Scenario 0: MIT Prox Card Policy Violation


We assume that the MIT Prox Card Data Policy states that prox card data can only be used for the basis for an adverse consequence in a criminal investigation [Policy in N3]

Description of events/Transaction Log

  • On Monday at 9am Student Sam in granted extension on paper due to illness based on claim that she is sick in bed
  • an entry in the CSAIL prox card log (public) shows Sam entering 5th floor of CSAIL at 9:45am/Monday
  • TA Ted looks at proxcard log and discovers that Sam was in CSAIL
  • Ted tells Professor Pam who files a compliant with the CoD
  • CoD hearings are not criminal proceedings
  • CoD hearing calls Sam to explain and presents a complaint (machine-readable) citing entry in prox card log as evidence that she lied about matters of academic significance
  • Sam's advocate challenges the complaint because the offense cannot be proven without the use of prox card data and may not, according to the rule, be proven with the use of prox card data
  • Transaction log in N3


Complaint is analyzed by the reasoner with the following result:
  • reasoning result: accusation of lying by the CoD against Sam cannot be supported by the available facts
  • explanation offered by reasoner: -argument in complaint is invalid because (i) accusation is of lying (ii) lying accusation is supported by prox card data -prox card data may only justify an adverse consequence in a criminal investigation
  • ChargeEvent, call-1, is non-compliant with the policy

maintained by Lalana Kagal
$Revision: 7344 $
$Date: 2007-11-28 16:55:54 -0500 (Wed, 28 Nov 2007) $