A Case of Questionable Rhetoric

I find this Onion article--"Female Serial Killer has to Work Twice as Hard to Achieve Notoriety"--to be in less than stellar taste. It's not the article itself; this is the Onion after all--it's the fact that they chose to locate the killer in Michigan. To be fair, they put their fictionalized killer in Otsego, which is just north of Kalamazoo on the west side, but considering Lansing is actually in the early stages of trying a suspected serial killer, the timing and location is... less than wonderful. I suppose it could be worse; they could have set it in mid-Michigan, or they could have put a satirized shooting spree in a northern Wisconsin town, but still, a little bit of forethought would have been nice.

I'm not sure what to think of this

This email came through the university listserv today:

Google, Microsoft, and other companies are offering, at no charge, an
increasingly diverse set of online, web-based software tools, many of which
provide standard "office" functions such as document and slide deck
production and management, spreadsheeting and communications, including
e-mail. These tools run on company (vendor) servers, and user files and
other content are stored on company systems as well. The no-cost option is
attractive to many University units, faculty and staff. However, due to the
terms of use and business models being applied to these tools, they MAY NOT
be used in the conduct of University work.


To illustrate one concern, the terms to which you agree when you use Google
Apps (http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en) include the following; which
compromises the University's intellectual property rights and the security of University records:


"You [user] retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in
Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. BY
SUBMITTING, POSTING OR DISPLAYING THE CONTENT YOU GIVE GOOGLE A PERPETUAL, IRREVOCABLE, WORLDWIDE, ROYALTY-FREE, AND NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO REPRODUCE, ADAPT, MODIFY, TRANSLATE, PUBLISH, PUBLICLY PERFORM, PUBLICLY DISPLAY AND DISTRIBUTE ANY CONTENT WHICH YOU SUBMIT, POST OR DISPLAY ON OR THROUGH, THE SERVICES. . You agree that this license INCLUDES A RIGHT FOR GOOGLE TO MAKE SUCH CONTENT AVAILABLE TO OTHER COMPANIES, ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS WITH WHOM GOOGLE HAS RELATIONSHIPS for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services." (emphasis added)


Furthermore, neither Google nor Microsoft makes any promise to back up
content, secure confidential or proprietary content, or provide free service
for any particular period of time. If they change their minds about the
business utility of this model, it may simply go away one day.


Contract terms like these do not provide appropriate protection for
University business records or documents. If software tools like these are
used in instruction, they may compromise student intellectual property
protections. They may also adversely affect commercialization or
publication of intellectual property created by faculty. Because
individuals frequently do not know that they are creating University
business records, including student records, in the course of doing their
daily work at MSU, ANY use of these sorts of online tools must be avoided.
Individuals or units contemplating use of any software tool or online
service should carefully read and consider the terms of use, and seek
appropriate legal or other review from University administrative offices
when terms of use are incompatible with University policy or exceed the
relevant administrator's authority.

Now I'm a big fan of Google and have used Google Docs for several things, both school-related and personal. I'm also distinctly not a fan of the university's webmail system (128 MB limit? Seriously?). I do, however, understand the university's concerns. Are they being neo-luddites? I'm not sure. I'll have to do some more thinking about this.