🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec12.043113.24232@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov>, palmer@Trade_Zone (Paul (Cliffy) Palmer) writes:
>If while visiting a friend, I used his phone and he listened in on the
>conversation, I would not feel that my rights had been violated.  I
>would think him very rude and would not use his phone again.

1) The "friend" in the case of the advisory is U.S. government - the
advisory was targetted to federal agencies.  For this reason, I think
the people have a right to say something about it.

2) Worker's rights are involved - the "consent" hardly is voluntary
consent when the computer system is required for one's work.  If a
public access system set up by John Doe with his own money had such a
login message, it would be more like the case you describe

3) I think privacy rights exist to some degree even when someone else
owns the "area" - though some limits set by the owner are acceptable.
For example, say Jill works for a software company, which has a policy
of letting the workers use the phone for private calls (within
reasonable limits), bill paid by the company.  In this situation I
think it is reasonable to expect that Jill's privacy is reduced at
least so that the company sees how much $ worth of calls Jill has
made, since the company pays the bill.  But it is unreasonable, ie. an
unacceptable invasion of privacy (both Jill's and the persons' Jill is
calling) for the company to listen/tape Jill's calls.

>I have a hard time understanding how guests can make demands of their
>hosts.

This was not the issue here.

>that it is our right. ie. the "legal right" to:
>	- drive a car
>	- come and go as we please
>	- drink alcohol

Howver, I do think these all are rights, when rights of other are not
infringed.

//Jyrki