Is the "uproar" because of the capturing itself or because the captures are being sent to/monitored by an external third-party?
Unfortunately, many folks do not have clear knowledge about exactly what gets monitored and what capabilities the monitoring allows.
In the USA, at least, "owners" of a network can do anything they want with the traffic going through it including providing fake certs for the purpose of clear-text search of https traffic, storing communications for however long they want, and providing these communications to whomever they please.
So much for a "free country".
I was going to type a response, then remembered the guideline against introducing classic flamewar topics. I'll just say this is myopic at best.
If you want to protect yourself, then protect yourself. You live in a country where this is even possible.
My point is that people (the public) don't actually understand the extent and implications of network monitoring, and almost no one is speaking out about it.
As an example consider that there are folks on this very thread asking about whether or not https is "safe" on a network which is owned by someone else. If there is a lack of knowledge _HERE_, imagine what the situation is for everyone else who doesn't even know what a MITM "attack" is. You can't "protect yourself" if you don't know what the threat is.
I am glad that the UC community is raising a stink about this.
If you work for someone else, they can do whatever they want with your communications on their devices.
I don't work at Berkeley but my guess is their system can do more than record emails which is extremely pervasive.
I agree with regard to companies, but I think it's a bit less clear for a university in general. Yes, the faculty and staff are clearly employees and so in a that sense it's reasonable to expect their internet usage will be monitored. But on the flip side, one of the historical aspects of universities is supposedly intellectual freedom. And in the sense that faculty might feel a chilling effect on their intellectual freedom if they know or suspect everything this type of monitoring, monitoring might be less acceptable.
When it comes to students, this argument is perhaps less clear. The students are not employees. Yes it's true they have all clicked "I Agree" to the university's network terms of service (but with all TOS's, how many of them actually read it?). But again, universities are ostensibly havens for intellectual freedom; what would pervasive monitoring do to that?
So, I think you are technically and legally correct, but I wonder if that justification is in the long-term best interests of universities as institutions of learning and exploration.
If I was a professor I'd want to work somewhere where I feel safe and secure because it's eerie having someone standing over your shoulders, let alone 24/7.
You mentioned intellectual freedom which is a feeling of security. I find that feeling misleading in the US with the NSA's new data center in Utah collecting our information.
Still it would be wise of Napolitano to reverse course but I think it's unlikely given her background.
...in the US...
> they can do whatever they want with your communications on their devices.
Imagine the landlord of an apartment complex secretly collecting complete packet captures of the residents' network traffic.
Students have significantly reduced rights as they are not considered tenants so much as "members" of a university.