Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical
in [Firewalls]
|
From: Jim Ford on 19 Jan 2008 10:04 In article <ALdkj.192$G76.48(a)fe099.usenetserver.com>, Jason(a)invalid.address.lan says... > Chilly is english not your native language? I don't think so - he's an American! ;^) Jim Ford
From: Gerald Vogt on 19 Jan 2008 10:23 On Jan 19, 11:21 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws. I must say it AGAIN > that using my proxy, to check up on his then-teenage children > DID NOT break ANY laws. And? The person who used your proxy broke corporate policies. Enough to get fired. You helped. You provided the service. Unethical. You can do many things without breaking any laws. It does not mean that they are considered ethical. Gerald
From: Sebastian G. on 19 Jan 2008 12:08 Chilly8 wrote: > Using a proxy is NOT a criminal offence. Juristic offences don't solely consist of criminal offences... this one is clearly a civil law offence, specifically employment law. > It if were, Tor, and other aonymity services would not even EXIST. Nonsense. The one who uses them is the offender, not the one who provides the service.
From: Leythos on 19 Jan 2008 18:24 In article <fmt11t$hn3$1(a)aioe.org>, chilly8(a)hotmail.com says... > X-No-Archive: Yes > > "Gerald Vogt" <vogt(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:a16642d4-15d0-4dec-a28d-222bacff4b69(a)c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > On Jan 19, 9:56 pm, "Chilly8" <chil...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I had a cousin some years ago in who wanted to check up on > >> his chidlren.. He worked > >> at an office quite a ways away, with a long commute to work, > >> so I set him up on my proxy, at the time, where he could > >> log in to his home computer, and check up on what his > >> then teenage children were up to. It is NOT unethical > >> to help a parent check up on their children, which I was > > > > It is unethical to help someone break company rules which are > > implemented to protect the company networks and network resources. > > > >> doing in both cases. As far as *I* was concerned, he > >> was excerising his PARENTAL RIGHTS to know what > > > > He has a lot of rights but that does not give him the right to break > > rules or laws. > > Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws. I must say it AGAIN > that using my proxy, to check up on his then-teenage children > DID NOT break ANY laws. And, yet, the person that used your proxy could get fired for such a violation of company policy - and if you instructed the person on how to violate the policy you could be liable for his loss and the companies loss if their network is compromised by that violation. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Leythos on 19 Jan 2008 18:26
In article <fmt0te$h0o$1(a)aioe.org>, chilly8(a)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(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |