Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical
in [Firewalls]
|
From: Leythos on 19 Jan 2008 09:07 In article <fmsso6$1sr$1(a)aioe.org>, chilly8(a)hotmail.com says... > X-No-Archive: Yes > > "Gerald Vogt" <vogt(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:adebdb65-0176-4524-88e5-adb68cd7fce3(a)y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...(a)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(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Chilly8 on 19 Jan 2008 09:19 X-No-Archive: Yes "Leythos" <void(a)nowhere.lan> wrote in message news:MPG.21fbce2ea8fabb4e98999f(a)Adfree.usenet.com... > In article <fmsso6$1sr$1(a)aioe.org>, chilly8(a)hotmail.com says... >> X-No-Archive: Yes >> >> "Gerald Vogt" <vogt(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:adebdb65-0176-4524-88e5-adb68cd7fce3(a)y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> > On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...(a)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.
From: Chilly8 on 19 Jan 2008 09:21 X-No-Archive: Yes "Gerald Vogt" <vogt(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message news:a16642d4-15d0-4dec-a28d-222bacff4b69(a)c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 19, 9:56 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...(a)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.
From: Sebastian G. on 19 Jan 2008 09:31 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?)
From: Chilly8 on 19 Jan 2008 09:49
X-No-Archive: Yes "Sebastian G." <seppi(a)seppig.de> wrote in message news:5vefu2F1lk8kpU2(a)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. |