If cell-phone companies refused to connect specific phone calls — say, all conversation containing the word “jewelry,” for example, on the pretense that the jewelry in question might be stolen — wouldn’t consumers be outraged? Why, then, are students not upset that Emory performs exactly this censorship every day over its Internet connection?

In his 2006 speech regarding network neutrality (the equal treatment of all data on the Internet — regardless of its content or the protocol it’s transferred with), former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens referred to the Internet as a series of tubes. To extend the now-infamous analogy, Emory has for years cut off the flow from one of those Internet tubes for a variety of bad reasons.

Every piece of data sent between residence halls and the Internet at large is inspected. Most of it is approved and sent on its way. Data sent using the BitTorrent protocol, however, is blocked. BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer protocol designed to allow large files to be shared effortlessly. A person with a large file — high-definition footage of a sporting event, for example — is able to spread that file to anyone else looking for it without exceeding his own resources. Once a handful of people have the file, the BitTorrent protocol is able to intelligently coordinate the network and allow somebody requesting the file to receive it from the most efficient nearby sources. BitTorrent makes sharing big files very easy.

Since the protocol does not differentiate between copyrighted and copyright-free content and files, BitTorrent has gained a reputation as a means of illegally sharing copyrighted material. While it is particularly adept at enabling this crime, BitTorrent is equally well-suited for dozens of legal peer-to-peer communications. Large free programs (including free operating systems like Linux) and free content (including works in the public domain and content which has been released under licenses promoting its dissemination) are also perfectly legal and ideally suited to be shared via BitTorrent. BitTorrent could help share vacation pictures, videos, podcasts, lecture recordings and all the files which today are difficult to transfer from one computer to another. In essence, BitTorrent is neither inherently wrong nor good — it is simply a method of moving data between computers.

Emory disagrees. In its Information Security Awareness e-mail sent to students and faculty last week, Emory admitted that it “takes technical enforcement steps to block the use of peer-to-peer file sharing on campus residence hall networks and other select locations.” Emory uses deep packet inspection to indiscriminately block all forms of communication via BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer protocols. Emory is opposed to the idea of net neutrality and equal treatment of the data on its network.

Emory’s motivation for blocking peer-to-peer protocols is not immediately obvious. Giving the University the benefit of the doubt, one can assume that managing the network for such a large campus is difficult. BitTorrent uses more resources than most forms of communication over the Internet, and a claim could be made that it reduces the overall efficiency of the University’s network. The incredible capacity of the University’s network, however, seems unlikely to be taxed any more through BitTorrent than the innumerable YouTube videos played by the hour. Further, if Emory promises students reliable access to the Internet, then, like any other service provider being paid for a service, as demand increases, Emory should strive to increase its capabilities to match the new demand for Internet capacity. Closing off part of the Internet is not a valid solution.

But, perhaps, technical considerations aren’t the problem. The Security Awareness e-mail seems to imply that Emory is protecting us from ourselves. Given totally uninhibited access to the Internet, Emory seems to think all students would go on a binge of illegal downloading. Emory is doing us a favor by stopping us from engaging in potentially illegal activities, the reasoning goes.

This justification for blocking a significant portion of the Internet is flawed. Firstly, Emory should not be dictating which actions — illegal or otherwise — students should be taking. As college-aged students, our parents and the government recognize that we can use sound judgment to make our own decisions.

A second, unwritten message implied by the e-mail is that Emory is protecting itself from liability. This, too, is bad reasoning. Even if some students did choose to utilize BitTorrent to download copyrighted works, only they would be responsible. Assuming that a student was downloading illegal copyrighted material, Emory, as an Internet service provider — a dumb pipe through which information flows — would have no culpability.

To return to the jewelry example, if a thief used a cell phone to plan and carry out a burglary, the cell phone company would be absolved of any responsibility since it is merely a common carrier — an indiscriminate conveyer of communication. While a phone can be used to commit illegal acts, like BitTorrent, there is nothing inherently illegal about it, and those that provide the service are immune from legal liability.

If the police asked the phone company to identify the owner of a phone used to commit an illegal activity, the company would be expected to comply, just as Emory would be expected to (and does) identify students caught violating copyright law. In both cases, however, the only liable party would be the person who committed the crime. In fact, by filtering content between the Internet and the residence halls, Emory places its standing as a common carrier in question.
Emory, confusingly, is attempting to enforce copyright law while simultaneously being shielded from the liability that results from enabling its violation. In contrast, phone companies have chosen to remain common carriers and don’t even attempt to prohibit illegal activity over their connections. This should be the model our University and all Internet service providers should follow. If Emory chooses to attempt to enforce copyright law instead of simply moving information over its network, it should consider that while censoring the Internet for its students, it also potentially increases its own liability.

Associate Editor Brett Weinstein is a College senior from Scarsdale, N.Y.