🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1766@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu 
(Randy Marchany) writes:

>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. 

Wow! Here was I thinking system administration was a technical job
to do with configuration files and backups and so forth, but it's really
"like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly NOT from
any unix manual I have ever seen.

If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters,
it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to
deal with the problem in any way shape or form. If somebody needs
their technical assistance THAT is their job (which may include
providing technical assistance to some "investigator" who "patrols",
"collects evidence", "responds to complaints" etc if you happen
to work in an institution that doesn't have better things to do with
it's employees time).

Just because some harassment makes use of a computer does not change the
issue any more than if it happened to be typed on a word processor
instead of a typewriter. Would that make it the responsibility of the
word processing pool to investigate, patrol and collect evidence etc?
Or would it become a sysadmin's problem if the word processor
happened to be part of a corporate LAN? Only the NOVELTY of computer
networks makes people imagine that somehow they raise different
issues when used for harassment. Even word processors are sufficiently
familiar that nobody expects those in charge of maintaining them to
"patrol" and "collect evidence" about what they are used for.

Just because a computer is used to make beeping noises down a telephone 
line to harass somebody, "by email" does not make that a computer issue 
any more than heavy breathing down a telephone line is a telecom issue.

>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.

If somebody is put in charge of "administering" the office mail room,
or the office furniture, are they supposed to "focus" on "enforcing
responsible use" of the mail or the furniture? Why not focus on
delivering the best possible mail service or on having adequate
stocks of furniture available and repairs arranged promtly when
required?

There are real "policy" problems that sysadmins have to deal with,
mainly related to resource allocation between competing priorities.
Although they are economic and management issues that
should be dealt with by people who understand something about
costing of resources etc, in practice computer sysadmins with no skills
in such matters are often forced to deal with them, simply because
others are so completely ignorant of the nature of the resource
constraints involving computers. It would be very helpful if this
group provided assistance in dealing with such real problems instead
of getting absorbed in the fantasy life of people who really wanted
to be police officers rather than sysadmins.

--
Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server)
Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au