🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec14.133030.804@ualr.edu>, lindstrom@acs writes:
>I agree. I run a small system for solar research and curious about the
>problem here.  Our computer is for research use only. Period.  The work
>all belongs to the school (as does the machine) and all of the users are
>willing to be monitored.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong here, as long as the
users know what the situation is.  A very strict police of "research
use only" might be bad for the research, though, but it depends much
on the situation / environment.

>As for the phone, it is also for business. Sure, I use it for personal
>things (call my wife to find out what time to get home by) but if someone
>is making personal long distance calls, that's taking money from our
>already small budget and I want to know.

A question: do you think it would be an invasion of privacy if someone
from the company / agency listened to your calls to your wife to make
sure they're really to your wife and not long-distance running up
costs or leaking confidential information?

>Now I'm not for a police state, but it seems to me that those yelling
>about their "rights" are overlooking their responsibilaties. I have read
>alot about "they" (meaning the system, like me :-) should and should
>not do...what about users? What standards should a system user be held
>to, if any, and what measures should be allotted to insure compliance?

Threats, fear, uncertainty and doubt are often good and much-used
measures for this ;-).  Or, in other words, peer pressure.  Published
rules with input from users as well often are enough - most people are
reasonable, and when they know what the issues are there will be few
problems.

In certain critical environments I think even routine monitoring of
all activity by users is acceptable - for example a critical computer
system in a nuclear plant.

//Jyrki