🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct12.133020@iphase.com> plarkin@iphase.com (Patrick Larkin) writes:
>What is the general consensus in the Commercial environment regarding the use 
>of storage resources for the purpose of saving images of what could be 
>considered "offensive" material?
>
>My concern is two-fold:  Disk Space usage and a Sys Admin's removal on sight 
>of such images; and another employee bopping around looking at images in say 
>/usr/local/gifs and stumbling across something he/she finds offensive.

My opinion, as a part-time sysadmin:

Public *display* of computer images is usually covered under the same rules as 
posters, calendars, etc.  If someone else walks in and sees it, and is offended,
they have grounds for a complaint; continual offenses are grounds for removal
of the display program and/or image file(s).

If the files are simply present, and nobody has complained about viewing of the
images, then the only rationale for removal is the (usually) high volume of 
such files when disk space is low.  In those cases, a disk-space quota will
server to limit the usage.  I do not feel that the mere presence of an image
file can be considered *offensive*, if non-company-related text files are
allowed on the machines, since they can contain passages that some employee
might find equally offensive (quotes from Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", for
example).

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |