[uug] Wiretapping at BYU
jlcarroll at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 10:42:13 MST 2010
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Graduate Studies Web Master <
gswebmaster at byu.edu> wrote:
> You seem to feel that one person's right to e-mail privacy is more
> important than another individual's right to keep the government from
> dictating what he or she can or can't do with their own equipment or network
> within their own home. I guess I find it difficult to understand why an
> individual should have this extremely broad "right" to privacy regarding
> e-mail when it would impinge on rights held equally dear by others. Much of
> privacy law and the sections of the constitution that have been interpreted
> as protection of privacy were meant to keep the government from interfering
> with individuals' stuff -- especially in their own home.
> I would agree that someone who is monitoring a computer or network should
> not be able to use the information they can see to incriminate someone or to
> blackmail them or harass them in any way. And it should be clear to the end
> user that their work may be monitored. But I still believe the owner of the
> network should be able to monitor communications in order to protect their
> organization, stake holders, equipment, etc.
> I definitely don't think governmental agencies should be able to snoop
> without due process of law, but I think it is just as bad to have the
> government dictate how I use my own machines in my own home. As far as the
> morality of monitoring in general, I think it is just as morally repugnant
> for someone to demand that I should be forced to handle my machinery in the
> way they want for their personal convenience as to monitor someone else's
> e-mail with the intent to protect the network.
I must completely agree with the above, except I might say "it is MORE bad
to have the government dictate how I use my own machines in my own home". It
is my hardware, and I have a right to do what I want on it, and I don't want
the government telling me what I can or can't do on it. To protect privacy
rights at the expense of property rights would be fool hardy.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem at gmail.com> wrote:
> If I happen to catch a guest or child viewing inappropriate material as
> I walk past the computer, I do have a right to request that such
> material not be accessed in my home, take away computer privileges, etc.
> But to actively monitor each url as it flies across my network and
> note the bad ones, while not actually blocking them, isn't appropriate
> in my opinion. At least unless you've explained to the kids exactly
> what is going on, why, and get their consent.
> I hope you can see the difference here and why one might be a better
> approach with families and children than the other, for example.
> Monitoring simply tells you when there are bodies at the bottom of the
> cliff. Filtering and blocking can be a fence at the top of the cliff.
I disagree with both of the above ideas in the most strenuous way possible.
First, the "get their consent" thing is ridiculous, foolish, and dangerous,
and is a big part of our parenting problems in America today. We don't need
our children's consent to decide what will happen on our computers. We are
the parents, they are the children, and it is about time we as parents get
that fact figured out.
Next, on whether filters are better than monitoring. I recommend filtering
too, but filtering doesn't really work, or solve most problems. All they
really do is to help us not to accidentally stumble upon things we don't
want to see. Nor do I believe that monitoring's only use is to "catch"
someone once they have already "fallen off the cliff" as you described it.
Monitoring is by far the most powerful deterrent tool we have, so long as
the monitoring isn't secret (which I don't recommend). They idea is to make
sure they know that "I am watching everything you do on my computer, so
don't even go over by that cliff." They are FAR less likely to do something
wrong if they KNOW that I am watching what they do. I recommend key loggers,
and periodic screen capture monitoring as well as logging all web page
accesses. And I am not the only one that makes that recommendation. It is
rather standard in the literature.
"And very early in the morning
the first day of the week,
they came unto the sepulchre
at the rising of the sun..." (Mark 16:2)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the uug-list