Re: PC netOctopus: insidious version?

From: John McAdams (john.mcadams_at_marquette.edu)
Date: 09/25/03 

Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:20:35 GMT

On 25 Sep 2003 00:41:15 GMT, roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
Roberson) wrote:

>In article <3f71b274.228174848@news.alt.net>,
>John McAdams <john.mcadams@marquette.edu> wrote:
>|Let me guess: you are an ITS type who specializes, not in helping
>|people do what they want to do, but *preventing* them from doing what
>|they want to do.
>
>Well, there's an interesting facet of Canadian law. If a software
>audit were to be run against our network, and it were to be determined
>that you had installed software without a proper license, then if it
>were to be determined that I, the local senior systems administrator,
>knew or should "reasonably have known" about that software, then any
>resulting lawsuit or criminal charges would be placed against me
>*personally*, not against the organization.

Why does "reasonably have known" require the use of spyware?

If Canadian law requires you to spy on people, then perhaps the law is
the problem.

>In any organization,
>-someone- has a duty under law to make sure that the laws are followed
>with respect to equipment under control of the company, and in my
>organization that happens to be me.
>

Do you have to monitor which web sites people frequent too?

Do you have to put a camera in every office in case somebody might do
something illegal?

You are aware that what you are saying will sound to a lot of people
as a pretext for doing something you basically *want* to do, right?

>And if that means that sometimes I have to actively prevent people from
>doing something they want to do, then I carry out my job, even when
>I personally believe that what they want to do -should- be permitted.
>
>
>You will, I suspect, interpret this highly negatively -- I've read
>your 1991 messages on the topic.

Must be somebody else. I wasn't posting in 1991.

>The way it works out *in practice*,
>though, is that the main grumble people have here is that we don't
>generally allow them to listen to streaming music (which is a policy
>that originates way way *way* above my level.)

Are we talking about legal streaming music, or illegal streaming
music?

It might be fair to forbid people to consume the bandwidth that
streaming music requires, even if it is legal.

If just closing certain IP ports can stop illegal downloading, that
might be reasonable. But that doesn't mean that spyware is
reasonable.

Do you think having a TV monitor in every office to monitor what
people are doing is reasonable?

.John 

--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm