> "warez is ILLEGAL, users found with pirated software on progsoc
> equipment will have their accounts locked and any pirated software
> found will be deleted."
>
> Just out of curiosity, how will these people be found??? Are the admins
> planning on going through people's accounts on ftoomsh???
I've found people by making use of w, ps -auxww and just going thru
directories because world read and execute permissions were already set. I
know some admins think that by going thru directories which have world
read/execute set, I'm invading a user's privacy, but I feel that they
wouldn't have set them if they didn't want people looking thru them.
I've appended a letter I sent to the system group in april, outlining
various policies we could adopt. By consensus options a and b were found
to be unacceptable because the administration of Progsoc must be seen to
be actively controllig its own affairs. Or (has happened in the past)
ProgSoc could find itself without a network connection.
The consensus was that option d had minimal impact on our users, since by
and large there are very few people breaking the law using ProgSoc
machines. By choosing option c, we would (potentially) aggrevate more
members by locking their accounts while claims were investigated.
> (Not that they don't already! heh Anand?)
As you are accusing me of invading your privacy, I've added the ProgSoc
executive to the CC: list. They should always be informed when one of the
members believes there is a rogue SysAdmin.
> I'm sure the progsoc membership disagree's with such practices - no
> matter how good the cause..
Well, there was an option I never wrote down. That is option e, lock an
account _permanenttly_ if they are _suspected_ of breaking the law. This
would ensure's a user's privacy, until they came before a court. However I
considered that too harsh to even be put forward as an option.
> I feel such invasions of privacy should have strict guidelines as to when
> and who can look through someone's account! Are these already in place in
> progsoc??? It doesn't seem that way..
To me, the only acceptable reason to look through another person's account
(without their permission) is because they are believede to have broken
the law. The people who have root access is tightly controlled by Anton, I
believe the number is between 4 or 5, but Anton would know for sure.
Raz is organising a meeting between the executive, the admin and people
who have broken the law. Perhaps you'd like to attend to provide some
input as well?
> These guidelines should also be strongly enforced, with ANY breech of them
> by an admin, causing that admin to lose all their admin privliges on the
> spot (or at least after one warning).
I agree with this paragraph 100%, I also feel that any user caught doing
something illegal should has their account locked permanently.
My email to the system group is appended, but I have removed a paragraph
for privacy reasons.
Anand.
-- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"----8<---cut here---8<---
>From wildfire@nospam.ftoomsh.progsoc.uts.edu.au Sun Jun 16 17:22:46 1996 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 02:55:25 +1000 (EST) From: Anand Kumria <wildfire@nospam.ftoomsh.progsoc.uts.edu.au> To: system@nospam.ftoomsh.progsoc.uts.edu.au Subject: piracy policy
I mentioned this to anton about a week ago, but I hope that by opening this to the entire list, we can formulate a consistent policy. A while back, I was doing a "w", and noticed a user sz-ing various "suspicious" files.
Now, I've checked through their directory (as my own user-id) and can't see anything incriminating. Should we
a: Not do anything till they incriminate themselves b: Not do anything till someone complains c: lock the user out, and then examine their directory as root, keep them locked out if anything incriminating is found. d: examine their directory as root, and if anything incriminating is found, lock them out.
[deleted for privacy reasons]
Comments?
Anand.
-- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"