🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr15.205702.29713@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes:

|> If the police want to watch me, or the FBI wishes to tap my phone, it
|> is my understanding that they have to suspect me of a crime BEFORE
|> they start logging.

I believe that is true.  However, I believe it is also true that the accounting logs kept by the phone company are considered valid evidence--even the logs that were kept before a person becomes 
a suspect.

I'm sure there must be a ruling somewhere about this kind of thing.  Any legal folks out there know of precedents?

This does drift from the point, though.  My ethics do not correspond 1-1 with the U.S. legal code.

|> You seem to feel that it is fine whether or not you are being accused;
|> I do not. The ability to monitor everyone does not mean that you
|> should; ...

I concur with both of these statements, although (obviously) I don't feel that the second is applicable here.  I have no problems with logging all telnet connections (logging, not recording).


|> > 	Safety also entails protecting the information from 
|> > unauthorized access (ironically, backups make that harder instead of
|> > easier).  
|> How so?

In general terms it creates one more copy of the data that you have to protect.  In concrete terms, it means that you have to trust the people doing the backups, have a secure place to store the tapes, make sure
the person requesting you load the tape is the person they should be,
etc.

I know of at least one specific case at UCSC where a coveted program
was lifted off of backup tapes by an unscrupulous student operator (who isn't with us any more).  I now keep my private files crypted when
not in use...