🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec10.143956.15403@ulysses.att.com>, smb@research (Steven Bellovin) writes:
>Certainly, such a policy can be ridiculously harsh, and even if it
>isn't, a reasonable one can be ignored or abused by an SA.  But the
>concepts I -- and CERT, and DoJ -- are advocating are hardly novel.  In
>fact, they're fundamental to our system of jurisprudence, that laws
>clearly give notice of the prohibited conduct (a law may be struck down
>by the courts for vagueness) and that probable cause is required for
>things like search and arrest warrants.

I didn't see anything in the notice that said that probable cause is
required for searches.  To the contrary, the message seemed to say
that by using the systems all users consent to all monitoring - ie. no
suspicion or probable cause required.

There was some sugar-coating which talked about monitoring
unauthorized users, but that was separate from the consent.

>> "The
>> management reserves the right to monitor all use of this system and to
>> share the monitoring results with law enforcement officials."

That seems to me like a good, brief summary of the meaning of the
login message strongly recommended by CERT.

//Jyrki