Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!orsvax1!pyrnj!caip!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!strath-cs!jim
From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Newsgroups: net.rumor,net.news.adm
Subject: Re: Reading other people's mail
Message-ID: <116@stracs.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 30-Apr-86 09:01:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: stracs.116
Posted: Wed Apr 30 09:01:53 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 4-May-86 04:35:31 EDT
References: <703@frog.UUCP> <12400018@uiucdcs> <2410@jhunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
Organization: Department of Computer Science at Strathclyde University, UK.
Lines: 44
Xref: watmath net.rumor:2126 net.news.adm:669

In article <117@comp.lancs.ac.uk> jam@comp.lancs.ac.uk (John A. Mariani) writes:
>
>I've been following this discussion (none too closely, I admit) and
>I think some people are making a fundamental equation which just
>doesn't hold up;
>
>e-mail ==  ordinary paper mail (or snail mail!)
>
>Perhaps a better equation would be
>
>e-mail == telephone communication
>
>Now, hey, I'm pretty paranoid but I'm not talking about telephone tapping etc.
>There may well be good reasons for the operator/telephone engineer to
>overhear (part of) a telephone conversation (although I can't think of
>one now!). They may have to listen in to ensure the correct functioning of
>the telephone system (no?). I think SAs find themselves in much the same
>situation.
>
>Maybe the rule should be "we can't talk about this on the phone"
>(substitute e-mail). Why not use encryption (oops -- that *could* be
>illegal, I guess!).
>
>Basically, I think the "e-mail == paper mail" concept is *all* wrong!

Got it in one! The best analogy I heard for e-mail is it's equivalent to
a postcard. Anybody handling the mail (eg postmaster, uucp for email -
post office workers for postcards) has the capability to read and alter it.
In practice this doesn't happen much because of the volume of mail getting
shipped. This doesn't mean it can't happen, but then who would send a
confidential document on the back of a postcard?

On a wider security front, the telecomms networks are easily monitored by
government eavesdroppers like NSA in the US and GCHQ in the UK. Even if all
the mail relays and their mail administrators didn't read your mail, what's
to stop these spooks? With these people, even encryption is no guarantee of
keeping data secure.

In short, anybody who uses the net *must* appreciate it is a public forum
and anything he/she sends to someone else cannot reasonably be expected to
be a purely private communication in the way that a snail mail message would.
If something is secret, don't say it!

		Jim