Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: Looking through other users' (unprotected) files
Message-ID: <3565@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23-Oct-86 01:47:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.3565
Posted: Thu Oct 23 01:47:57 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Oct-86 07:22:00 EDT
References: <1246@kitty.UUCP> <141@rayssd.UUCP> <2433@phri.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 26

In his article mcvoy@rsch.WISC.EDU (Lawrence W.McVoy) writes:
>In his article jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) writes:
>>>[Gilbert Cockton makes a house analogy]
>>Does someone's home being unlocked give you the right to violate it
>>without permission?  Does someone's desk being unlocked, or in an
>>unlocked office give you the right to look through it?  [..] I think
>>not.
>Well, Jeff, you are 100% wrong here.  The analogy between a
>home and a computer is not in any way shape or form a valid one.
>Unless that disk that is spinning around belongs to you personally,
>you can't tell me which bytes I can and cannot look at by suggesting
>that it is immoral for me to look at bytes without my name on them.
>[...]  
>See the difference?  It's not *your* house, it's everyones'
>house.

The house analogy was not a very good one; I did not invent
it, I just wanted to demonstrate that leaving a house unlocked does
not constitute granting any sort of permission (in the human sense).
The office analogy is much better.  "My" desk is not really "mine."
Neither is "my" office.  Giving someone the _ability_ to access either
or both of these does not give him _permission_ to access them.
Accessing the contents of "my" office, "my" desk, or "my" files
without my permission is unacceptable behavior.

Jeff Siegal