🚀 go-pugleaf

From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
>In <1992Aug26.174017.1077@ms.uky.edu> morgan@ms.uky.edu writes:
>
>>  	- I could write an automated shell script that examines every
>>  	  text file on the system, reporting the names of any files which
>>  	  are in /etc/passwd format (i.e. Crack food).  This borders on the 
>>  	  unacceptable.
>
>It *is* unacceptable, IMHO - the same thing of searching user files.
>

This approach borders on acceptability for one reason only -- I'm not
looking at the files myself.  If such a script reports that "file
/users/booga/foo/blast is in /etc/passwd format", I would simply dis-
cuss the matter with the owner of the file.  I don't examine user files.

Besides, I don't believe that the /etc/passwd format is widely used in
other applications.......8)

>>  OR.......
>>  
>>  	- I can set a simple policy that says "this system is not to be used
>>  	  for the development or use of password cracking software".  My users
>>  	  are Engineering students; they have no curricular need to develop
>>  	  such software on our systems.  
>>  
>>  	  This approach benefits everyone (in theory).  The users don't have
>>  	  to worry about admins (or Crack users) rooting through their files, 
>>  	  and I don't have to worry about Crack fanciers.......
>
>Are you sure that setting a policy will *prevent* your system from
>being Crack'ed? ;;-)

I never said that such a policy would prevent it!  However, such cracking
would be a more remote possibility.  8)  I'm also concerned about users
collecting password files from all over and using my box as their password
cruncher.......

>>  Computing resources are usually assigned/allocated within this framework.
>>  However, assignments/allocations of these resources for purposes outside
>>  of the framework can (and should) be limited.  A Mechanical Engineering 
>>  student may wish to write a Japanese text parser; while that is a laudable
>>  project, can we justify the allocation of Engineering resources to that
>>  goal?  
>>  
>>  "Academic freedom" is not equivalent to "a blank check".
>
>Right, but... be VERY careful about that.
>
>The step from your Japanese parser to general restrictions like 'we
>don't carry alt* and rec* newsgroups' is dangerously short. 

Excuse me, but the two concepts are NOT as similar as you claim them to be.  
In my example, I suggest a policy that would prevent the use of a 
particular facility by an individual user (namely, the future use of 
my system for cracking programs).  Your counter-example, the revocation 
of alt.* and rec.* newsgroup access, suggests the revocation of current 
use by all users.  The two cases are markedly different; you're comparing 
apples and oranges.

>Take
>another example: When I want books from my university library, nobody
>cares about the importance of, say, a book on music history for my
>computer science studies. 

This example is irrelevant.  The university libraries are, by definition,
open to all students of the University.  My systems, on the other hand,
are open only to Engineering students/faculty/staff.

There are 'general purpose' University computing systems which are 
available to all students; I don't manage those systems, so I can't
speak for them.  

>Not a blank check, but the provision of
>CERTAIN resources for own use (as opposed to the provision of
>resources for CERTAIN use - understood?)

I agree; however, when that use begins to approach illegal activity
(or activity prohibited by University policy), then actions must be
taken.  Would you agree?

>but I think universities should provide the resources they
>are able to (technically, financially,...) and place no restrictions
>on their use unless there are justifiable reasons to do so, 

Yup, but who determines the justification?  There are those who argue
that playing games is justifiable 'educational use'; there are others
who argue that diskspace quotas are a violation of their 'academic
freedom'.  You want to use it, and I have to manage it for all users;
sooner or later, we may butt heads.

>e.g.
>outright abuse (what this is, however, should not be stated par ordre
>du mufti but established, ideally, by a board of staff AND students).

The other problem with the definition of offenses comes here.  I've
been trying to write a polcy for almost a year, and I keep hearing 
that "it's not specific enough".  One student even complained about
the sentence "Forgery, or attempted forgery, of electronic mail messages 
is prohibited."; he said that it was "too general".  

We will NOT be able to develop a written policy that covers every possible
offense.  Some discretion must be left with the administrators.  

I repeat: "academic freedom" does not equal "a blank check".

-- 
MORGAN@UKCC         |       Wes Morgan       |        ...!ukma!ukecc!morgan 
morgan@ms.uky.edu   | Engineering  Computing |   morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
morgan@engr.uky.edu | University of Kentucky | JWMorgan@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
  Mailing list for AT&T StarServer S/E  - starserver-request@engr.uky.edu