🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <scs.675001777@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
>
>But this is clearly not the case.  Eric is the guy who trundles the
>mail cart down the hall.  He is overstepping his own authority if he
>attempts to manage user behaviour in any way, shape or form.  Until
>then, the proper course for him to take is to put complaintants into
>touch with those who have authority.
>That's not what was suggested.  There are lots of things Eric could
>do to help.  But he should not take those actions unilaterally, and
>the CEO (or person in authority) has to be made aware of both the cost
>of the actions taken (yeah, rewrite all the sendmail.cf files so as
>to exclude mail from person a to person b) and has to take responsibility
>for dealing with the end user.

I think we need to keep a few things in perspective. First, the sysadmin
is responsible for the smooth operation of the systems under his
control. Generally speaking, the sysadmin usually becomes aware of
"harassment" problem when the "harassee" notifies him of the occurrence.
At that point, the sysadmin should be shown a copy (electronic or
otherwise) of the harassing notes by the "harassee". At no point, has
the sysadmin monitored any email. Most sysadmins have the authority to
warn a user of inappropriate behavior and to deny them access to the
computer system. If you're not sure of that authority, you should check
with your supervisor and straighten that point out. 
Presumably, your site has issued some  type of policy statement that
clearly states what is acceptable use (or what is not) and this
statement should also state the sysadmin' authority. If the "harasser"
persists in the inappropriate behavior then the sysadmin becomes a
liaison for the dept. head (or CEO, etc.) in handling the situation.

I don't think sysadmins are "cart trundlers", censors, judges, etc.
Their function is more similar to an apartment manager, i.e., they
create a workable environment and stay out of the way UNLESS someone
complains about something.
It is not our function to determine what is "obscene", "harassment",
etc. That is for the legal system to decide. It IS our function to be
able to collect the necessary information for others to make those
judgments. In this sense, we are like the police,i.e., patrolling,
responding to complaints, collecting evidence, transferring the evidence
to the judiciary. 

The key point is that an adequate computer usage policy is critical
for enforcing responsible use of computer facilities. The next step is
having some sort of proof that the user is aware of and AGREES to abide
by these rules. As sysadmins, we should focus our discussion on how to
devise this policy statement and how we can enforce such a policy.
I think this should be the main point of this group's discussion.

	-Randy Marchany
	VA Tech COmputing Center
	Blacksburg, VA 24060	
INTERNET: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu