Re: PC netOctopus: insidious version?
From: John McAdams (john.mcadams_at_marquette.edu)
Date: 09/27/03
- Previous message: Mike: "@#!$ W32.Swen"
- In reply to: juan: "Re: PC netOctopus: insidious version?"
- Next in thread: John McAdams: "Re: PC netOctopus: insidious version?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 04:25:53 GMT
On 26 Sep 2003 17:43:19 -0700, juan23@wowmail.com (juan) wrote:
>roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote in message news:<bktdjb$8e5$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>> 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. 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.
>>
>> 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. 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.)
>
>
>Everything you say here makes sense, but not in the context of the
>original post. The original poster was talking about removing software
>that he finds invasive of privacy, not installing pirated or
>unauthorized software.
>
>Maybe the question should be: Does/should a computer user have an
>expectation of privacy when using a work/school/public computer?
I would say they don't when working on public lab computers, but the
ITS types want to put this stuff on the computers in professors'
offices, and on staff members' desks.
.John
-- Kennedy Assassination Home Page http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
- Previous message: Mike: "@#!$ W32.Swen"
- In reply to: juan: "Re: PC netOctopus: insidious version?"
- Next in thread: John McAdams: "Re: PC netOctopus: insidious version?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
