Ouch, I'm not sure pointing him to that is a good idea. He seems the type that will take it as gospel rather than recognizing it as a parody of what we'd be like if (a) we could get away with it, and (b) our actions doing such didn't have real world implications.
Fun to read, don't get me wrong, but he seems the type to take it for real.
To put it politely, _you_ are incorrect.
They have the legal right to the complete and utter control of *their* network -- equipment, facilities, _who_ can use it, and *what* they can use it for.
'their gear' includes the wiring, the hubs, the routers, the external connection.
If you aren't using _any_ of their gear, then there's no problem.
Of course, you won't be accessing the Internet through their facilities, either.
Oh, I get it, the ability to snoop around in your network at people's private stuff is not enough for you, so now you're going to scold someone for suggesting reading material?
You were right not to want to get into the philosophical angles, you have some bad (mis-)reading habits. Consider exercising the same aversion to pop-psych, would you?
Amused, H
_That_ wasn't a tirade. You've never seen one of my tirades.
It is, however, an exposition of the _facts_ of the law, as they apply to network administration, and network usage.
I haven't seen _any_ litigation in years on the 'basic' issue. It's all been about 'what is allowed / not allowed *BY*THE*AGREEMENT* in place between the parties', with regard to monitoring/tracking/etc of activities. The 'ownership' of such materials _is_ well-established.
Case-law includes a municipality where the mayor had _every_ incoming e-mail to every city employee copied to his mailbox. Without any notification to the employees. When the matter came to light, the city got sued over the practice. The city won. It _was_ their property.
Bzzzt. My statements are about what an employer _can_ do. which is separate and distinct from 'what they have agreed not to do'.
You sir, "don't know what you don't know".
"Your" contract terms not withstanding.
Proof: Echelon and Carnivore
The law is such that they _can't_ tell you "if" there is an Echelon or Carnivore tap on their systems, or upstream, let alone whether or not it is tracking _your_ actions. You can't even get that information with a court order.
'Telephone and digital communications' do _not_ fall under the legal description of 'intellectual property', by the way. If the contract you drew up links them as you have indicated, it is materially defective.
As for 'blanket statements', YOU started off making blanket statements about what _could_not_ be done. Those statements, even if applicable to the -contract- environment *you* are in, were invalid on two grounds. First the things _are_ technically possible. Second, employers *not* bound by a contractual agreement proscribing such actions *are* legally free to engage in them.
You *do* live in the 'ivory tower' world, don't you?
There is *nothing* that is more 'enforceable' than a judge's order.
'Compulsion' is -easy-. When the court says 'jump', you *jump*, or the court sends the Marshalls over to confiscate *everything* that _might_ contain any records related to what was demanded.
You think your emails aren't _already_ being copied? How much do you want to bet that routine system backups on the mail-server cover the mailbox directory? Do you think they would refuse to produce those backups, if subpoenaed? Oh, that's right 'ivory tower', nevermind.
There is _nothing_, at a technical level, that prevents the recording of _every_byte_ of data that passes over the network. There is nothing in the law that prevents it, either. On large, or heavily used, networks it is often *impractical* because of the volume of information involved.
But monitoring everything to/from a specific machine, or a specific user, is relatively trivial.
And is -routinely- done, when users report certain kinds of problems.
On average, a much higher quality of -legal- expertise than one finds in a woodworking group. When _practicing_lawyers_ tell me I'm wrong on the matter, _I_ listen to what they say. You can choose to 'learn from the experience of others' -- or not. I really don't care.
With regard to a company-supplied 'work' phone (this is neither a complete nor comprehensive list) -- They can take away your phone completely, without notice. They can change your phone number, without warning. They can prevent you from calling any number(s) they choose. They can record what numbers you call, without telling you. They can track how long you spend on each call, without telling you. They can record incoming calls without telling you. They can record outgoing calls without telling you. They can listen to your voice-mail messages, without telling you. They can delete (selectively, or en masse) your voice-mail messages, without telling you. They can 'listen in', in real-time, to any of your calls, incoming or outgoing, without telling you. They can _use_ anything gained from 'listening in' or recording AGAINST YOU, in an internal administrative proceeding. They can release any recordings to a government or judicial agency on demand (including a subpoena from the opposite party in a civil lawsuit), or voluntarily to support a law-enforcement investigation.
With those disclaimers out of the way, for someone who records/monitors the call, disclosing the content of the call to anyone other than 'in the normal course of business operations', *is* forbidden. In other words, if you're monitoring/recording a call, and you have a reason, _related_to_the_work_ _you're_doing_, for telling someone else in the company about the content of the call, that is allowed; OTOH, if you gossip about it, to friends, in the cafeteria, THAT is a crime. If you're engaged in the normal duties of your job (say you're a telecom person, checking the line for proper functioning) and you happen to pick up on a conversation where something illegal is being plotted, it _is_ legal to notify management and/or appropriate law- enforcement)
On a phone 'designated for personal use', such as a lunchroom pay phone, The first three items still apply, as does the part of last paragraph in regard to someone who's work causes them to happen to listen in on a call.
If you had any real understanding of how the law works and what the fundamental terms mean, you wouldn't ask such a question. The answer to the question, AS ASKED, is 'No, contract law does *not* affect the employer's _rights_ in such matters. Not in any way, nor under any circumstances."
'Contract law' is concerned solely with the enforceability of private agreements between the contracting parties. And has absolutely nothing to do with property ownership rights.
A 'right' describes "what you _could_ do, if you wanted to, given that you have not agreed _not_ to do so."
A given contract _may_ inhibit the EXERCISE of certain rights under specified circumstances, but the 'rights' exist nonetheless. Proof: anyone not bound by that contract, -or- anyone so bound, but engaged in actions outside of the scope of said contract, remains free to exercise those rights.
At law, possession of a right does not necessarily mean that one has the freedom to exercise it in an unrestricted way.
In general, it takes an action of law (congress, the legislature, the courts, etc.) to modify a 'right'.
Contracts can include _agreement_ NOT TO EXERCISE a right one already possesses. but they remain a private agreement, and do not affect anybody other than the contracting parties.
Nope. Merely a number of years experience as _publisher_, and before that, as an editor. Who dealt with IP and copyright issues literally on a _daily_ basis. I expect that, over the years, there was at least half-a-million dollars of legal services involved, beyond the services of in-house counsel,
More recently, I've been doing network administration/management. With an emphasis on the security/privacy issues in 'sensitive' corporate environments. You worry about your mail being snooped -- consider what the financial value of being able to see messages in the trading room of a large brokerage firm is. Where _one_ desktop machine may be involved in $100 *million* dollars worth of transactions in a single day. Want to guess the value of -that- kind of intelligence to a competitor? That is an business where the question is not 'am I being paranoid?' but "am I being paranoid *ENOUGH*?" And when the answer comes up 'no', it costs *BIG* bucks.
In that environment, everybody _is_ told, *regularly*, that 'you have *NO* privacy here'. Of course, it's the norm for the entire industry, and nobody expects any different. They all understand that the continued existence of the company they work for rests on that lack of privacy. :)
Available evidence is to the contrary.
BZZZZZT! Game over. Thank you for playing.
The _legally_accurate_ answer to the question you asked, _as_asked_ is "none of the above".
Title, and thus ownership, rests with the government agency that operates the schools. It is a legal 'person' in and of itself.
That 'person' owns the property. and the assets in it.
That 'agency' is (indirectly) 'owned' by the taxpayers, true. But, legally, it is a separate and distinct 'legal person'.
The situation is no different than owning shares in a corporation. You, the shareholder (and part-owner) of the corporation do *not* have an ownership interest in any assets owned by the corporation "in it's own name."
You (individually), nor you (collectively) do -not- own the property owned by the school district.
In the computers trade, this is called GIGO -- "garbage in, garbage out". You started from a faulty premise, so it's no surprise you've arrived at a faulty conclusion.
Second, If you don't grasp the difference between what someone has the 'legal right' to do, and what they *choose* to do or not do, there's no point in bothering to discuss 'what the law allows'.
Tell me, while you're at it, why it is illegal for an owner of the public school to enter the school at night, and remove some of 'their' property from the piece of real-estate that they 'own'.
Why are the charges in such a case *exactly* the same as the ones that are filed if the person broke into _your_ dwelling, and took _your_ property?
Do you suppose, maybe, _just_maybe_, that it just might be that they DON'T really 'own' the property, etc. in the school?
Not cavalierly. I meant _exactly_ what I said.
An employer is under no legal requirement to provide _any_ resources for it's employees to use. Any resources that are provided are provided subject to any 'terms of use' that the employer may deem fit. The employee has two choices: (1) 'live with it', (2) seek employment elsewhere. An employer may _choose_ to commit, in a binding manner (e.g. contract), to certain practices, with regard to the use of certain resources, but they do *not* have to do so. (There _are_, in many cases, advantages =to=the= =employer= TO doing so, as well as advantages to the employee.)
The employer, from a legal standpoint, _has_ absolute control. They can 'shut down' the resources. they can eliminate the resources.
"Those who have the power to destroy a thing, control it absolutely."
If they've entered into contracts to the contrary they may have to wait for those contracts to expire, or re-negotiate them. Note well that by simply waiting for the currently-in-effect contracts to expire they *can* implement the 'shut-down'/'elimination' unilaterally, and without any further discussion.
*snicker*. "Usufruct" exists _only_ if one has been granted that right, in one way or another, by the property owner in the first place. If you lease a piece of land, usufruct entitles you to the 'fruits' of what you grow on it. If you trespass onto somebody else's property to plant things, there is no 'usufruct' right to the fruits of your labor. If you do attempt to 'harvest' your crops, you can be arrested for theft as well as trespassing. This *HAS* happened, in the case of certain 'contraband' crops.Concrete example: 'usufruct'ing an automobile, absent the permission of the owner thereof, _is_ a criminal offense in every jurisdiction in the United States. In a number of locales it is the crime of 'joyriding'; in others, it is not distinguished from 'grand theft auto'.
'Competing' property rights, in the case of absolute ownership (i.e., in 'fee simple') exist due to grants, or 'division', of the rights held, in _undivided_ _form_, by prior owners.
I do have some small knowledge of 'intellectual property rights', primarily copyright, having worked professionally as a reporter, editor, and magazine publisher; having been involved in three copyright infringement actions that went all the way to trial. (With, incidentally, a 100% record for being on the prevailing side)
Note: this gives me more experience with actual _litigation_ than a *lot* of practicing IP attorneys. All things considered, it's experience I'd prefer
*not* to be able to claim.My knowledge of trademark law is that of a 'well informed' layman. I used to to regular Internet sweeps for trademarks of my then employer, and would make initial calls to find out if they were 'aware' they were using a name trademarked by somebody else. The ones who got argumentative were forwarded to the external legal counsel for 'action'. In several years, there were a grand total of two disagreements between myself and the 'professionals' as to whether a use was infringing or not. both ones I'd classified as 'definitely borderline, but probably worth pursuing', and they classified as 'winnable, but not worth the cost/effort'. the 'business' aspect prevailed in both cases.
Patent law -- I've gone through the prelims of an actual patent filing personally. Twice. Both died rather quickly when 'prior art', that had never been commercialized, turned up.
Intellectual property rights give you the right to control the use of _your_ intellectual property. Period. See Title 17 USC, and Title 35 USC.
They do not give you _any_ rights to the USE of anyone else's property. intellectual or otherwise.
One would think that that is 'obvious', but apparently not.
IF your intellectual property is on, or transits over "somebody else's" resources, then the 'lowest common denominator' of "what they allow" and "what you allow" determines what can be done. If 'they' "don't allow" something that _you_ "want" to allow, well, that's just too bad. it doesn't happen.
What's to think about?
Quiz for _you_: What does your hypothetical scenario have to to with your intellectual property rights giving =you= some right to _USE_ someone else's facilities?
You hypotheticate 'some 3rd party' using the providers facilities to infringe your intellectual property rights -- a totally different issue from your original assertation.
Now, on to the answer to your 'strawman' argument --
Depending on the circumstances, *YES* they have right to ignore your complaint, and *NO* you do not have any legal recourse against them for how their facilities were used.
In detail: The DMCA statutes state that they must promptly _investigate_ a complaint received.
Upon such investigation, which starts with attempting to contact the party who produced the item that is on their network, and , If that party, for what you claim is the infringing materials, provides credible evidence (not necessarily 'proof') that they do have the legal right to do what they are doing, then the answer to the question, as asked, is:
"Yes, the network operator *is* free to ignore your complaint."
WITH impunity. And any further complaints about the same material from the same source can be treated the same way, without further investigation.
And, no, you do not have legal recourse against the network *operator* for what 'somebody else' does through their network. see 47 USC 230 (c) 1
*IF* they _fail_to_investigate_ a DMCA takedown notice, they have 'secondary liability', _after_ you prove in a court of law that the originator did, in fact, violate your copyright.On the other hand, if they do investigate, and decide that the matter 'is open to question', you, in fact, have _no_recourse_ against them in the matter. (*AFTER* the court upholds your lawsuit against the 'author' of the infringing copies, =then= they will take the 'proven to be infringing' material down, promptly.)
An -uncontested- 'takedown' notice is 'sufficient grounds' for removing the allegedly infringing materials. A *contested* one is not.
FAILING TO ACT on an uncontested takedown notice leaves one open to liability with respect to the putative copyright owner.
ACTING on a contested complaint leaves one open to liability from the other party.
The fact that your 'intellectual property rights' are involved does not give you any 'rights' (or even privileges) to *USE* any part of their network -- whether for tracking the perpetrator, or for any other purpose.
Wrong, again. Not unsurprisingly. What you 'know' is totally contrary to reality. Such 'assumptions', which I do -not- make, are immaterial, in- consequential, and irrelevant to the matter. 'Why' that is so has already been covered, I shouldn't need to repeat it here.
Your ignorance of the real world continues to show.
Government-agency owned property is not necessarily 'public', and _even_if_it_is_classified_"public"_, your rights are *extremely* limited.
Whether or not you are a citizen is similarly irrelevant. Just because you are a citizen (taxpayer) does _not_ give you a legal 'ownership interest' in property owned by the government.
If you don't agree, prove me wrong by usufructing "Air Force One" for your next vacation trip. Be sure to bring it back in 'undamaged' condition.
Try and stay in a City Hall office, past closing time.
So much for your 'rights' in property you 'own' as taxpayer.
Nope. just a statement of fact.
You have no 'rights' with regard to _anything_ on the Internet. Not even 'Freedom of Speech'.
Example: If your ISP doesn't like what you say on your web-site, they _can_ force you to 'take it down'; by the simple expedient of "If you don't, we'll terminate your account". And there's not a *damn*thing* you can do about it. If you don't do as they 'request', and they do terminate you, and you try to sue for damages on 1st Amend. grounds, you'll get laughed out of court, *if* you manage to make it that far.
The Bill of Rights, etc. constrain what the _government_ can do. Things that are forbidden to the government are *not* forbidden to private property owners in regard to their own private property.
All you have on the Internet: The services you contracted for, from anyone that you have _paid_ to provide such services. In general this extends no further than services your pro vier offers internally, and transit across your provider's network. The _privilege_ of having your packets (web requests, email, etc.) carried by intermediaries to whom you have *not* paid anything, 'as a courtesy'. The _privilege_ of of having 'remote' networks accept, process, and respond to your packets, 'as a courtesy'.
If the school blocks, limits, or in any other way 'restricts' your access to the external Internet, they are *not* impinging/infringing on your "rights". You don't have any. At most, they might be in violation of a contractual commitment.
If _anybody_else_ does it, well, "too bad". You aren't party to a contract with -those- people, it's only 'out of the goodness of their hearts' that they handle _any_ traffic for you at all. They do have the right to change their mind about doing so, at any time. For any reason. Or for _no_ reason.
'They' is 'whomever-it-is that owns the property.' 'Their' refers to the same entity.
This is one of the _fundamental_ precepts of *all* private property ownership. Change that and the entire concept of private property -- be it house, car, o Internet connection, get affected.
Since that 'realization' is contrary to legal *fact*, as debunked above, there is no connundrum(sic).
Yup. You just reinforced the applicability of the word.
You know, being ignorant isn't so bad. An ignorant person _can_ be educated. Stupidity, on the other hand, is incurable.
Bad news -- that 'attitude', in toto, is common to almost all of the network owners/operators in North America.
Wow JC, that's awfully clever. You sure did get me. But since you don't know the answers, why do you bother pretending you do?
H, happy to have this comic interlude
For one who doesn't care to engage in philosophy, you're free and easy with talking about things like the truth.
And Robert is simply wrong, legally.
If you should take all my posts in this thread out of the context of each sub-thread, as you have apparently done, and evaluate them, you would indeed find a wide range of tones or even personae, which you label inconsistency.
Would you have me believe that you talk to different people in different situations with the same tone and persona? I've never met such a person.
What I didn't like about Robert's message, which has nothing to do with you, were things like: name calling ("Ignoramus"), aggrandizement (pretending to be some big legal expert on the basis, apparently, of participation in a discussion group), and general insults ("you're spouting bullshit!). I had been civil, I had not deserved the first and third, so I dished some back. But again, that has nothing to do with you.
Me too. Why bother getting involved in this sub-thread?
Curiouser, H
Try what, exactly?
A slave from the TV series "Roots". The way you describe how you imagine my (or Joe Worker in America) legal status vis a vis an employer rings like slavery to me. I just don't subscribe to that vision of American citizenship. The reference was not meant to be rude.
I'm not sure how secret I can be on a public NG, but even granting that...you again take it out of context. I am assuming the possibility of a dishonest networker who feels free to snoop my stuff. In my personal moral code, if someone does me wrong male fide, then I am under no obligation to deal with them bona fide.
Well, it still sitting right there above. I'll cut/paste to make it easier: "If you are concerned that your applications for other jobs...". That wasn't you?
I am indeed grateful for the information I've gotten in this exchange. Thanks again, H
Are you accusing me? On what basis do you make such a statement?
Scold? Bah. Wasn't intended as such, and I doubt that he took it as such. Your response validates my concerns, however, that you're the type to take every possible thing the wrong way. You go out of your way to act put out upon, it seems. I've seen your type before.
pop-psych? WTF are you coming from? I cautioned someone that pointing someone like you to the BOFH library would give you the wrong ideas. Clearly, that's an accurate estimation.
I'm not shy about telling people when they're full of crap.
...like that.
You went from "Thanks for all the input, I'll play it safe until I can figure out how to do it in a way I can't be detected", right back to "you are wrong that it's their network and they set the rules". That's known as "inconsistent". Perhaps "waffling" might be more along your lines?
Rarely do you find one who contradicts themself from one post to the next. Apparently you don't see yourself doing this. Maybe you just aren't getting your points down well, but going from "Thanks, I'll not do it" to "yabut, I can" aren't two ideas that are particularly similar.
Pardon, but you _are_ spouting bullshit. Just because you don't like how he's telling you doesn't make it any less true. You obviously don't know much about IT, several people here do and tried to explain to you where you were wrong. Robert's extremely well written responses (which, in my opinion, are more time consuming than someone like you deserves) may not make you happy, but fact remains that he _does_ know what he's talking about and is eloquent enough to communicate effectively to anyone not intentionally misunderstanding what he writes (that would, apparently, be you).
So take it to email if you don't want others discussing it in a _discussion group_.
Because I'm not content to let your blatantly incorrect statements go unchallenged.
Employers have been doing it, in one form or another, since there -were- employers and employees. It's a de facto part of every job description from 'supervisor' up.
No argument, on -that-.
You've been told before, "No."
Repeating what was said above: There _have_ been court determinations. Expanding: Courts have ruled that employees have no right to privacy with regard to a work-supplied machine. Courts have rules that employees have no right to privacy with regard to a work-supplied Internet connection. It is a business resource, just like any other resource the business provides. "Their property, Their rules."
This is -not- 'new law', by any means. The first cases went to court simply to establish that the _existing_rules_ *did* apply to the 'new places'.
In a business environment, the company owns *everything*.
In an ISP environment, things _are_ a little different in practice, because there is an explicit contract, whereby the ISP grants certain privileges to the customer, and agrees *not* to exercise certain legal rights that they (the ISP), as the equipment owner, have. A funny thing happens, though, if the customer breaches _their_ contractual commitments. then the ISP -will- exercise some of the legal rights that they had contractually agreed not to employ.
Contracts are not about 'rights'. If there was a 'right' to a thing, you wouldn't need a contract to provide for your getting it.
If a thing is 'conditional' on "good behavior" (whatever that may be), then the thing is a 'privilege', not a 'right'.
Things granted by contract are 'privileges'; which you 'pay for', in one form or another. Fail to hold up your end of the bargain, and the 'privileges' go away.
As stated in another article, there are *no* 'rights' on the Internet. The entire Internet is "somebody else's" private property. You use any part of it _only_ at their sufferance. Which can be withdrawn at *any* time.
There is a consensus as to what courtesies are commonly extended, "out of the goodness of their heart", by local network operators to users originating outside the local network, but that is _all_ it is. There is -nothing- that legally requires any network operator to provide _any_ of those courtesies.
Several have been to appellate level, and *affirmed*, so they are now _binding_ on all lower courts in those circuits.
There's nothing new, different, or earth-shattering in the decisions. They have just affirmed that traditional property-rights of the owner of the property *do* apply in cyberspace.
But, go ahead, feel free to believe whatever you want. "Who knows? Maybe the horse will learn to sing hymns."
Really? So if in my contract it stipulates that the copyright to all my intellectual property remains mine and that it is to remain private from all company representatives, are you arguing that this grand "legal right" you speak of will trump my contract in a court if I sue the networker for snooping in my e-mail and blabbing to an administrator about its content, or for passing along a copyrighted document on my machine to a friend for fun reading?
Yea, it may come to that.
Your caveats are taken, however, Regards, H
You didn't make clear if you understood whether *I* am an administrator or not, so I'm not clear now whether you're using the general or the specific "you're", and my response might differ for each.
I'm also unsure about your ideas about hierarchies. I'm getting the impression that you subscribe only to a vertically linear hierarchy in your comments. This is not the military we're talking about here (nor is that vertically linear anyway). A school principle, say, may look at a networker in one scenario as subordinate in value (I note your comment below) to a certain teacher, and the opposite in another scenario.
In no school where I've worked have I seen a teacher as the superior of a networker, nor have I seen a networker the superior of a teacher. Entirely different and unrelated tasks make them poor candidates for governing one another I suppose.
But this all seems obvious. Perhaps I'm missing your point. Could you elucidate?
What does "chain of command" have to do with teachers compared to networkers?
Value, as I imagnie it, is simply the determining factor in an administrator's mind that decides who stays and who goes. Clear?
No, both are subordinate to administrators, but seldom are they equals. Their value depends on many factors: the administrator's needs, prejudices, the abilities of the networker/teacher, etc.
I'll try, but you have not yourself addressed who owns the network of a school or public organization, so your response is a bit disingenuous.
If someone accuses me of misuse and fires me, but is dishonest in establishing standards of use, then there's a good chance he will be the one who ends up getting fired. That's how public law works. Private companies have more leeway to be Orwellian.
See, here I feel like you are "telling it like it is." Elsewhere you paint a distinctly rosier scene about networkers. It's the "like it is" part that has me concerned. I appreciate your candor, when it comes to the fore.
Nor are your responses consisten with Nick's. So why should my differing responses be a surprise?
Read your last two responses. They don't add up. If you're cynical (BTW, that is Fed 10 and Duc de LR to a "T"), then you must find it hard to believe, as I do, that most networkers can resist checking out so-and-so's activities.
It's just human curiosity. I don't fault networkers for trying it either, I doubt I could resist. It's like giving a teenage boy some mythical sunglasses that will allow him to see under the girls' clothing, then telling him not to look. It's just happenstance that at this point in history our technology has exceeded our ability to enforce our ideals (of privacy). Networkers have a tremendous amount of ability to snoop. Sure, some have been caught, but how easy is that (to catch a networker snooping)? No doubt you can do it with enough money to hire the expert (and who's going to watch *him*?), but is it reasonable to expect of a school?
The scenario you describe is perfectly reasonable, and I sympathize with the difficulties a networker faces such as these. But you yourself admit the potentiality of BigBrother networker abusing his position: "[not] the sort of things that by themselves are likely to be a problem, but if someone [networker] gets an attitude and wants to "find something" on you, it gives 'em an easy target."
I applaud you if you are everything you say a networker does and doesn't do. I'm apparently more cynical than you about your peers.
It relates not to me as user but to you as networker--you are the cop. Yet it seems that you can invade what I consider private without a warrant, usually without anyone even being able to detect what you've done: twice the entry power of the cop and none of the constraint.
It concerns me. And this thread leads me to admire Orwell and Jefferson more and more.
Your point is taken. The counterpoint is that you can't really avoid the philosophical side, try though you may.
My only response is quite simple: I just don't believe this.
My understanding of the law is that I have some defenses against what you envision as a right of employers.
But, to cut to the chase, this whole thread has convinced me of your essential point ("the way things are"), that it's really not in my best interests to try to outsneak my networker. I'm pretty good at what I do. I'm not really interested in trying to become better at what he does.
H, banished to his home cable connection.
Yes, *really*.
Are you _deliberately_ playing the idiot, or does it just come naturally?
Just for starters, _you_ do *NOT* own the copyright on any incoming email sent to you. *ALL* the 'intellectual property' rights in that message belong to the author of the message, not to the recipient. So, "No, _you_ =cannot= sue, under the language of your contract as quoted above, for the 'networker' snooping in your incoming mail, and blabbing to an administrator about it's content". You don't have the 'standing' to sue because it is not _your_ intellectual property involved.
Similarly, "No, _you_ cannot sue if the guy passes along a copyrighted document copied from your machine, that was authored by _someone_else_."
Next, I recommend that you *LEARN*TO*READ*PLAIN*ENGLISH*.
You keep dragging up examples of _other_people_ doing things. Not _your_ use of 'the company/school' resources.
Your IP rights do not give *YOU* any 'rights' to the _use_ of =their= network resources.
Read the above statement again. Note carefully that it does *NOT* say
*anything* about what 'somebody else' can or cannot do.The network owner can _choose_ to allow, or prohibit, any activities by any person as it sees fit. The network operator is *NOT* liable if the activity that person engages in runs afoul of _some_other_ prohibition.
You have -nothing- for 'rights' that will trump (in your words) their decision to prohibit _you_ from doing something that they don't want you to do.
You have *NO*RECOURSE* against the network owner/operator if some other party engages in an activity that the network owner/operator allows them to do.
Depending on what that activity was, you _may_ have a cause for action against that 'some other party'.
This would be a more accurate analogy if you were storing your personal information down at the police station.
You considering it private doesn't make it private. An exhaustive search of all cases that I could find in the 30 seconds I looked brought up the following from eff.org, which is a summary of US v. Councilman, released on June 29, 2004.
'The First Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a grave blow to the privacy of Internet communications with its decision today in the case of U.S. v. Councilman. The court held that it was not a violation of criminal wiretap laws for the provider of an email service to monitor the content of users' incoming messages without their consent. The defendant in the case is a seller of rare and used books who offered email service to customers. The defendant had configured the mail processing software so that all incoming email sent from Amazon.com, the defendant's competitor, was copied and sent to the defendant's mailbox as well as to the intended recipient's. As the court itself admitted, "it may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances." '
todd
Mr Sweany is a "visiting assistant professor", at University of the South, in Tennessee. One of a total of 4 faculty positions in the 'classical languages' department.
'Assistant professor' ranks above 'instructor', but below 'professor', or 'senior professor'.
'visiting' positions are usually of fixed duration, frequently 'non-renewable', and _not_ eligible for consideration for tenure.
He's in an educational institution
'administrative staff' and 'faculty' are two _entirely_ separate lines of authority. with totally different structures.
The interactions between them are 'unclear', at best.
A faculty member in a department is responsible to the department 'chair'. the department chair is responsible to the 'dean' of the school. the deans 'nominally' report to the president, chancellor, or some similar title.
'Staff' _in_a_department_ ("academic" staff) are responsible to the department chair, and _at_the_chairperson's_direction_, will take direction from other faculty. in that department. Get 'wrong' with the department chair, and it is _amazing_ how 'unhelpful' the department staff can be. On rare occasions, an individual faculty member may have academic staff assigned directly to them. The typical situation is when said faculty member has landed a grant with enough funding in it to pay for that staff person, full-time.
There are _other_ staff areas ("administrative" staff) that are not directly responsible to an academic department. e.g., admissions, the burser's office, 'physical plant'/maintenance, 'computer services', etc.
These people report up an entirely _separate_ 'chain of command', to people like the 'vice president of operations', 'vice of development', 'vice president of university relations', etc.
The vice-presidents also report to the president/chancellor/whatever.
And, of course, the ultimate authority is the 'board of directors'.
Now to complicate the 'chain of command' concept -- and done expressly for promoting 'academic freedom' from the dictates of 'management', there is this concept of 'tenure'. Once you 'get' tenure, you have a job at that institution 'for life'. You _cannot_ be fired.
This results in the 'business' side of the institution regarding "managing" the 'academic' side as not too far astray from 'herding cats'.
The overall arrangement is *NOT* a bad set-up, but it _does_ make for significant (and occasionally *more* than just 'significant', _much_ more!) friction between the two groups.
More than you really wanted to know on the subject, I'm sure.
ARGHHH! d*mn spell checker. that should read "Mr. Seavey"
Actually, I wanted to know what "Hylourgos" thought about the matter. Wasn't expecting somebody to "help" him.
You're the one saying they are both recent and invalid, the onus is on you to back that up. It's quite possible that you've made it this far while being completely oblivious to your surroundings, surprising as that is. Are you also going to ask us to research for you why the sky is blue, why water is wet, and why other truths are true?
I'm not the one claiming that my employer's network is free for my own personal exploitation, you are.
I asked several times what your employment agreement says in the way of an acceptable use policy, and you never responded to that aspect of my posts.
There is no legal problem, there is reality and there is you, at odds with it.
Oh, FFS, you know _exactly_ what I'm saying, but you're pretending not to again. You are equating your employer with a slave owner, and yourself with a slave. Not even close to reality, and you know it. Bringing it up as you have chosen to do, serves to add nothing but a reactionary emotionalism to your posts, race-based even.
I don't give a rat's ass if you trust me or not. I've said several times that if you start calling attention to yourself on my network by doing things that are going to affect the systems I'm responsible for, I'm very likely to investigate it and stop you in whatever way is effective to get you to knock it off.
By the way, it's not unusual for potential employers to google for an applicant's history.
I don't care if you're buying it, I'm telling it how it is. If you choose not to listen to it, it's _your problem_. But don't tell people who know more about a topic they're wrong, when you haven't got a clue about how things work.
Yes, we do. It's still their network, their IP address, their bandwidth. Do you not understand what those things are, or how they are not yours to do with what you like? Do you also make long-distance phone calls on their phone lines, but justify it by saying "Well, the handset is my own personal one that I brought in from home, so it's perfectly OK"?
Intruding in? You're posting this in a _discussion group_, and balking that people are _discussing it_ with you? Perhaps legal and technical areas aren't the only places where you are clueless.
OK, and here comes your "but, that's now how it is". Let's read on together and see the weaseling, shall we?
Because you seem not to see how it applies directly to your situation.
See above.
There is more than one person reading this "subthread" as you've reminded me twice just now. You're addressing a group, are you not? If not, again, why aren't you writing emails? Again, you are intentionally twisting others' words so you can take them the worst possible way, so you can feel put out upon. Get over it, you're not that important.
Resorting to personal attack in absence of valid point noted.
You get unsolicited job offers by email. (they must be unsolicited, because you just said, a few lines up, "I have no applications out." A job offer. Job offers. "Hi, we want to pay you $xx,xxx.00 per year for a job, please sign here and when can you start" job offer.
I doubt it.
So it's not a job offer, it's an email from a headhunter or prospective employer to see if you're interested in an interview process which would lead to a _job offer_. There is no headhunter or employer in the world (who would be worth working for or worth representing you) that can't wait until you get home to check your email.
So read them at home, or read them at work and take your chances. Very simple.
See above regarding personal attacks revealing your argument's inherent flaws.
SO DON'T READ IT AT WORK!
It's clear, alright.
It was in the entire message you left after your semi-top-posted reply. Right below where I wrote that, before I trimmed it. Down-arrow. Use it.
Riiiiiiiight, so now you're going to go into "it's the taxpayer's network and I'm a taxpayer, so blah blah" rant I bet. Nice try.
You're exactly the sort of person who is going to piss off the wrong person at some point, and call attention to yourself so they _will_ find an excuse to tell the network admins to snoop on you. I bet you're a feaking _blast_ to work with (note heavy sarcsm).
I have not contradicted myself in any way. If I'm ordered to snoop your port by my boss, I'll do it, and I'll do it well. I'm not gonna do it on my own, because my job is more important than your petty little headhunter-sent email exchanges.
My message is consistant throughout, it's your perception that is tainted.
Because I am not Nick, but you are you, and you change from time to time.
Absence of response, and significance of same, noted.
They most certainly do.
I don't care.
You overestimate how interesting you are. Really, you do. I've got
1000 users on my network at any given time. Not only don't I care, but I _aggressively_ don't care what the hell they're using email for, as long as it doesn't make my pager go off. But, if they're spewing out virus- infested email, _then_ I'm gonna find out why. Likewise, I don't care what they're using their browser to go see, _until_ they do something that causes my pager to go off or a manager to ask my manager to find out why they aren't getting any work done or whatever.You users just aren't that interesting, and you need to get over yourself. Nobody cares about your job offers, unless they want to for some other reason.
That's why you're not a network admin. People like you are better teaching poli-sci or whatever the hell you teach, because you're not the right kind of person for IT (to put it mildly). It's clear you can't be trusted, as your entire rant here points out.
You are projecting your own personal failings and weaknesses onto others. I find that quite telling.
News flash: exactly the same way I'd catch you bypassing my filters by using a rogue proxy server.
Trivial, second year of experience network or sysadmin stuff.
That would be a network admin doing it because he's ordered to do it, you keep missing that point.
You don't know my peers. We don't care about your traffic, you're just more load on our network.
Ah, there's that "I don't care that it's their stuff, I'm calling it mine anyway" attitude.
That's your choice. Your email isn't worth me getting fired for reading it, altruism aside, how can that not be blisteringly obviously true?
Why don't you go make yourself a test case then, sparky, and tell us how it goes (from your next employer's internet connection...)
Ya think?
Good. Because that's clearly not gonna happen.
Gosh, poor you, having to do your non-work network stuff on your own network.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.