By By Joseph Pawlowski

The string of terrorist threats within the past five years has caused concern over the easily accessible and uninhibited forms of communication via the Internet.

Consequently, the Federal Communications Commission has made it necessary to exercise more caution over Internet activity in order to prevent another event like that of 9/11.

To minimize risk and maximize security, a plan has been developed that will rewire college and university campuses and allow for government access to Internet activity for surveillance purposes. The effect on campuses may be astronomical in costs, causing many institutions to file suit against the FCC.

The idea behind the moderation of Internet activity for counter-terrorism purposes arose from a reinterpretation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which now requires all companies that offer Internet access to update their networks to ensure FBI access to Internet activity.

Although the act was initially intended to be applied to telephone networks, it was updated to include a rampantly growing means of communication – the Internet.

The widespread use of e-mail, instant messaging and online voice communication makes the Internet a host to uncensored misconduct.

The question arises, however, whether or not it is fair to apply this act to Internet access at the university level when it was originally intended to apply solely to telephone communication for businesses.

“I don’t see why the government has to watch student activity when it comes to terrorism. It is more likely that businesses are involved in illegal activity than [we] are,” Melissa Storino, a freshman business major, said.

In fact, lawyers have been pondering the legality of this application since the development first arose.

“I don’t think anyone included universities in their minds, per se,” Albert Gidari, a Seattle-based attorney, said.

Universities nationwide will be faced with a change in computer networking. The degree to which students will be affected, however, remains uncertain. Chris Cramer, an information technology security officer in the Office of Information Technology, said it is hard to interpret the ramifications of the change because the act is vaguely worded.

This makes it unclear what the universities will have to do to comply. Employees at the University’s Resnet office were unsure whether or not the University plans to comply in the near future, or how to go about the process at all. Consequently, it is difficult to predict the cost and the effect of such a change on campus.

The American Council on Education predicts the upgrades will cost each institution between $20 million and $30 million, and upwards of $7 billion nationwide.

Experts on the matter consider this an enormous unfunded mandate that is out of sync with the act’s original purpose.

Cost alone is a good indicator of the effect on student tuition payment in the future.

“Such a change would definitely increase tuition costs,” Kathryn Carlson, a freshman, said. “Students are already under significant strain without federal anti-privacy issues interfering. Why make matters worse?”

Dan Ramirez, an employee at Resnet, said he doubts this would raise the cost of tuition because computer related costs are covered through the technology fee, not tuition.

While the effect on tuition is still in debate, one thing is certain: a total network makeover would not be cheap.

Should the University submit to the act by spring 2007, the required time of compliance, the school would face a sudden and overwhelming shift from one with little tracking equipment to one that keeps a strict eye on each of its students.

Student responsiveness overall would reflect such scrutiny in a critical manner.

“If [the government] is going to monitor students’ Internet usage, I would hope that the students are at least aware of the situation ahead of time,” Anna Wang, a freshman video major, said. “But they really shouldn’t be monitoring people unless there is a certain suspicion raised. It is definitely an invasion of privacy that I do not agree with.”

“It would be like starring on Big Brother – we would have no control as to who is monitoring our actions,” Storino said. “As scary as it seems, we would be characters in a movie for anyone who feels like taking a peek into our lives.”