Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ihnp4!mmm!bngofor From: bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) Newsgroups: net.rumor,net.news.adm Subject: Re: ading other peoples' mail Message-ID: <736@mmm.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Apr-86 11:45:13 EDT Article-I.D.: mmm.736 Posted: Thu Apr 24 11:45:13 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 27-Apr-86 05:10:30 EDT References: <703@frog.UUCP> <12400018@uiucdcs> <2410@jhunix.UUCP> <132@fai.UUCP> <4697@ut-sally.UUCP> <692@hoptoad.uucp> Reply-To: bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) Organization: none Lines: 76 Xref: watmath net.rumor:2058 net.news.adm:646 In article <692@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.UUCP writes: >In article <132@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: >> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your >> rights to open other people's mail? > > >I posted something earlier that said basically "if you ask me to relay mail >at my expense, don't expect privacy". I got three or four responses, >none of which understood my position. Let me try again. > > If you send mail through other peoples' machines, *don't expect* it to be > private. I understood your position perfectly. Of course you can't *expect* it to be private, at least not with assholes like you around. Your position is basically that you can behave unethically because you own the machine. Yes, you physically *can* behave unethically, but that doesn't make it right. What you're saying is analogous to: "The US Government has a right (even a duty by your standards) to open mail and read it because it's passing through their facilities." In fact the US postal service does not have that right, and neither do you. The only reason it's not illegal now (and it may very well be... I just don't know if a test case has come up yet) is that the technology and widespread use is too new to be covered by existing law. When the law catches up, you can bet your ass that what you're doing will be illegal. At the present it is at the very least unethical and you are a jerk for doing it. > >For example, if you are Sun Microsystems, don't send your conversations >with Motorola through AMD. If you are DEC, don't send your marketing plans >for new machines through AT&T. If you are a movie star, don't send your >innermost secrets through the National Enquirer. Etc. Only because there are assholes like you around who will behave unethically. > >some hassles, expenses, etc. Furthermore, if I am in business and my >competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine, >at my expense, why should I ignore this? I don't ignore their other What you're saying is that if an action profits you, even if damaging someone else, that it's okay for you to do it. BS!!! > >I could try to make a case that innocently reading mail in transit is like >amateur computer hacking: it keeps people honest so they don't get burned >by *serious* spying, hacking, etc. But I won't; I don't need to. If Amateur computer cracking (I think this is what you mean by your misuseof the term "hacking") is wrong, too. You say that at Sun the policy was: >(1) Anyone caught snooping through anyone else's personal mail would be fired. Why do you think that was? BECAUSE IT IS UNETHICAL!!!! >I think it's a good policy. Then use it and fire yourself, you jerk! >-- >John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa > Post no bills. It seems you have the Nixon syndrome (the other day he said that the only thing he learned from Watergate was: "Destroy all the tapes"). GET SOME ETHICS!!!!!!!!!!! --MKR "There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -"Dirty" Harry Callahan