

Special problems with Emails to students

 

If a Professor publishes a list of all emails of the students in your class, or even sends an email to the entire class on which each recipient is listed in the address line, it violates the policy against “publishing” or making public the email address of any student in that class who may have placed a hold on directory information.  One option for dealing with this is to advise your students that emails will be distributed in class, and ask them to let you know if a hold has been placed on directory information so that you can send to them separately.  Using the “blind cc” function when sending emails to the entire class is also another option.

 

When Good Publicity Goes Bad on Web pages

 

Be aware before posting information in any format, including honors and awards listed in web page information, that a hold on release of directory information means even such good news about a student cannot be posted without the student’s written permission. Once the information in posted on the web, even if it is taken off the CUA web server, it is cached on the google.com server for another 30 days.  In addition, there are web sites (such as “the way back machine”) that archive web pages, making it very difficult or even impossible to remove information from the web once it is posted. 

 

If there’s no “hold” on information, must it be disclosed?

 

Even though the law allows disclosure of directory information by the university when no hold has been placed by a student, there is no requirement that it must be disclosed.  There may be instances when disclosure of such information would not serve the best interests of the student or the university.

 

If, for example, an outside vendor wants an email address for all students, be sure to consult with appropriate officials within the school regarding the wisdom of such a release.  FERPA is one consideration in releasing directory information, but not the only consideration.  Questions on the law or university policy can be addressed to either the Registrar or the Office of General Counsel.