PDA

View Full Version : Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical



Chilly8
01-16-08, 02:51 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what people
are using my proxy for, when surfing from work, and I did see
someone from Australia surfing various kinds of wedding-related
sites.

Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
One's wedding day is a very SPECIAL day, and I feel that the
corporate network that was obviously banning wedding sites
needs to RETHINK their usage policies. There is NOTHING
wrong OR unethical about suring wedding-related sites from
work. I am glad to know that I was helping someone plan
their wedding day without the boss knowing what they were
doing. They will see a lot of connections to my proxy, but
that person's boss, in Australia, will NEVER KNOW that
employee was surfing wedding sites form work, and I feel
good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan
their special day, from work, without the boss being able
to know what he/she was up to.

Leythos
01-16-08, 06:31 AM
In article <fmkgho$558$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.

This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.

A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
01-16-08, 08:21 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21f7c32810b96880989986@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fmkgho$558$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
>> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
>> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
>
> This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.
>
> A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.


A wedding is a verry SPECIAL occasion, and I see NOTHING
wrong with surfing wedding-related sites from work, as long
as you get your work done.

Jason
01-16-08, 08:58 AM
* Chilly8 <chilly8@hotmail.com>:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21f7c32810b96880989986@Adfree.usenet.com...
>> In article <fmkgho$558$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
>>> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
>>> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
>>
>> This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.
>>
>> A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.
>
>
> A wedding is a verry SPECIAL occasion, and I see NOTHING
> wrong with surfing wedding-related sites from work, as long
> as you get your work done.
>
>

Using company resources for non company things is likely against company
policy. What part of that are you having trouble with? I'd love to see
you actually own a company and have your staff doing what you suggest
instead of what you are paying them for. How quickly would you change
your tune?

Jason

Leythos
01-16-08, 12:45 PM
In article <fml3u8$5k0$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21f7c32810b96880989986@Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <fmkgho$558$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> >> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> >> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
> >
> > This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.
> >
> > A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.
>
>
> A wedding is a verry SPECIAL occasion, and I see NOTHING
> wrong with surfing wedding-related sites from work, as long
> as you get your work done.

Again, it's not your call. In our customers networks we even block
access to News and most other sites by default from Managers.

The company makes the rules, you either follow them or get a different
company to work for.

In 90% of cases where people have access to non-company business sites,
those people will waste company time and other resources on personal
crap that costs the company money.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
01-16-08, 03:53 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21f81ad8b69e409e989988@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fml3u8$5k0$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.21f7c32810b96880989986@Adfree.usenet.com...
>> > In article <fmkgho$558$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
>> >> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
>> >> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
>> >
>> > This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.
>> >
>> > A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.
>>
>>
>> A wedding is a verry SPECIAL occasion, and I see NOTHING
>> wrong with surfing wedding-related sites from work, as long
>> as you get your work done.
>
> Again, it's not your call. In our customers networks we even block
> access to News and most other sites by default from Managers.


Well, I don't care what people do on my proxy, as long as its
lawful in France and Mexico, where the main server, and
backup servers are, respectfively. If some "office drone"
wants to surf wedding sites through my proxy, they are
more then welcome to do so.

Chilly8
01-16-08, 03:55 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Jason" <Jason@invalid.address.lan> wrote in message
news:2Zojj.6741$Ya2.4936@fe115.usenetserver.com...
>* Chilly8 <chilly8@hotmail.com>:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.21f7c32810b96880989986@Adfree.usenet.com...
>>> In article <fmkgho$558$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
>>>> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
>>>> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
>>>
>>> This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.
>>>
>>> A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.
>>
>>
>> A wedding is a verry SPECIAL occasion, and I see NOTHING
>> wrong with surfing wedding-related sites from work, as long
>> as you get your work done.
>>
>>
>
> Using company resources for non company things is likely against company
> policy. What part of that are you having trouble with? I'd love to see
> you actually own a company and have your staff doing what you suggest
> instead of what you are paying them for. How quickly would you change
> your tune?

As long as they got their work done, I would not have a problem with
that, or listening to online radio. As long as you get your work done,
that is all that should matter.

Leythos
01-16-08, 05:16 PM
In article <fmludp$2k8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Well, I don't care what people do on my proxy, as long as its
> lawful in France and Mexico, where the main server, and
> backup servers are, respectfively. If some "office drone"
> wants to surf wedding sites through my proxy, they are
> more then welcome to do so.

And that's why all of us consider you an unethical person.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
01-16-08, 06:58 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21f85a41334a24e298998a@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fmludp$2k8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Well, I don't care what people do on my proxy, as long as its
>> lawful in France and Mexico, where the main server, and
>> backup servers are, respectfively. If some "office drone"
>> wants to surf wedding sites through my proxy, they are
>> more then welcome to do so.
>
> And that's why all of us consider you an unethical person.

Providing a public proxy is NOT unethical, and is LEGAL
in France, and in Mexico, where my servers are. As long
as what someone is doing in LEGAL in France, and in
Mexico, I cannot be charged with any crime for operating
a public proxy server. Because my servers are in France,
and Mexico, they are ONLY subject to FRENCH and
MEXICAN laws, and as long as what someone is
doing does not violate either French or Mexican laws,
I am in the clear.

Leythos
01-16-08, 08:12 PM
In article <fmm97m$4m8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21f85a41334a24e298998a@Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <fmludp$2k8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> Well, I don't care what people do on my proxy, as long as its
> >> lawful in France and Mexico, where the main server, and
> >> backup servers are, respectfively. If some "office drone"
> >> wants to surf wedding sites through my proxy, they are
> >> more then welcome to do so.
> >
> > And that's why all of us consider you an unethical person.
>
> Providing a public proxy is NOT unethical, and is LEGAL
> in France, and in Mexico, where my servers are. As long
> as what someone is doing in LEGAL in France, and in
> Mexico, I cannot be charged with any crime for operating
> a public proxy server. Because my servers are in France,
> and Mexico, they are ONLY subject to FRENCH and
> MEXICAN laws, and as long as what someone is
> doing does not violate either French or Mexican laws,
> I am in the clear.

You are not in the clean then YOU ADVISE PEOPLE THAT BREAKING COMPANY
POLICY IS PERMITTED, WHEN YOU ADVISE PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN NOT BE
DETECTED OR MONITORED......

Your beliefs and statements are unethical, you tell people to violate
company policy all the time in these groups.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
01-17-08, 03:49 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21f88394687b550398998c@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fmm97m$4m8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.21f85a41334a24e298998a@Adfree.usenet.com...
>> > In article <fmludp$2k8$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> Well, I don't care what people do on my proxy, as long as its
>> >> lawful in France and Mexico, where the main server, and
>> >> backup servers are, respectfively. If some "office drone"
>> >> wants to surf wedding sites through my proxy, they are
>> >> more then welcome to do so.
>> >
>> > And that's why all of us consider you an unethical person.
>>
>> Providing a public proxy is NOT unethical, and is LEGAL
>> in France, and in Mexico, where my servers are. As long
>> as what someone is doing in LEGAL in France, and in
>> Mexico, I cannot be charged with any crime for operating
>> a public proxy server. Because my servers are in France,
>> and Mexico, they are ONLY subject to FRENCH and
>> MEXICAN laws, and as long as what someone is
>> doing does not violate either French or Mexican laws,
>> I am in the clear.
>
> You are not in the clean then YOU ADVISE PEOPLE THAT BREAKING COMPANY
> POLICY IS PERMITTED, WHEN YOU ADVISE PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN NOT BE
> DETECTED OR MONITORED......
>
> Your beliefs and statements are unethical, you tell people to violate
> company policy all the time in these groups.

I do it far more in the figure skating message boards. I often go into
Figure Skating Universe or GoldenSkate, and tell people how to
circumvent filtering system to access FSU or GS from work. Since
NEITHER business (yes, both boards are run as a for-profit business)
is based in the United States, ANY postings sent to either board is
NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States law. So any posts I make
on EITHER site telling people how to circumvent company filtering
systems to get onto the board from work is NOT SUBJECT to
ANY laws in the United States, becuase both businesses are
based OUTSIDE the United States. Posts made to FSU, for
example, are ONLY subject to BRITISH laws, because the
business is based in BRITAIN. As such, the owners of
Figure Skating Universe CANNOT BE COMPELLED to
comply with ANY United States laws, and neither can
anyone who reads from or posts to, the site.

Flash Gordon
01-17-08, 04:28 PM
Chilly8 wrote, On 17/01/08 21:49:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

<snip>

>> Your beliefs and statements are unethical, you tell people to violate
>> company policy all the time in these groups.

<snip>

> is based in the United States, ANY postings sent to either board is
> NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States law. So any posts I make

<snip>

Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. You keep
failing to address the point that adding to the costs of a business that
is against the companies rules, or advising something which will add to
the costs, is NOT ethical. Legality is a separate issue.
--
Flash Gordon

Chilly8
01-17-08, 05:21 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Flash Gordon" <spam@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote in message
news:hd1565xi1g.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
> Chilly8 wrote, On 17/01/08 21:49:
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Your beliefs and statements are unethical, you tell people to violate
>>> company policy all the time in these groups.
>
> <snip>
>
>> is based in the United States, ANY postings sent to either board is
>> NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States law. So any posts I make
>
> <snip>
>
> Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. You keep
> failing to address the point that adding to the costs of a business that
> is against the companies rules, or advising something which will add to
> the costs, is NOT ethical. Legality is a separate issue.

Well, last October, someone from a high school, in New York,
was using my proxy to listen to a figure skating event we cover.
That is becuase one student in the school was a entrant in that
competition, and her school-mates were using my proxy, to
circumvent the school filters, so that could listen as their
school-mate strutted her stuff at that particular skating
competition. I got some E-mail from one of them praising
me for giving them the ability to circumvent the school's firewall
and follow that competition their school-mate was competing
in. Since they were merely following the competition their
school-mate was in, I see NOTHING wrong with providing
the means to get around the school filtering system, and tune
in to our broadcast of that event.

Sebastian G.
01-18-08, 05:06 AM
Chilly8 wrote:

> I see NOTHING wrong with providing the means to get around

> the school filtering system

You see nothing wrong with advertising people to drive themselves into
serious trouble? Now it's obvious that you are an idiot.

Chilly8
01-18-08, 02:30 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:5vbfgsF1lke9mU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> I see NOTHING wrong with providing the means to get around
>
> > the school filtering system
>
> You see nothing wrong with advertising people to drive themselves into
> serious trouble? Now it's obvious that you are an idiot.

But these were just kids. Circumventing the school's filtering system
to listen as their school-mate performed at this particular figure
skating event was certainly NOT something that was going to
haunt them for the rest of their lives. They were NOT breaking
any New York laws by using my proxy to tune in to the event.

No future employer is going to care much about something
they did in high school, when they were teenagers.

Leythos
01-18-08, 08:50 PM
In article <fmonun$755$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> and her school-mates were using my proxy, to
> circumvent the school filters,

See, you support unethical activity, you help people circumvent rules
put in place to protect the networks and resources. You are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
01-18-08, 08:51 PM
In article <fmr298$fhn$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> They were NOT breaking
> any New York laws by using my proxy to tune in to the event.

Actually, many school systems have policy, signed by parents and kids,
that permit the school to permanently disable their computer accounts
for such violations.

You are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Jason
01-18-08, 09:02 PM
* Chilly8 <chilly8@hotmail.com>:
> But these were just kids. Circumventing the school's filtering system
> to listen as their school-mate performed at this particular figure
> skating event was certainly NOT something that was going to
> haunt them for the rest of their lives. They were NOT breaking
> any New York laws by using my proxy to tune in to the event.
>
> No future employer is going to care much about something
> they did in high school, when they were teenagers.
>
>

Chilly is english not your native language? I figure that has to be the
reason why you can't grasp some basic simple facts.

Jason

Chilly8
01-19-08, 12:14 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fb2fbbbe30866c989994@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fmr298$fhn$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> They were NOT breaking
>> any New York laws by using my proxy to tune in to the event.
>
> Actually, many school systems have policy, signed by parents and kids,
> that permit the school to permanently disable their computer accounts
> for such violations.
>
> You are unethical.

Another good example, some years ago, was one girl who was a
student at Bob Jones University. She told me that her parents
did not agree with some parts of the Internet usage policy, so
they set up an encrypted link on the parents broadband link at
home. When she went to surf the Net, she would make an
encrypted connection to her parents computer, and then
surf the net from there. There is no POSSIBLE way the
admins at Bob Jones University could EVER figure out
what she was up to. They would know she was making
an encrypted connection to her parents computer, but
would never know where she was going beyond her
parents computer. Bascially, her parents gave her a
private link to circumvent the University's filtering
system, and in the four years she was there, the
university never got wise to what she was doing.

Chilly8
01-19-08, 02:17 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fb2f7712805f93989993@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fmonun$755$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> and her school-mates were using my proxy, to
>> circumvent the school filters,
>
> See, you support unethical activity, you help people circumvent rules
> put in place to protect the networks and resources. You are unethical.


To tune in, as their school-mate was competing at this skating
event, to me, shows school spirit, and is NOT unethical.

Leythos
01-19-08, 05:09 AM
In article <fms4g9$mbf$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> She told me that her parents
> did not agree with some parts of the Internet usage policy, so
> they set up an encrypted link on the parents broadband link at
> home. When she went to surf the Net, she would make an
> encrypted connection to her parents computer, and then
> surf the net from there. There is no POSSIBLE way the
> admins at Bob Jones University could EVER figure out
> what she was up to.

Yes, there is a clear indicator that she was setup with an Encrypted
link to a residential site - as long as the policy does not permit such
links she could have her internet connection suspended.

If she was found to have surfed, by means of inspecting her computer for
some reason, she could also have her connection suspended.

It doesn't matter if the can see INSIDE the tunnel, it's only that a
tunnel is setup between two sites - and that tunnel is easy to see. Any
admin could easily spot that and then question it.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
01-19-08, 05:10 AM
In article <fmsbmq$bqs$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21fb2f7712805f93989993@Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <fmonun$755$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> and her school-mates were using my proxy, to
> >> circumvent the school filters,
> >
> > See, you support unethical activity, you help people circumvent rules
> > put in place to protect the networks and resources. You are unethical.
>
>
> To tune in, as their school-mate was competing at this skating
> event, to me, shows school spirit, and is NOT unethical.

To break Company/School policy for any reason is unethical - it doesn't
matter what the reason, and a personal reason makes it even more
unethical, it's unethical to break policy when one exists.

You are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Sebastian G.
01-19-08, 05:24 AM
Chilly8 wrote:

> There is no POSSIBLE way the admins at Bob Jones

> University could EVER figure out what she was up to.

Are you dumb? As administrators, they have full control over the client, and
could (technically) monitor whatever they want - including the execution of
programs, URLs, screenshots, keyboard and mouse input...

Chilly8
01-19-08, 06:45 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:5ve4usF1m58jrU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> There is no POSSIBLE way the admins at Bob Jones
>
> > University could EVER figure out what she was up to.
>
> Are you dumb? As administrators, they have full control over the client,
> and could (technically) monitor whatever they want - including the
> execution of programs, URLs, screenshots, keyboard and mouse input...

This was HER computer in HER dorm room. She would connect
to her parent's computer from her own personal computer in the
dorm room. Since it was her own personal computer, there
would be no keyloggers, or anything like that put in by the
university. Since the computer, in this case, was her property
and not the school's property, they would have no way to
use keyloggers or screenshot makers, or anything like that
there.

Chilly8
01-19-08, 06:46 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fba44bb04613d989998@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fms4g9$mbf$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> She told me that her parents
>> did not agree with some parts of the Internet usage policy, so
>> they set up an encrypted link on the parents broadband link at
>> home. When she went to surf the Net, she would make an
>> encrypted connection to her parents computer, and then
>> surf the net from there. There is no POSSIBLE way the
>> admins at Bob Jones University could EVER figure out
>> what she was up to.
>
> Yes, there is a clear indicator that she was setup with an Encrypted
> link to a residential site - as long as the policy does not permit such
> links she could have her internet connection suspended.
>
> If she was found to have surfed, by means of inspecting her computer for
> some reason, she could also have her connection suspended.

This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.

Chilly8
01-19-08, 06:56 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fba4c0585cc5d9989999@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fmsbmq$bqs$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.21fb2f7712805f93989993@Adfree.usenet.com...
>> > In article <fmonun$755$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> and her school-mates were using my proxy, to
>> >> circumvent the school filters,
>> >
>> > See, you support unethical activity, you help people circumvent rules
>> > put in place to protect the networks and resources. You are unethical.
>>
>>
>> To tune in, as their school-mate was competing at this skating
>> event, to me, shows school spirit, and is NOT unethical.
>
> To break Company/School policy for any reason is unethical - it doesn't
> matter what the reason, and a personal reason makes it even more
> unethical, it's unethical to break policy when one exists.
>
> You are unethical.

,
..

I had a cousin some years ago in who wanted to check up on
his chidlren.. He worked
at an office quite a ways away, with a long commute to work,
so I set him up on my proxy, at the time, where he could
log in to his home computer, and check up on what his
then teenage children were up to. It is NOT unethical
to help a parent check up on their children, which I was
doing in both cases. As far as *I* was concerned, he
was excerising his PARENTAL RIGHTS to know what
his chidren were up to, and so giving him acccess to
do that was NOT unethical.

Gerald Vogt
01-19-08, 06:56 AM
On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
> of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.

But it was not HER network connection but of the university which
probably provided her with a free internet connection in her dorm room
with certain restrictions and rules. It is unethical. She broke rules
of a service which was provided free to her.

Gerald

Chilly8
01-19-08, 07:08 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Gerald Vogt" <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:adebdb65-0176-4524-88e5-adb68cd7fce3@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
>> of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.
>
> But it was not HER network connection but of the university which
> probably provided her with a free internet connection in her dorm room
> with certain restrictions and rules. It is unethical. She broke rules
> of a service which was provided free to her.


However, her parents were fully within their legal rights to
provide her with that encrypted connect. The TOS for their
particular broadband provider allowed them to set up
such a connection, so her parents were in the clear.

Gerald Vogt
01-19-08, 07:23 AM
On Jan 19, 9:56 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I had a cousin some years ago in who wanted to check up on
> his chidlren.. He worked
> at an office quite a ways away, with a long commute to work,
> so I set him up on my proxy, at the time, where he could
> log in to his home computer, and check up on what his
> then teenage children were up to. It is NOT unethical
> to help a parent check up on their children, which I was

It is unethical to help someone break company rules which are
implemented to protect the company networks and network resources.

> doing in both cases. As far as *I* was concerned, he
> was excerising his PARENTAL RIGHTS to know what

He has a lot of rights but that does not give him the right to break
rules or laws.

> his chidren were up to, and so giving him acccess to
> do that was NOT unethical.

So if he saw that his children were up to something and he jumped into
his car to speed back home, breaking speed limits, breaking street
laws, you would consider that, too, his parental right to check on his
children and thus ethical? If you helped him to get quickly through
some radar checks your doing would be ethical to help him to exercise
his parental right?

Or if he knew that from time to time his children would stay at some
friend's place and he wanted to excersice his parental rights there,
too, and he would thus secretly install some bugs and hidden cameras
there because the friend's parents would never agree to that would you
consider this ethical as well because it is just a parental right to
check on his children? And if you help him to do that you think you
are ethical?

If you agree to work somewhere or agree to use some network resources
at a dorm room you agree to comply with some rules. You usually sign
those rules. Otherwise you would not get the job or you would not get
network access granted. Breaking those rules is unethical. You agreed
to comply with them and now you break them. You are always free to
work somewhere else at a place with different rules or use some other
way to access the internet at your dorm.

Now, if you help someone breaking those rules you are unethical.

Gerald

Leythos
01-19-08, 08:04 AM
In article <fmss1j$v82$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> I had a cousin some years ago in who wanted to check up on
> his chidlren.. He worked

So, you keep showing that YOU and people you know and help have a long
unethical history of violating company policy for personal benefit.

You and they are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
01-19-08, 08:05 AM
In article <fmsrd3$t87$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
> news:5ve4usF1m58jrU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> > Chilly8 wrote:
> >
> >> There is no POSSIBLE way the admins at Bob Jones
> >
> > > University could EVER figure out what she was up to.
> >
> > Are you dumb? As administrators, they have full control over the client,
> > and could (technically) monitor whatever they want - including the
> > execution of programs, URLs, screenshots, keyboard and mouse input...
>
> This was HER computer in HER dorm room.

You don't seem to understand, the students often sign or agree to having
their communications monitored as part of the agreement for network
service.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
01-19-08, 08:07 AM
In article <fmsso6$1sr$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Gerald Vogt" <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:adebdb65-0176-4524-88e5-adb68cd7fce3@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
> >> of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.
> >
> > But it was not HER network connection but of the university which
> > probably provided her with a free internet connection in her dorm room
> > with certain restrictions and rules. It is unethical. She broke rules
> > of a service which was provided free to her.
>
>
> However, her parents were fully within their legal rights to
> provide her with that encrypted connect. The TOS for their
> particular broadband provider allowed them to set up
> such a connection, so her parents were in the clear.

No, the parents do not have ANY right to help her violate network
policy, not at all.

If the TOS permits remote connections for the purpose of surfing the
web, to bypass restrictions, then yes, it would be permitted - but there
is not a single school policy that states "You may use any means
possible to subvert our network security or policy".

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
01-19-08, 08:19 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fbce2ea8fabb4e98999f@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fmsso6$1sr$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> "Gerald Vogt" <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:adebdb65-0176-4524-88e5-adb68cd7fce3@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
>> >> of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.
>> >
>> > But it was not HER network connection but of the university which
>> > probably provided her with a free internet connection in her dorm room
>> > with certain restrictions and rules. It is unethical. She broke rules
>> > of a service which was provided free to her.
>>
>>
>> However, her parents were fully within their legal rights to
>> provide her with that encrypted connect. The TOS for their
>> particular broadband provider allowed them to set up
>> such a connection, so her parents were in the clear.
>
> No, the parents do not have ANY right to help her violate network
> policy, not at all.

Its the parents computer, and they can allow ANYONE to
access their machine they want, as long as the AUP of the
ISP allows the operation of servers from your connection.
The parents where NOT breaking ANY laws provding
their duaghter with the means to bypass the Bess filter.
The computer back home in Kansas was the PROPERTY
of the PARENTS, therefore they had the LEGAL RIGHT
to allow anyone to access the machine they wanted, and,
therefore, were NOT breaking ANY laws, in Kansas, where
the parents lived. The parents were NOT SUBJECT to ANY
prosecution for allowing their duaghter to access their home
computer, under Kansas law.

Its the same with all of us that operate public proxy
servers, by they web proxies, Tor proxies, or whatever.
We are NOT breaking ANY laws by allowing public
access to our proxies. And since NONE of my
proxies are in the United States, what comes
through my proxy is NOT SUBJECT to United
States laws.

Chilly8
01-19-08, 08:21 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Gerald Vogt" <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:a16642d4-15d0-4dec-a28d-222bacff4b69@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 9:56 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I had a cousin some years ago in who wanted to check up on
>> his chidlren.. He worked
>> at an office quite a ways away, with a long commute to work,
>> so I set him up on my proxy, at the time, where he could
>> log in to his home computer, and check up on what his
>> then teenage children were up to. It is NOT unethical
>> to help a parent check up on their children, which I was
>
> It is unethical to help someone break company rules which are
> implemented to protect the company networks and network resources.
>
>> doing in both cases. As far as *I* was concerned, he
>> was excerising his PARENTAL RIGHTS to know what
>
> He has a lot of rights but that does not give him the right to break
> rules or laws.

Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws. I must say it AGAIN
that using my proxy, to check up on his then-teenage children
DID NOT break ANY laws.

Sebastian G.
01-19-08, 08:31 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


> Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws.


It did. Will you accept it finally?


(At any rate, why should we give anyone who abuses Outlook Express as a
newsrader any technical and related juristic competence?)

Chilly8
01-19-08, 08:49 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:5vefu2F1lk8kpU2@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws.
>
>
> It did. Will you accept it finally

No it did NOT. Using a proxy is NOT a criminal
offence. It if were, Tor, and other aonymity services
would not even EXIST.

Jim Ford
01-19-08, 09:04 AM
In article <ALdkj.192$G76.48@fe099.usenetserver.com>,
Jason@invalid.address.lan says...

> Chilly is english not your native language?

I don't think so - he's an American!
;^)

Jim Ford

Gerald Vogt
01-19-08, 09:23 AM
On Jan 19, 11:21 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws. I must say it AGAIN
> that using my proxy, to check up on his then-teenage children
> DID NOT break ANY laws.

And? The person who used your proxy broke corporate policies. Enough
to get fired. You helped. You provided the service. Unethical.

You can do many things without breaking any laws. It does not mean
that they are considered ethical.

Gerald

Sebastian G.
01-19-08, 11:08 AM
Chilly8 wrote:

> Using a proxy is NOT a criminal offence.


Juristic offences don't solely consist of criminal offences... this one is
clearly a civil law offence, specifically employment law.

> It if were, Tor, and other aonymity services would not even EXIST.

Nonsense. The one who uses them is the offender, not the one who provides
the service.

Casey
01-19-08, 11:23 AM
In article <fmt0te$h0o$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21fbce2ea8fabb4e98999f@Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <fmsso6$1sr$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> X-No-Archive: Yes
> >>
> >> "Gerald Vogt" <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> >> news:adebdb65-0176-4524-88e5-adb68cd7fce3@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
> >> >> of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.
> >> >
> >> > But it was not HER network connection but of the university which
> >> > probably provided her with a free internet connection in her dorm room
> >> > with certain restrictions and rules. It is unethical. She broke rules
> >> > of a service which was provided free to her.
> >>
> >>
> >> However, her parents were fully within their legal rights to
> >> provide her with that encrypted connect. The TOS for their
> >> particular broadband provider allowed them to set up
> >> such a connection, so her parents were in the clear.
> >
> > No, the parents do not have ANY right to help her violate network

Chilly, you sure post a lot of crap on this newsgroup.
Little, if any, of it is related to Firewalls.

Leythos
01-19-08, 05:24 PM
In article <fmt11t$hn3$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Gerald Vogt" <vogt@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:a16642d4-15d0-4dec-a28d-222bacff4b69@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 19, 9:56 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> I had a cousin some years ago in who wanted to check up on
> >> his chidlren.. He worked
> >> at an office quite a ways away, with a long commute to work,
> >> so I set him up on my proxy, at the time, where he could
> >> log in to his home computer, and check up on what his
> >> then teenage children were up to. It is NOT unethical
> >> to help a parent check up on their children, which I was
> >
> > It is unethical to help someone break company rules which are
> > implemented to protect the company networks and network resources.
> >
> >> doing in both cases. As far as *I* was concerned, he
> >> was excerising his PARENTAL RIGHTS to know what
> >
> > He has a lot of rights but that does not give him the right to break
> > rules or laws.
>
> Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws. I must say it AGAIN
> that using my proxy, to check up on his then-teenage children
> DID NOT break ANY laws.

And, yet, the person that used your proxy could get fired for such a
violation of company policy - and if you instructed the person on how to
violate the policy you could be liable for his loss and the companies
loss if their network is compromised by that violation.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
01-19-08, 05:26 PM
In article <fmt0te$h0o$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> The parents where NOT breaking ANY laws provding
> their duaghter with the means to bypass the Bess filter.

The computer, while personal property, the user is subject to school
rules while it's on their (school) network - the user agreed to that
when they were given access (in 99% of all cases I know of) and that
means they agreed to NOT violate policy.

Personal computer, privately owned, it doesn't matter - when you are on
someone else's network you play by their rules or suffer any penalty the
network owner wants.

You continue to show that you're unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Gary
01-20-08, 12:53 PM
Chilly8 wrote in his original post:

> I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
> people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,
....
> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
....
> I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
> special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
> he/she was up to.

Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely
monitored they might not feel so special. Of course, I'm merely assuming
that your proxy is advertised as such but, as the rest of this thread
seems to imply your lack of cluefulness in general in this discussion,
don't you find it a bit ironic that you're the one raising the indignant
moralist flag in this situation?

As for the matter of company bandwidth usage, employers are well within
their rights to limit staff use of company resources whether it be using
the postage meter for personal mail, long distance calls to grandma, or
printing your pictures of your ass on the color printer. The same goes for
bandwidth consumption. So if your network admin wishes to restrict
peer-to-peer traffic, flash or ActiveX controls, streaming audio/video, or
any manner of site filtering/blocking, that's their right to do so as they
are paying for the bandwidth and for the IT staff that maintains the
network and cleans the cruft out of your bot net virus infected PC that
wouldn't need scrubbing if you hadn't been looking at pictures of wedding
porn in the first place.

-Gary

Leythos
01-20-08, 04:33 PM
In article <73e7.479398b4.b15c9@efn.org>, garyd@efn.org.spamsux says...
> Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
> on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
> the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely
> monitored they might not feel so special.

See, you've exposed him when we were just going to let him hang himself
in his own statements....

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
01-20-08, 08:26 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Gary" <garyd@efn.org.spamsux> wrote in message
news:73e7.479398b4.b15c9@efn.org...
> Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
>
>> I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
>> people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,
> ...
>> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
>> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
>> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
> ...
>> I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
>> special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
>> he/she was up to.
>
> Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
> on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
> the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely

Actually, I am not normally able to monitor what goes on. THAT
proxy is a filtered proxy for my network, not meant for public
consumption. The script kiddies that were scanning my site
found it and posted it to the various public proxy sites. It turns
out that some filtering proxies have a GAPING security hole
that allows anyone from around the world to surf through the
proxy,

The proxy that IS meant for public consumptoin, the Tor entry
proxy, I could not monitor that if I wanted to, which is
why I now advocate people use the Tor proxy, when coming
from work, because you merely go from machine to another
random machine on the Onion Router network. By using
the Tor proxy, instead of the filtering proxy, which was
found and posted, your activities CANNOT BE
MONITORED, either by me, OR by your emplyer.

The Tor proxy is there to allow people to use Tor,
without having to install the software, very handy
for people on school or work computers that are
locked down against installation of new software.

> As for the matter of company bandwidth usage, employers are well within
> their rights to limit staff use of company resources whether it be using
> the postage meter for personal mail, long distance calls to grandma, or
> printing your pictures of your ass on the color printer.

There was a radio station in the America some years
ago that had a contest for some hard-to-get concert
tickets, of "Fax us a picture of your butt", where people
had to take a picture of their backside on the company
copy machine, and then fax that to the radio station,
where they would decide who had the best backside.
The winner got tickets to a New Kids On The Block
concert, which was one of the hottest tickets anywhere,
at that time.

This morning DJ crew was one of the zaniest DJs
ever on morning radio in America, and that was a
rather zany contest the did.

Chilly8
02-09-08, 07:00 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


On Jan 20, 10:53*am, Gary <ga...@efn.org.spamsux> wrote:
> Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
>
>
>
> > I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
> > people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,
> ...
> > Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> > NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> > networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding. *
> ...
> > I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
> > special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
> > he/she was up to.
>
> Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
> on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that

Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
of what they are doing are GONE, becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
an electron microscope is going to recover the data.

Leythos
02-09-08, 07:11 PM
In article <998a1d33-bc1b-4f1f-a4da-
0bfed47553cc@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> On Jan 20, 10:53*am, Gary <ga...@efn.org.spamsux> wrote:
> > Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
> > > people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,
> > ...
> > > Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> > > NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> > > networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding. *
> > ...
> > > I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
> > > special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
> > > he/she was up to.
> >
> > Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
> > on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
>
> Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
> them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
> of what they are doing are GONE, becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
> repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
> each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
> an electron microscope is going to recover the data.

And there is no proof of that. You still show that you are UNETHICAL AND
DISHONEST.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Sebastian G.
02-10-08, 06:00 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


> Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
> them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
> of what they are doing are GONE,


Most likely they're not.

> becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
> repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
> each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
> an electron microscope is going to recover the data.


The best, overly aggressive stream generation scheme won't help anything
against a horribly bad implementation. Evidence Eliminator is such one.

Chilly8
02-10-08, 03:27 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.221819459090d038989a17@Adfree.usenet.com...



>And there is no proof of that. You still show that you are UNETHICAL AND
>DISHONEST.

I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass, that
is
equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for destruction
of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
a total of 63 times.

I have a program that can start EE as a service and automatically run
the disk scrub once a day, and then re-boot the server.

Sebastian G.
02-10-08, 04:03 PM
Chilly8 wrote:


> I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
> 3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass, that
> is equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for destruction
> of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
> unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
> a total of 63 times.


I already told that this is very unlikely since EE is a pile of shot doing
it's job improperly (which is actually not so unexpected).

Chilly8
02-10-08, 06:14 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:619aliF1ubcc6U1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
>> 3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass,
>> that is equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for
>> destruction
>> of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
>> unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
>> a total of 63 times.
>
>
> I already told that this is very unlikely since EE is a pile of shot doing
> it's job improperly (which is actually not so unexpected).

Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
the data.

There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".

Sebastian G.
02-11-08, 08:18 AM
Chilly8 wrote:


> Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
> one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
> to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
> that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
> the data.


They were also following the wrong assumption that EE would do its job properly.


> There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
> in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
> recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
> slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".

I'd say they were just unlucky or didn't try properly, since it's actually
quite trivial to create situations where EE fails. Maybe you should take a
look at the description of "SDelete"
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897443.aspx> to get a
clue what details you have to take care of, and EE doesn't.

Chilly8
02-11-08, 05:17 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Sebastian G." <seppi@seppig.de> wrote in message
news:61b3ppF1u0g36U1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
>> one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
>> to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
>> that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
>> the data.
>
>
> They were also following the wrong assumption that EE would do its job
> properly.
>
>
>> There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
>> in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
>> recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
>> slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".
>
> I'd say they were just unlucky or didn't try properly, since it's actually
> quite trivial to create situations where EE fails. Maybe you should take a
> look at the description of "SDelete"
> <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897443.aspx> to get a
> clue what details you have to take care of, and EE doesn't.

Well, when it comes to disk wiping software, I would tell people
to find something other than EE, because of the fact that in the
newer versions, they have "product activation",. which ties one
copy of the program to one machine, which I consider to be
highway robbery. That is the only reason I have not upgraded
EE in quite a while, and will almost certainly go to one of their
comptitors, such as Evidence Blaster, the next time I need to
upgrade.

Sebastian G.
02-12-08, 08:20 AM
Chilly8 wrote:

> and will almost certainly go to one of their
> comptitors, such as Evidence Blaster, the next time I need to
> upgrade.


As if this program would be any less incompetent...

Chilly8
02-16-08, 08:10 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes


Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
Eliminator? Think again?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Customs_agents_can_copy_data_from_0211.html


Since I often travel to, or through the USA, I scrub my disk in TWO
steps. First, I have a "clean" disk image made with Norton Ghost. I
Ghost my machine with that. Then I use Evdience Eliminator to clean up
anything that Ghost would miss. If your travel takes you to, or
through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.
Ghosting the machine, followed by a session of EE, or any other
programme like it, will ensure that Customs agents in America, as well
as Australia and Canada (where they are also examining computers now)
will not be able to recover it. If you travel internationally, you
NEED some kind of disk wiping program, especially before entering
America.

Leythos
02-16-08, 09:59 PM
In article <f65b1e2c-ea9d-46e5-95ba-45045b375fd0
@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
> Eliminator? Think again?

No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.

All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
tracks.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
02-16-08, 10:11 PM
X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.22217b3410dc70a2989a44@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <f65b1e2c-ea9d-46e5-95ba-45045b375fd0
> @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
>> Eliminator? Think again?
>
> No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.
>
> All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
> tracks.

Read the article, Customs can copy ANYTHING from your
computer, even confidential company information. With all
kinds of privacy laws, especially if any part of your business
is in the EU, you could run afoul of EU laws, for what U.S.
Customs copies off your hard drive. And it could cause
problems with privacy laws in other countries. To keep your
company information confidential, EE, or a programme like
it is a MUST for those who travel internationally, especially
to, or thorugh, the United States. This way they cannot get
any temporary files you might generate while accessing your
company network remotely. If you access your company
network remotely, EE, or a program like it, is a MUST,
so that if your computer is ever lost, seized, stolen, etc, etc,
your confidential company data will STAY that way.

Sebastian G.
02-17-08, 05:05 AM
Chilly8 wrote:

> If your travel takes you to, or
> through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
> empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
> created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.


Well, didn't I already tell you that Evidence Eliminator is an unsuitable
tool for such a purpose? It will leave traces in file slack, MFT, journaling
log, USN journals, ...

DevilsPGD
02-17-08, 05:59 AM
In message <61qioiF20jtgaU1@mid.dfncis.de> "Sebastian G."
<seppi@seppig.de> wrote:

>Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> If your travel takes you to, or
>> through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
>> empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
>> created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.
>
>
>Well, didn't I already tell you that Evidence Eliminator is an unsuitable
>tool for such a purpose? It will leave traces in file slack, MFT, journaling
>log, USN journals, ...

In fairness, US Customs doesn't have the expertise to evaluate such data
unless you're declared a person of interest...

Usually they're just surfing for porn or whatever else they can nab
easily.

Leythos
02-17-08, 07:22 AM
In article <fp8c4p$okf$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22217b3410dc70a2989a44@Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <f65b1e2c-ea9d-46e5-95ba-45045b375fd0
> > @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
> >> Eliminator? Think again?
> >
> > No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.
> >
> > All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
> > tracks.
>
> Read the article, Customs can copy ANYTHING from your
> computer, even confidential company information.

If you are traveling with private information on your computer or
company/medical data on your computer you are asking for trouble.

Now, you failed to address what I responded it - EE is not all you think
it is.


--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8
04-15-08, 04:11 AM
X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21fc5120ba1d8539899a2@Adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <fmt0te$h0o$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> The parents where NOT breaking ANY laws provding
>> their duaghter with the means to bypass the Bess filter.
>
> The computer, while personal property, the user is subject to school
> rules while it's on their (school) network - the user agreed to that
> when they were given access (in 99% of all cases I know of) and that
> means they agreed to NOT violate policy.


I can't blame some parents for doing that. Long, LONG ago,
I did chat with one girl in one chat room, who was a student
at Bob Jones University, who was using an AOL dial-up
account through her cell-phone, despite the campus rules,
to get on. She paid for her AOL account a year ahead
of time, and logged on through her cell phone and AOL
account. Cell phones, themselves, are not prohibited at
BJU, just using them to access the Internet, instead of
using the on-campus network. Since modern cell phone
signals are scrambled, I don't see HOW they could
find out you were accessing the Internet via your cell
phone, since they could not eavesdrop on the signal.
Encrypted digital cell phone service has been around
since at LEAST the late 1990s. So short, of using
illegal cell phone jammers, it would be difficult, if
not IMPOSSIBLE, for Bob Jones U, to stop someone
from accessing the Internet from their cell phones, be it
through dial-up, or through faster 3G networks. She got
away with using her cell phone, and AOL accont, becuase
the signal cannot be eavesdropped upon.


I found out that BJU has some of the TIGHEST rules
of any college ever. You are not allowed to watch TV in
the dorms. When you go home to your parents, you are not
allowed to watch any movie above a G rating, or any TV
show above a TV-G rating.

Since I implemented my public VPN server, I have
seen a lot of traffic coming from Bob Jones University,
and now I can see why, with all the DRACONIAN
rules they have. Since some of the P2P TV services
usually have the major U.S. television networks being
rebroadcast by SOMEONE, I am seeing hits into
my VPN server coming from Bob Jones U, so TVU
and TVANTS, where people are rebroadcasting the
TV networks. Since the connection to MY server
is encrypted, that is no POSSIBLE way the admins at
Bob Jones U can find out WHAT is going on. I did
see a lot of traffic from BJU going to the TVU feed of
CBS affiliate KPIX in San Francisco, during the
NCAA basketball tournament. Seems that a lot of
BJU students wanted to tune into the games, without
the University administration knowing about it. All
that University administration would know is that people
were downloading heavily encrypted data packets at the
rate of 420K for each person connected. As the saying
goes, "The book is open, but the pages are in an unreadable
language".

Todd H.
04-15-08, 10:33 AM
"Chilly8" <chilly8@hotmail.com> writes:

> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21fc5120ba1d8539899a2@Adfree.usenet.com...
>> In article <fmt0te$h0o$1@aioe.org>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>> The parents where NOT breaking ANY laws provding
>>> their duaghter with the means to bypass the Bess filter.
>>
>> The computer, while personal property, the user is subject to school
>> rules while it's on their (school) network - the user agreed to that
>> when they were given access (in 99% of all cases I know of) and that
>> means they agreed to NOT violate policy.
>
>
> I can't blame some parents for doing that. Long, LONG ago,
> I did chat with one girl in one chat room,

But have you ever talked with an actual girl in an actual room without
money being exchanged?

Just askin.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/