Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Wednesday, February 6,2002
Editorial
Think globally,
defend locally
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, President George
W. Bush has been prompting Americans to
support homeland security, and he has in
troduced a $37.7 billion homeland defense
budget proposal to help protect our nation from
potential acts of terrorism. This figure is up
from the $19.5 billion spent in 2001. Although it
is admirable for Bush to be so dedicated to pro
tecting the United States, his proposal wastes
money that could be used to fix the govern
ment’s internal security problems.
The Office of Homeland Security’s mission —
to protect the country from terrorist threats or at
tacks — is practically impossible to fulfill. Regard
less of most of the security steps we’re taking, de
termined terrorists will still find avenues to
penetrate our country. Timothy McVeigh’s bomb
ing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City showed that some American citi
zens are capable of domestic terrorism as well.
America has created a plethora of government
agencies whose duty it is to protect Americans
from all forms of harm. If these agencies weren’t
spread thin financially in the first place, Bush
wouldn’t need to increase the domestic security
budget. He wants to bump up spending on bioter
rorism research, border protection and police and
fire departments to help prevent acts of terrorism.
To his credit, Bush has proposed that $3.5 bil
lion be appropriated to help “first responders”
such as firefighters, police and rescue squads.
But he is also asking for $10.6 billion to bulk up
security at the nation’s borders. While border
protection is important, a better use of the allo
cation would be the reinforcement of local
emergency response teams. If and when terror
ists do infiltrate the country again, everyone at
the local level should be prepared. Basic emer
gency equipment should be working, and local
fire and police stations need to have the re
sources to protect Americans in the same man
ner Bush demands.
The National Guard, Federal Bureau of Inves
tigation, Federal Aviation Administration, Na
tional Security Administration and local law
enforcement agencies should be capable enough
to handle national emergencies without contin
uing to fund and operate the Office of Home
land Security. The Bush administration has
been pumping emergency funds into this
agency for months to help “protect the nation,”
but there have still been a number of high-pro
file security breaches.
Airport security is one of the areas where se
curity failures are most noticeable. Airports are
continually being shut down because of faulty
security equipment, causing delays and frustra
tion for travelers and airport staff alike. After all
of the rhetoric surrounding the decision to make
airport security workers federal employees, im
provement in security is coming slowly.
The Bush administration should do all it can
to help protect the nation from any further ter
rorist attacks. However, Bush’s $37.7 billion
homeland defense proposal would be allocated
to the wrong cause if passed. We need to invest
in the agencies that already exist instead of op
erating them on a shoestring. Protecting the na
tion against terrorism means funneling money
to pre-existing agencies at the local and national
level, not developing new security measures.
Letters to the Editor and
Guest Commentaries Policy
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald
editorial board. Letters to tie editor and guest
commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited
to 25G words and guestcommentariesloSSQ
words. Please include contact information.
The Emerald reserves the right
for space* grammaf and style.
Letters to the editor
PFC should fund ‘twerps’
I thought I would write to talk about
the PFC’s decision to hold up the ap
proval of the Oregon Commentator’s mis
sion statement. I don’t think there is a
problem with the OC’s mission (other
than opposing it on ideological grounds).
Certainly, they do allude to conservatism
in their mission, but that does not neces
sarily imply the OC serves the interest of
any particular group.
Based on the South worth decision, it
was mandated the student fee allocation
be done in a “viewpoint-neutral man
ner.” In my opinion, the PFC is putting
the burden of viewpoint neutrality on the
OC, rather than acknowledging that this
burden is their own.
To clarify, the PFC has the responsibil
ity to allocate funds on the basis of a
group’s contribution to the campus com
munity, and not on political grounds. I
urge the PFC to reconsider their position.
Granted, I think the OC writers are a
bunch of juvenile, bigoted twerps, but I
think that dialogue on campus is, in gen
eral, better for having their publication.
Randy Newnham
senior
anthropology and linguistics
Viewpoint neutrality explained
The idea of getting sucked back into the
Dante-esque level of hell known as ASUO
politics makes my liver twitchy. But I’m
compelled to write regarding Monday’s
editorial (“Commentator staff should toe
the line,” ODE, 01/28). I’ve been an edi
tor at the Commentator and a member of
the Programs Finance Committee.
The editorial states, “the Supreme
Court recently ruled that groups such as
the ASUO Programs Finance Committee
must maintain ‘viewpoint neutrality’
when allocating student fee money, in or
der to maintain an open marketplace of
ideas on campus.” This is gross misinter
pretation of the Southworth case the
Supreme Court ruled on. “Viewpoint
neutrality” means the process for allocat
ing funds must be “viewpoint neutral,”
not student groups themselves. You can
fund the Commentator, which is conser
vative, as long as left-wing papers have
access to the same funding process.
The case against the Commentator is
absurd; so long as the Commentator
doesn’t fund political parties or cam
paigns, it can state whatever mission it
chooses (short of hate speech).
I’m baffled words such as “conservative”
and “left-wing” are singled out by the PFC,
yet no mention in the mission statement
refers to utopianism. If we’re going to take a
hard line on value neutrality, the word
“utopia” is a no-no. This standard would
send everyone down the slippery slope
faster than you can say “Res Ipsa Loquitor.”
So leave the Commentator alone, and
start hacking away at groups that gen
uinely violate rules about funding politi
cal activity (OSPIRG, cough, cough).
M.H. Hemingway
Class of ‘98
Washington, D.C.
Privacy policy issue misses the point
In your recent articles regarding Inter
net privacy, there are three issues that
were not fully examined: property,
public vs. private information and moti
vation. In layman's terms, why on earth
would a bunch of geeks residing in a
nearly windowless tomb of a building
care to violate one's privacy? Let's first
examine what the Computing Center can
and cannot do with the current policies
that are in place.
A computer, network or any other simi
lar device has an owner, hence the term
“property.” Like all property, the laws of
this state and this country prohibit
seizure or search of the said property
without the consent of the owner. The
Computing Center does not have the right
to search a person’s computer, nor the
data that resides on it. No privacy policy
drafted by the Computing Center or any
body else will alter or enhance this right
to an individual's privacy. It is already
guaranteed by the laws of this country.
Any information that people might
have on their computers is private, and
nobody can search it without probable
cause. However, if the person makes part
or all of that information public in some
fashion, then any person or organization
may legally examine it. For example, if a
Guest Commentary
George
Fkiaras
person uses a program such as Mor
pheus to share files with other people,
then those files are open for all to see, in
cluding the Computing Center. Once
again, no privacy statement from them
will change that, as the person has
demonstrated in those cases that they
want that information to be made public.
The University network is owned by
the Computing Center. If a person trans
mits or receives any information over it,
the Computing Center has every legal
right to monitor it. If the data turns out to
be copyrighted information, that consti
tutes probable cause for a search of an in
dividual's computer.
With that in mind, the real issue is
“why?” Why on earth would the Comput
ing Center wish to target users who down
load copyrighted files over its network?
Surprisingly, the answer is not one of
legality. The Computing Center is not a
policing unit and never will be. Its mis
sion is to ensure that the University net
work and university-owned equipment
attached to it remains functional for its
primary purpose: to serve the research
and academic needs of the University.
What your articles fail to mention is that
up to three-fourths of the network capac
ity at the University was, at one point,
being used to download copyrighted
files. The remaining capacity was not
enough to properly serve its stated mis
sion, so the Computing Center was obli
gated to do something.
In your editorial on this matter, you
mention that people “should be trusted”
in the manner they use the University's
computing resources. Up until recently,
the Computing Center turned a blind eye
to applications such as Napster precisely
because it is not a policing unit, and be
cause those applications did not impede
the network’s primary function. But
when excessive use of Morpheus and
other similar applications started to get
in the way of legitimate academic activi
ties, the users of the University network
clearly violated that trust.
Clearly, the Computing Center's action
against those 250 or so people was not an
invasion of privacy, but a restoration of
our rights to legitimate academic use of
the University's resources.
George Fkiaras is a senior computer information
sciences major.