Slides for talk given at IWMW 1998 held at the University of Newcastle on 15-17 September 1998. See http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops/webmaster-sep1998/materials/

1. Publish and Be Damned?
Academic Freedom, Responsibility
and Acceptable Use Policy
Colin K. Work
University of Southampton

2. Analogies
WWW = printed publication?
But no formal editorial/review process
WWW = library?
But do selection/access processes exist?
WWW=broadcasting?
But no licensing mechanism
WWW unique in terms of access

3. The Legal Position
“Hands off approach” is not a tenable position
may avoid “editorial responsibility”
BUT
almost certainly constitutes negligence
You need to be able to demonstrate “due
care”

4. Corporate Liability
STAFF
employer liable if employee given authority to act as
he/she sees fit on behalf of employer
if adequately supervised, employer not criminally liable for
employee’s unauthorised actions but “vicarious liability”
may still apply
STUDENTS
organisation not criminally liable for actions but failure to
supervise use likely to constitute “reckless behaviour” or “a
breach of a positive duty”

5. The Obvious Dangers
Proscribed material
obscene publications
race relations etc.
Defamation (libel)
Copyright/Trademark violations
Data Protection (personal data)

6. More Difficult Areas
Authority of pages
Rumour, speculation & gossip
Minority group pages
Personal opinion
“Inappropriate” material
The “Corporate Image”

7. Authority of Pages
Problems arise when responsibilities in the
organisation are unclear -
Who has the right to publish on topic X?
Eg. Prospectus
Webmaster cannot determine who has rights,
but may be instrumental in identifying
conflicts, forcing resolution

8. Rumour, Speculation &
Gossip
It is essential that official information can be
clearly identified and distinguished from
unofficial material
protect corporate identity
insist on use of disclaimers
be alert for users confusing their official role with
private opinion
attribute official pages to a department

9. Minority Groups
Minority groups within the institution (eg.
ethnic, political, gay societies) may wish to
publish on the WWW
minority views may cause offence
potential for WWW wars (eg. Turkish & Greek
societies)
Webmaster should:
a) ensure strict adherence to AUP
b) refer elsewhere for conflict resolution

10. Personal Pages
Need to be clearly distinguished as such
ban use of corporate logo
require use of disclaimer
discourage links from official to personal pages
use a registration/vetting process
institute a review/monitoring process
consider use of separate server

11. Other “inappropriate”
material
Might include certain medical, forensic, artistic
or social material which would normally be
deemed unacceptable
Insist on “sponsorship” from relevant dept.
Establish mechanisms to support restricted
access
Various special cases are acceptable under
JANET AUP with appropriate supervision

12. The Corporate Image
“Having completed my first year at … I would like to say the
place is awful …”
Would this statement have a place on your
server?
Conflicting interests lead to problems
Recent “propaganda” issues at Soton include a meningitis
outbreak and a major hacking incident. Are there
circumstances where controlling information is justified?

13. The Webmaster’s Dilemma
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
corporate body vs individual
acceptable use vs academic freedom
responsibility vs lack of authority

14. A Survival Strategy
Share (up & down) responsibility for page
content
Establish clear rules and guidelines
Do not make policy on the fly
Establish referral routes
Focus on real issues, not theoretical ones

15. “Share” Responsibility
Page content is NOT webmaster’s problem
HoD should be responsible for departmental
pages
SU Exec should be responsible for clubs,
societies etc.
PR Dept. should have major responsibility
regarding the “corporate web”
Tutors may be willing to accept responsibility for
some student usage

16. Rules & Guidelines
AUP needs to be part of org.’s regulations
In absence of official policy, use “guidelines”
Force formal acceptance of AUP
AUP should cover ALL electronic info
Supplement AUP with guidelines and
examples
Avoid simply cloning JANET AUP (but of course
your AUP must co-exist with it)

17. Referrals
Avoid being cornered into making on the fly
decisions about acceptable use - establish a
network of referral bodies:
editorial board
equal ops/welfare officials
course tutors
security & legal people

18. Conclusions
Webmasters SHOULD NOT make publication policy
Webmasters SHOULD have input into the policy
making process and advise users
Webmasters should arm themselves with processes
to “police” the Web with minimum contention
AUP is key to smooth operation
Procedures should be in place to deal with problems
when they arise

19. Finally
The formulation of an Acceptable Use Policy is
non-trivial if it is to serve the interests of all
concerned.
Is there sufficient interest, a workshop on this
topic can be arranged
Any comments: ckw@soton.ac.uk