🚀 go-pugleaf

I'd like to bring another thread into this discussion. Acceptable use. This
is a paranoid monologue on this issue. 

I have just (not) had an extended conversation with my employer, the
centre director.  It was (not) pointed out to me that the university as
a whole, and his sub-arm in particular, is open to audit at any time.
He, as financial delagate, is held directly responsible for mis-use of
funds in his area. Therefore definably and legally, the buck stops on his
desk.

Whilst Geoff and Peter can sign forms stating that they have no problem
with use of AARN backbone to ship packets and approve an affiliate form
on that basis (subject to acceptable use), ANYBODY in an institution
doing the facilities management has to consider what THEIR liability
is. 

For big-boy feeds who tap directly off the backbone hub, or a
netblazer, you can take a hands-off stance.  You can very simply claim
no involvement or liability beyond assisting in the possible mis-use of
somebody else's box, with final accountability lying (happily for some)
in Canberra. Its not your problem.

If the feed runs via 'YOUR' boxes, for example bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au, then
immediately something which was paid for out of tax revenue with quite
specific intentions for use, (and benefits such as tax-free status as a
result), is potentially being mis-used 

	-> With your knowledge and consent. <-

This relates DIRECTLY to how groups like brisnet are going to connect. It
relates DIRECTLY to how individiuals who obtain mail accounts at UQ are
dealt with. 

If they state that the sole reason for getting the account is to send
mail to a parent in Uraguay (as happened) or a parent in a school in
west queensland via keylink (as happened) or a friend at another
university (as happened) then we have NO CHOICE (we were directed) but
to turn down the request. Otherwise somebody is going to be liable.

I'm not going to be the meat in the sandwich. Queensland has seen several
people JAILED for misuse of funds much more minor than the cost of a
unix host. Its an election year. We have networked journalists online.
[Yes, this is one of the paranoid parts.]  Thus we have potential if not
actual misuse of taxpayer funds, hidden from employer and financial delegate,
or else selfsame delegate accepting liability in the face of audit.

The gif images issue might be more clear cut, and yet have a TECHNICAL reason
why not closing down nntp packetflow is best (since it prevents multiple
requests for the same material illicitly and thus more net traffic) but 
as far as my boss is concerned, he doesn't care how much volume or frequency
is involved: 

	If it doesn't relate directly to research/educational usage,
	its not legal.

Needless to say, (random number) 75% plus of ALL TRAFFIC (including
mine) falls outside this range. china-activist lists, rec. and alt.
groups, play-by-mail, personal mail.

Solving this means getting a statement at ministerial level to the
effect that free access to Internet comms is openly available to all
members of the universtity community, regardless of content and
recipient, staff and student alike. It also needs a statement that
SELLING this facilities as a revenue generating exercise is acceptable
under the same framework. Clearly if we just start flogging off spare
capacity, somebody can ask why we qualify for tax-free status, why its
acceptable for us to buy gear and compete against the market from an
advantage.

The (totally informal) advise I get at this stage is that escalating
such a request up the tree from director-level to vice-chancellor level
will generate a negative response, formally stated on paper, at which
point nasty letters go out to almost all local users of the network, or
else personal liability becomes a real issue. There is no benefit for
an individual VC to stick his/her neck out on this one, AARN is only one
of a number of pies needing money, and cash is tight. If the argument is
that traffic (and somehow magically bandwidth, yes I know they dont relate)
is not justifyable then somebody can decide to scale back down to 48k and
save a packet (sorry)

Its all very well to carry on as we do, but don't pretend you can't be
held responsible. If a buck starts flying, somebody is going to get
blamed. Anybody is a target.

hypothetical chain of command:

	my customer/chum/client, the abuser of the facility, 

	me, the provider of these facilities without consent of their owner, 

	my director, the immediate owner of the facilities being misued
		and the financial delagate
		and the financially accountable delegate

	the pro-vice chancellor

	the vice-chancellor

	the VCs collectively as the AVCC.

Looking at this, I can tell where the shits going to go. It's not going to
stop at the bottom 4 levels, is it? I'd say that Geoff, Peter, Kre et al
fit neatly into the same hierarchy: We're discussing a facility we dont own
and can be held responsible for letting it be mis-used, and for not telling
our immediate bosses this was happening.

cheers,
	George
--
                         George Michaelson
G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au The Prentice Centre      | There's no  market for
                         University of Queensland | hippos in Philadelphia
Phone: +61 7 365 4079    QLD Australia 4072       |          -Bertold Brecht