The juice is loose in Kroch Library. About 13 boxes reside in the University’s own rare and manuscript collection archives which contain O.J. Simpson trial items ranging from 235 Court TV videotapes to O.J. trial humor. Why does Cornell have thirteen O.J. boxes located in the same facility as James Joyce manuscripts and the Gettysburg Address? That is the question which fueled my passionate pursuit of O.J. My first stop was the rare book and manuscript collections located deep underground in Kroch Library. There I spoke with University archivist Elaine Engst. “The project was really designed to document the use of DNA as evidence in trials. Now, of course, what happened in the O.J. Simpson trial was the verdict did not rest on those grounds,” she said. So it’s not really an “O.J. archive” after all. Instead, it’s a collection of materials related to DNA evidence in the courtroom which is centered on the Simpson trial. Kato is not loose in the Kroch after all. Engst also informed me that the person to speak to about all this would be Prof. Bruce Lewenstein, science and technology studies. So I made my way to Kennedy Hall, armed with an index of Cornell’s O.J. Simpson collection items, a tape recorder and a dream of breaking the Simpson story. Upon meeting Lewenstein, I asked, “Why do we have an O.J. Simpson collection?” Lewenstein told me that in the early ’90s, the founding chair of the Science and Technology Studies Program, Sheila Jessup, was doing a study on the use of DNA evidence in the courtroom. Jessup was interested in looking at instances of “what scientists consider to be evidence running up against what the law considers to be evidence.” “When the O.J. case broke, without even knowing how the case would end, they thought this would be an interesting case to follow,” Lewenstein said. Lewenstein had previous experience with creating such an extensive collection with the 1989 Utah cold fusion controversy, so Jessup asked Lewenstein if he would join the project. The O.J. DNA group then received a grant from the National Science Foundation for $16,998. The objective of the project was to create “an archive of the use of science in the O.J. Simpson trial, not an archive of the O.J. Simpson trial. I really don’t care about Kato,” Lewenstein explained. Again, Kato is not loose in the Kroch. “In the end, what the jury decided was they didn’t trust the chain-of-evidence question. To a lawyer, what matters is ‘What is the chain of evidence?'” Lewenstein said. “If you can break the chain of evidence, then the evidence is meaningless.” “One of the things [about] looking at this intersection of science and law is that there are different ways of deciding on what counts as truth,” he added. “That’s not to say there is no truth.” The O.J. collection as it stands concerns only the criminal trial, excluding the subsequent civil trial. “Even that points to the fact that there have been two decisions concerning [whether] O.J. is responsible for those deaths. Both of them are legal realities. It’s not just science that is in conflict with the law, but law is in conflict with the law,” Lewenstein said. Other collections in the Science and Technology Studies Program include one on the millennium bug scare and one on the role of technology in the 2000 presidential election. The archivists at the Kroch Library could not tell me if anyone had ever come to use the collection, although they supposed that it would likely be for a very specialized project. So my journey had reached an end, and Lewenstein had all the answers. Verdict: not guilty. Archived article by Brian Kaviar
Cornell University provides its students with a high speed internet access (for a modest fee of $160 dollars). But as students enter the internet using this broadband service, they put themselves and all their computer files in plain view of Uncle Ezra. In recent years, as the internet connection became faster, more and more people turned to peer to peer music sharing networks such as Kazaa for free access to copyrighted music and video files. Record companies and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), rebelled by seeking legal action against such activity. In February, legal precedent was set. In a ruling by Federal District Court Judge John D. Bates, Internet Service providers were forced to disclose information to RIAA and record companies about subscribers who download and share copyrighted material. This decision gave record companies the authority to scan the files that individuals send over the internet, in search for copyrighted material. As a result, college campuses, where there is a concentration of high-bandwidth networks and young people, were targeted for searches. Cornell student, Justin Berkowitz ’05, wrote an opinion piece on the Cornell Freedom Project Website, expressing his concern over this piracy of privacy of Cornell students, invoking the metaphor of Cornell as “Big Brother.” “I know there have been a number of students have been JAed for sharing files,” Berkowtiz said. “The university and more so the federal courts, were affirming decisions that were inappropriate, and violated people’s rights,” he added. “It’s the problem with violation of privacy, a lot of the time you don’t even know they’re doing it,” Berkowtiz said. In his column, Berkowtiz raised the question whether Cornell is playing big brother when it comes to the privacy of its students. “They are playing big brother,” said Natalie Newman ’04, “the government should be able to do it, but not through institutions that have nothing to do with it like Cornell.” Janet Lin ’04 also expressed her opinion about the issue. “On one hand, what we do it illegal, but what they do would be a violation too.” Although concerned about her right, she looked at the situation from the side of the university, “I suppose they should try to protect the privacy…but being an organization if you think about it, it’s a really tough position to be in.” The Univesrity’s official position on scanning the computers of Cornell Students for illegal files was states by Tracy Mitrano, the director of computer law and policy in the Computing and Communication center. “Cornell does not now, nor never has, monitored its network for content, including music or movie files, as a practice,” Mitrano said. “Copyright holders can use file sharing systems like everyone else, and that is how they find IP addresses that distribute the material they alledge to own. Cornell receives a notice from them with an IP address on it that they gathered using Kazaa or any other file share program. We translate for user name and send notice to user,” she said. Mitrano emphasized that even when caught with the violation, “Cornell assiduously protects the identity of its users from copyright holders.” One of the ways this is done, is by blocking the IP immediately after a student is caught violating the copyright law. Although concerned with the violation of privacy of the students, Berkowitz, conceded, that “Cornell, as a school doesn’t have very much they can do, the court decision I was particularly upset with it was one that it forced third party internet providers to reveal to record companies, user information, in that case it was Verizon, in this case its Cornell that provides the internet, Resnet.” This longstanding issue has been debated in court recently. “Someone already tried to stand up to the record companies and they lost, so if Cornell tried to go to court, they would probably lose as well,” Berkowitz said, “it’s a shame that this is the way things are.” However, some students felt that Cornell should do a better job of protecting their privacy. “Cornell should stand up for the privacy of its students for the simple fact that we are paying Cornell $35,000/year to attend their university,” Fannie W. Cyriaque ’03 said. “The least they can do is assist us in protecting our privacy,” she added. If a student is caught red handed, the university takes judicial action against them. “Discipline is up to the J.A., whom I believe charges a 30$ fine for first time offenders. In consultation with counsel’s office they have decided that if sometime gets three consecutive notices, they will have account closed for the semester,” Mitrano said. Judicial Administrator Mary Beth Grant receives notices of violations and takes action. “Educational sanctions for Code violations may include a combination of warnings, written reprimands, fines, community work, reflection papers, and, for repeat offenders, loss of access to the internet. Disciplinary records may also be maintained,” she said. Students living off campus can also be affected if they use the Cornell network. Although Cornell, may not be able to legally protect its students against computer scanning, “students can, any one can down download software, the one I would recommend PGP, or pretty good privacy,” Berkowitz said. This software can be downloaded for free and can be sued to stop the record company or Cornell, to scan the stuff. “It encrypts the files you send and receive and affords students the protection they deserve,” Berkowitz said. Archived article by Veronika Belenkaya