🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr16.125442.28160@engin.umich.edu> Mike O'Connor <mjo@ais.org> writes:
>Just as a point: unless a sysadmin tells a user in advance that the user's
>account and mail may be snooped at without notice, I see such action
>as ethically WRONG, and so would a lot of others.

It sort of depends upon who owns the system.  If it is a company
resource and you suspect industrial espionage, do you really have an
ethical responsibility to tip off the suspects?  All data on our
systems belong to the company, not to the users.  All of our
administrators sign a privileged users' code of conduct which
prohibits egregious snooping, but I think it has a few outs to cover
contingencies like this.

>Unless someone cites the Federal Communications Act of 1986 (or some
>equivalent non-U.S. law) or system policy in advance, mail is
>generally presumed to be confidential.

Most company owned computers at AT&T give the following greeting:

  This system is restricted to AT&T authorized users for legitimate AT&T
  business purposes and is subject to audit.  The unauthorized access, use,
  or modification of computer systems or the data contained therein or in
  transit to/from, is a criminal violation of federal and state laws.

I suppose we've met your objections with the "subject to audit"
notice.
--
Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  (908) 582-5928
READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!