Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 Apollo 11/21/85; site apollo.uucp
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!uw-beaver!apollo!rees
From: rees@apollo.uucp (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: net readership poll (discussion)
Message-ID: <2cf6e7ff.1de6@apollo.uucp>
Date: Mon, 7-Apr-86 15:12:10 EST
Article-I.D.: apollo.2cf6e7ff.1de6
Posted: Mon Apr  7 15:12:10 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Apr-86 14:29:02 EST
References: <2433@pogo.UUCP>
Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, Mass.
Lines: 25


    I don't know about the rest of you, but is it really that hard to get
    your local administrator to have arbitron run with root priviledges.

(I assume you mean "privileges".)

Sorry to flame on this, but this is the third time I've seen this opinion,
and this time it's from a system administrator.  It scares me.

If someone has one of his files protected in such a way that I can't read
it, I respect that.  I don't abuse my position of authority by snooping in
files that have been protected against access by the general public.
I don't even consider the reason that the file is protected, or the reason
that I want to look into the file.  I don't go looking through protected
files any more than I would look through one of my co-worker's desk drawers
if I had a master key to all the desks.

There are always exceptions, of course.  If your desk is belching smoke and
flame, I might break in.  If your file is growing by 1 Mbyte a minute, and
the disk is starting to fill up, I might break in.  But under normal
circumstances, I don't go snooping into locked places, whether the lock
is physical or electronic, without asking you first.

Am I the only who feels this way?  Is it normal practice at other companies
to snoop?