Internet Use Policy at Fairleigh Dickinson University Evaluation Essay

Fairleigh Dickinson University’s Internet use Policy

As is the case in other educational institutions, Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) has developed comprehensive Internet use policy with regard to intellectual property rights, monitoring and filtering systems, as well as end user training program related to internet use/abuse.

In intellectual property rights, FDU has developed an elaborate policy against copyright infringements and plagiarism, not mentioning that it runs all of its programs on genuine and copyrighted software. FDU notes that the rights to ownership of online course content, along with patentable innovations, are governed by the copyright law and thus cannot be dispensed using a policy document (Fairleigh Dickinson University).

Course developers (e.g., professors, tutors, administrators) should take into account that as per the copyright law, copyrightable educational and/or instructional content developed as part of a person’s normal work obligations is deemed to be “work for hire”, and hence entirely owned by the employing institution. Nonetheless, if the course developer expects that the course material will be used for profitable gain, he or she is encouraged to sign a contract with FDU to minimize the likelihood that ownership disagreements will arise in the future (Fairleigh Dickinson University).

Moving on, FDU has installed filtering and monitoring systems against some peer-to-peer applications (e.g., Aimster, Audiogalaxy, DirectConnect, and Napster), not only to minimize the impact of their interference with the institution’s core educational mission, but also to spur network performance by freeing up internet bandwidth, reduce internet costs, and minimize legal complaints generated by the misuse of online applications.

FDU’s Acceptable Use Policy disallows Internet users from running software programs (e.g., Napster and DirectConnect) containing server components that permit external users to connect to the university’s system and retrieve documents off the system. In its policy document, FDU argues that file sharing software must be prohibited not only because of the legal ramifications involved in sharing copyrighted material, but also due to high exposure to security vulnerabilities (Fairleigh Dickinson University).

Lastly, FDU does not offer an end-user training plan related to Internet use and/or abuse; however, it has developed an explicit set of rules for acceptable use that should govern those who make use of its computing environment to act in a way consistent with written conventions of conduct.

For instance, users must:

1. be responsible for any computer account given,
2. ensure that their passwords are not easily guessed or shared with other people,
3. not deliberately seek out information about, copy, or amend password files,
4. not endeavor to decrypt material to which they are not entitled, or endeavor to gain rights that have not been exclusively granted by the owner,
5. refrain from any activity or process that interferes with a computer’s operating system or its logging and security features,
6. be sensitive to the public nature of the university’s computer systems and agree not to transmit, post or otherwise exhibit material that is intimidating, obscene, irritating or derogatory (Fairleigh Dickinson University).

Issues in Personal use of Computers during Working Hours

With personal computers and the Internet now embedded into nearly every aspect of the organizational environment, businesses and institutions are increasingly conscious of the Internet abuse issues raised by workers utilizing the omnipresent technology to perform personal online dealings during work hours (Siau et al 75).

However, it has dawned on employers that regulating the use of internet in the workplace is a challenging endeavor, both in law and practice (Lugaresi 163). This section assesses some issues related to the personal use of the internet by employees during office hours. Personal exploitation of the Internet and other online resources during work hours raises grave ethical/moral as well as legal concerns.

In discussing the ethical issues, it is imperative to note that personal use of the Internet broadens the ideological divergence between the employer and the worker, which is further polarized by the contrast between economic freedoms of the employer and primary personal rights of the worker (Lugaresi 163).

Ethically speaking, however, various regulatory bodies acknowledge that “…the public consciousness sees the Internet as a vital, inescapable means of communication, information and expression, and a place where one can interact with others, do business, establish relationships and, in other words, live” (Lugaresi 164).

Using this lens of assessment, it seems neither reasonable, nor correct, to deprive workers of personal use of the Internet. But it is also not morally correct for employees to continue drawing salaries from the employer if they spend considerable work hours surfing the internet for personal gain. These paradoxical standpoints call for moderation of personal use of the Internet during work hours by allowing the employer’ surveillance in order to minimize abuses (Lugaresi 165).

In terms of legal issues, it is important to note that personal use of the Internet during work hours can expose employers to potential lawsuits by virtue of the fact that some employees engage in illegal activities using the employer’s web resources (Lugaresi 164). A sizeable number of employers in the United States have been held liable by the criminal justice system for engaging in illegal activities, such as defamation, sexual harassment, and copyright infringements (Young 35). The employers did not individually engage in these violations in law; rather their employees did using organizational resources at their disposal.

The legal violations arising from the personal use of the Internet by employees during work hours are often a costly affair for the organization, with available literature demonstrating that copyright infringements have caused many businesses to go under (Lugaresi 169).

In quality of work, it has been noted in the literature that “…computers have undoubtedly changed the way people work, but they have also changed the way people avoid and sabotage work” (Mastrangelo et al 730). Employees are distracted from their core work when they visit gambling and pornographic sites, implying that the quality of work is compromised because they are slow to respond to customer demands, unable to meet set timelines, and fail to complete tasks (Young 34)

In terms of productivity, it is obvious that workers are paid by their respective organizations under the expectations of being productive, but they certainly deviate from the work norms and become unproductive when they start using employer resources, including the Internet, for personal gain and/or non-work purposes (Mastrangelo et al 731).

It is imperative to note that personal use of the internet during work hour not only occasion organizational inefficiency due to constricted bandwidth and poor network performance, but can also result in legal liability due to illegal access to copyrighted material (Lugaresi 169). Uninhibited access to the Internet by employees not only leads to a drain on time and budgetary allocations within organizations, but it also hurts their reputation for quality and service, thus the need for regulation and monitoring (Young 34).

Websites visited for Non-Work related Purposes

The websites mostly visited for non-work-related study include chess.com (for playing chess online) and finance.yahoo (to monitor stocks).

Works Cited

Fairleigh Dickinson University 2012. Web.

Lugaresi, Nicola. “Electronic Privacy in the Workplace: Transparency and Responsibility.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 24.2 (2010): 163-173. Business Source Premier. Web.

Mastrangelo, Paul M., Windi Everton and Jeffery A. Jolton. “Personal use of Computers: Distraction versus Destruction.” CyberPsychology & Behavior. 9.6 (2006): 730-741. Business Source Premier. Web.

Siau, Keng, Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah and Limei Teng. “Acceptable Internet use Policy.” Communications of the ACM. 45.1 (2002): 75-79. Business Source Premier. Web.

Young, Kimberly. “Killer Surf Issues: Crafting an Organizational Model to Combat Employee Internet Abuse.” Information Management Journal. 44.1 (2010): 34-38. Academic Search Premier. Web.