Re: Surfing at Work

From: nemo outis (
Date: 10/17/04

Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:16:57 GMT

In article
<>, Leythos
<> wrote:
>In article <QAycd.742209$M95.131973@pd7tw1no>, nemo
>(nemo outis) says...
>> Well, isn't it lucky then that a person as full of hot air as I
>> has had over thirty years of unbroken success in penetrating and
>> compromising systems?
>I never said you couldn't do it, I said that it's easy to detect and
>that the people you advocate doing this too may not be as lucky as you
>are in not getting reprimanded.

Everything is easy and obvious - after the fact. What could be
more trivially simple than E=m.c^2 That, for instance, was the
point of my digital modem through the PBX story. (And, no,
despite your protestations, few companies pay much attention to
usage for local numbers. Not that that would be an issue for
someone not spending hours a day at it.)

Life is a risky business - no one gets out alive. But risks and
consequences can be managed. A careful, thorough person can surf
out undetected from virtually all companies - only the amount of
work to accomplish it varies. (I say "virtually" out of
graciousness - my experience is "all.")

>It's the ethics you espouse that I disagree with.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are
dreamt of in your philosophy.

I have tried to give you a few glimmerings that what you
apparently regard as bedrock values are not universal and are not
unquestionable or unquestioned. That goes, for instance, for
your sacrosanct "property rights." And it goes, a fortiori, for
your "corporate rules must be obeyed" outlook.

If our forbears had unquestioningly accepted such dicta children
would still be working 12-hour days and any attempt by workers to
organize would still be a criminal "combination in restraint of

Working conditions that are unconscionable (as spying on
employees certainly is, in my view) - whether enshrined in law or
not - are legitimately opposed by fair means or foul.

>Breaking through corporate networks from the inside to the outside is
>child's play for those that know a little, or those that have enough

Which is where I entered this discussion. You have taken a very
circuitous route only to wind up conceding the obvious.