| Honor Council Rice University |
Case #17 April 19, 1995
Abstract of the Honor Council
Members present:Fawn Burns, Alex Cestero, Sam Cole, Carolyn Gill
(presiding), Dan Grossman, Lauren Kern, Ken Mattheis,
Heather Morschauser, Chris Vissers, Stefanie Wardwell
(observing), Christine Yeh (observing)
Investigator: Kevin Reed
Ombuds: Emily Johnson
Letter of Accusation
The Honor Council received a letter of accusation from the
professor of a lower-level science course accusing Witness 1 of
submitting an exam that he had copied from Student A. The
letter explained that the exams of Witness 1 and Student A were
remarkably similar. Because the exams were taken on Owlnet, the
professor was able to check the contents of the students'
directories. The letter explained that Witness 1's directory
contained files with names ending in a "~", implying that these
files were automatically-saved versions of files edited in a
version of the gnuemacs editor. These "~" files were exactly
the same as the files Student A used for the exam; Witness 1's
"~" files still contained the Student A's name. Witness 1's
directory also contained the files he submitted for the exam and
they were very similar to the "~" files. Checking the
timestamps of the files and the timestamp for the printing of
Student A's exam, the professor explained that the copying of
files likely took place after Student A had printed his exam, so
it was not likely Student A benefited from the copying. It was
not possible, however, to determine if Student A was aware that
his files had been copied.
Evidence Submitted
+Letter of Accusation
The following were included with the letter of accusation:
+Course Syllabus
+Copy of exam including sheet of instructions
+Owlnet directory listings for the directories Student A and
Witness 1 used for the exam
+Copies of Student A's exam and Witness 1's exam as submitted on paper
+Copies of Student A's exam files from his directory
+Copies of Witness 1's exam files and "~" files
+Copies of typescripts using the UNIX diff utility to compare files
The following were also submitted as evidence:
+3 e-mail messages between the investigator and an Owlnet Administrator
regarding obtaining evidence
+Incomplete login records for Student A and Witness 1 (not all
Owlnet machines had logs at this time)
+Relevant Owlnet backup files from Witness 1's home directory
+Owlnet backup files from a relevant subdirectory of Witness 1
+Owlnet backup files from a relevant subdirectory of Student A
+1 e-mail message from Student A containing comments pertaining to the case
Plea
Student A entered a plea of Not In Violation.
Opening Statement
Student A explained that Witness 1 had copied the files without
his knowledge and without permission. Student A had given
Witness 1 his charon (remote log-in server) password, but had
not given Witness 1 his owlnet password. However, it was
conceivable that Witness 1 had gained access to Student A's
account because Student A used the same password for Owlnet.
Student A did not tell Witness 1 that the two passwords were the
same. Student A explained that he realized that releasing his
charon password was a violation of Owlnet policy, but he did not
believe it was an Honor System violation. Also, he explained
that he no longer uses the same password for charon and Owlnet.
Witness 1
Witness 1 explained that Student A did not know who copied his
files and would not be able to know. Witness 1 explained that
he had been able to gain access to Student A's account because
he thought that charon and Owlnet passwords were the same. Once
in Student A's account he copied Student A's exam files into an
unprotected directory. Then he logged into his own account and
copied the unprotected versions of the files. Finally, he
logged into Student A's account and deleted the unprotected
files he had created.
Questioning of Student A
Student A explained that he never noticed that the "last login"
information for his account listed a time that he had not been
logged in. He also explained that he had known that someone had
copied his files only because he had gone to the professor with
questions about the exam. For security reasons, the professor
recommended that Student A change his password because it
appeared that some of his files had been copied. The professor
did not reveal that it appeared that Witness 1 had copied the
files.
Witness 2 - professor of the course
The professor explained that giving out any password is a
violation of Owlnet Policy, but he did not believe it was a
violation of the Honor System. He explained that he looked at
the directories of Student A and Witness 1 after seeing that
their exams were remarkably similar.
Further Questioning of Student A
Student A explained that his e-mail message submitted as
evidence was available to the Owlnet administration because he
had not deleted the message.
Closing Statement
Student A repeated that all he had done wrong was give out his
charon password and that this was not a violation of the Honor
System.
Deliberation
The Council agreed that Student A did not know that his files
were copied and that giving out one's password is a violation of
Owlnet Policy and not the Honor System.
A straw poll was taken:
Straw Poll #1
In Violation 0
Not In Violation 9 (+ 2 observing)
Abstentions 0
With no objections, the result of Straw Poll #1 was made
binding. Thus, the Honor Council finds Student A Not in
Violation of the Honor System.
Time of trial and deliberation: 1 hour
Respectfully Submitted,
Dan Grossman
Trial Clerk