Article View: comp.admin.policy
Article #68Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
From: Steven P. Miale
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:28
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 02:28
73 lines
3154 bytes
3154 bytes
First, could you please use carriage returns? The wrap-around makes it difficult to edit. Thanks. In article <33032@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, shandon@cats.ucsc.edu (Timothy Daniel Kolar) writes: |> 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 disagree with this also. But that's another discussion. Besides, I believe that the evidence the telephone company usually presents is taken when they suspect someone, get the proper forms or whatnot, and monitor them. |> I'm sure there must be a ruling somewhere about this kind of thing. Any legal folks out there know of precedents? I'm not sure. Perhaps the EFF would know. (In fact, perhaps we should also discuss this in the EFF group.) |> |> 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). Problem is, how can you insure both are not being done? If you allow logging telnet connections, such that you'd check over them only if a crime had been committed, why not record, and have even more evidence? I don't feel that way. I know you don't feel that way, and I doubt many people reading this do. But if one step is taken, the other will probably follow. Rights are seldom given back. I'd like to be an optimist and think that all everyone will only use the telnet logs for good. I trust the roots here. But not all people in power are so trustworthy. Steve -- Steven Miale - spm2d@virginia.edu | Backwards compatibility is backward. Undergraduate Researcher | Department of Computer Science | University of Virginia |
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Apr15.222814@garnet.cs.Virginia.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!caen!uvaarpa!murdoch!garnet.cs.Virginia.EDU!spm2dReferences:
<2794@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> <1992Apr13.234624.3733@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <2799@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> <1992Apr15.190205.2111@ircam.fr> <33004@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <1992Apr15.205702.29713@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <33032@darkstar.ucsc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!caen!uvaarpa!murdoch!garnet.cs.Virginia.EDU!spm2d From: spm2d@garnet.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Subject: Re: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...) Message-ID: <1992Apr15.222814@garnet.cs.Virginia.EDU> Date: 16 Apr 92 02:28:14 GMT Article-I.D.: garnet.1992Apr15.222814 References: <2794@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> <1992Apr13.234624.3733@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <2799@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> <1992Apr15.190205.2111@ircam.fr> <33004@darkstar.ucsc.edu> <1992Apr15.205702.29713@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <33032@darkstar.ucsc.edu> Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU Reply-To: spm2d@garnet.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) Organization: University of Virginia Lines: 73