🚀 go-pugleaf

jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart) writes:

>In article <1991Jun7.164102.672@progress.com> matth@progress.COM (Matthew J. Harper) writes:
>>(Randomly banging on machines to try and gain access.)

>Wait a minute. If you have a userid GUEST on your system, _expect_
>people all over the internet to try to use it. If you want a limited
>group of people to use it, I suggest creating a userid of another
>color (i.e. different than guest) Why? Because guest is a _standard_
>on the Internet. 

I'm with Ace on this one.  The login "guest" has evolved into a 
standard on the Internet signalling the intent to allow 
(non-destructive) use by otherwise uninvited individuals, much 
the same as anonymous ftp.  Attempting once to log into a system
as "guest" hardly rates as "random banging", hanging around to
try every other login name you can think of *does* and crosses
the threshold of acceptable behavior rather dramatically.

The first implies acceding to the use of the system as intended
by the sysadmin, the latter implies an attempt to circumvent that
intention.  To otherwise have a (non-passworded) userid "guest" 
on your system is really dumb, something akin to leaving your
car unlocked, with the keys in it and a sign saying "please use
me" (sorry, couldn't resist continuing the car bit :-).

Seems to me that intent rules here.  If a reasonable person would
judge that the intent of the sysadmin was to allow public access,
and acts in a responsible manner (with benign intent) in using
that access, I think you'd have a hard time making a *legal* case,
let alone a moral one, against such use.
-- 
**  Ken Crater__________________________________________ken@control.com  **
**  Chair, Bylaws Committee         |                         President  **
**  Industrial Computing Society    |    Control Technology Corporation  **