Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwm
From: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Reading others files (Was: Ten Commandments of Personal Computing)
Message-ID: <26368@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 16 Jul 89 00:58:30 GMT
References: <12702@well.UUCP> <TALE.89Jul15133947@imagine.pawl.rpi.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 91

In article <TALE.89Jul15133947@imagine.pawl.rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu writes:
< > IX.  THOU SHALT NOT SNOOP IN THY NEIGHBOR'S FILES
< >  
< >      With  the  growing  use  of  electronic mail  and  computers
< > connected in office networks, the issue of personal file integri-
< > ty is gaining  attention.  The  policy here is good  citizenship.
< > Would you open a letter addressed to someone else?  Why should it
< > be any different with a personal computer file?
<
<If you've got something to hide, go ahead and hide it.  Save yourself
<from the consequences.  I am really opposed to this fellow telling me
<that I am practising immoral computer activity, though.

Well, you are. Or maybe you are. Or maybe you aren't.

This topic comes up at irregular intervals. The answer is "it depends
on the environment you're in." It also depends on what you're doing,
and why. Let's take it to a better physical analogy - especially with
the desktop being used by various vendors these days.

Consider the following series of actions, running from "obviously ok"
to "obviously immoral".

1) Waiting for someone in their office with their permission.
2) Waiting for someone in their office (this & others are sans permission).
3) Looking for a document you have a right to have after entering through
	an open door.
4) As #3, but through a closed & locked door.
5) Looking for "anything interesting" on or in their desk after entering
	through an open door.
6) As #5, but through a closed and locked door after breaking in.

I claim that #1 is clearly OK, and #6 is clearly immoral - and
illegal, being breaking and entering.

Likewise, #2 is "probably OK", and #5 is "probably immoral".

#'s 3 & 4 are the grey area. Where I work, we all have keys to each
others offices. It's pretty much taken for granted that if I need X,
have a right to it, and know it's in your office, I'll go get it and
notify you of that - even if it means going into your office to get
it. I've been places (fortunately not many) where such behavior was
considered wrong.

People pretty much understand these rules as implicit. They know that
if they lock their doors, anyone who goes in without their permission
(either explicit, or implicit in the office) will be doing something
wrong/immoral. Likewise, most people don't go thourgh locked doors
without good reason.

The key behind this is that everyone has the same understanding of
what a locked office door means. And they all have a good
understanding of doors & locks, because they've been encountering them
since they learned to walk.

And this is where the analogy breaks when you try and move it to
computers. People don't have a good understanding of directories and
permssions and etc. Many people don't know how permissions exist, much
less how to change them. Many don't know they can create directories
to put "private" things in. And so on.

So on any system with naive users, to avoid getting into the clearly
immoral, you don't go looking through someone's files unless you
_know_ they are savvy enough to create directories & lock things they
don't want casual snoops finding. One way to create this situation is
to set the default permissions on new file creations to "owner only".
This isn't desirable, but may be required.

If you're in an environment where you know all the users on the
machine, know they are computer savvy, and going through the papers on
their disk isn't considered immoral, then browsing their directories
is fine. Most people aren't in that kind of environment.

Me, I don't _ever_ browse someones files to see if there's "anything
interesting". I don't ever look at our users files without there
permissions, or unless it's required as part of systems maintenance
(dealing with mail dropped on the floor, etc). I only look through my
coworkers files when I'm looking for something specific that I have a
right to use. In other words, I treat peoples home directories like I
treat their offices.

Final note: I don't expect them to do the same for me. I don't store
_anything_ I consider confidential on a publicly accesible computer. I
advise others to do the likewise.

	<mike
--
The Sword of Damocles is hanging over my head		     Mike Meyer
And I've got a feeling someone's gonna be cuttin' the thread mwm@berkeley.edu
Oh -- woe is me, My life is a misery			     ucbvax!mwm
And all I can see is I'm on the start of a pretty big downer mwm@ucbjade.BITNET