The Monday 2004-02-16 at 11:16 +0100, Örn Hansen wrote:

I wouldn't be so naive as to think no one answered, because of their inherent european nobility.

Do you really think that, nationalities an ethics aside, employees writing here would be happy to post a way to allow their employers spying on them? That would be throwing stones to our own roof. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

The Monday 2004-02-16 at 17:11 +0100, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:

<rant>

Please do remember when you talk about privacy what is legitimate or not "the way tou see the world depends where youy are standing". So It may be legitimate for the OP to have this type of monitoring where as where others are looking from that could be illegal againts employee rights etc etc.

Yes; I think that is the case here - or at least, I understood he said so.

I just do not understand the attitude when people jump in and say it is illegal, unless there is a constitution for the world, that is crap.

I think I said something like "would be illegal in many countries". I try to be precise.

If you just want to not give an answer just ignore the question is that so difficult

Sometimes, yes O:-)

</rant>

-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson

måndag 16 februari 2004 14:21 skrev Carlos E. R.:

Do you really think that, nationalities an ethics aside, employees writing here would be happy to post a way to allow their employers spying on them? That would be throwing stones to our own roof.

Well, putting it that way ... don't you think it's a rather "moot" to put it into the law, that the employee has to agree to it? would he, normally? I was just pointing out the fact, that I'm skeptic about our "noble" nature being the cause of our silence. That implies to me as well as anyone else.

måndag 16 februari 2004 21:58 skrev Carlos E. R.:

Depends on how hungry he is :-p

Exactly, that's also how I see it potentially ... an employer says "these are the conditions of your hiring", and the hungry employee has no choice, not really.

As a matter of fact, that is the case. For example... here (Spain) phone banking operations are usually not only monitored, but recorded - and the operator has to tell the client that the conversation is being recorded, for both sides safety. On other client centers I'm told that supervisors often listen to ongoing conversations at random. And many other measures of the sort. On some countries (USA?) the login information tells straight away that your keyboard operations can be monitored; even people entering the site illegally must be told, because it seems that if this is not done, the information gathered against the intruder can not be used in court.

It's necessary to inform the perpetrator, as if he's not informed it's not established weather he had any intent of a break-in, or violating information integrity. The statement "he's using the computer!" is not enough, computers don't hold any information of sensitive material, normally, and shold be categorized as "tools". And it's on the shoulders of the employer/owner to provide mechanisms to enforce the integrity and confidentiality of that information. Integrity and confidentiality of information, is not inherent in information systems. Of course, we all have seen movies where there's this huge sign "Tresspassers will be shot", and it's at a gate to a totally worthless wasteland ... or "do not step on the grass" before a grass without a fence between it and the sidewalk. Such totally groundless examples, are possible, unless some rules and guidelines are enforced. Unfortunately, this is not "understood" by our European parlamentarians. As can be seen in two European countries, concerning the word Windows vs. Lindows. The word Windows is not a "legal" registered trademark, as it's a public word, but the understanding of these issues is not inherent in being the peoples representative, and the corporations always seek monopoly. Factors, that need careful considerations and preparations. And without the representation of the "people's" interest, the trend will always be towards a monopoly for the biggest corporation or nation, depending on the scale of treaty/law.

Both ways, you see.

Luckily, yes ...

tisdag 17 februari 2004 02:55 skrev Mike Grello:

There might be valid reasons to agree to monitoring (having a record for your own protection; or in the case of a truck, in case you got lost). Also, an employer could prove to those outside his organization that something did not happen.

There are always supposedly legitimate reasons. But don't you think it should be "I", the trucker, who should be requesting the protection? Would you want the government to put surveillance equipment in your house, for protecting you ... after all, you never know when a bad guy comes. The normal answer is no. There are always exceptions, of course and those exceptions can request it.

Further, the agreement could be implicit (i.e. this system belongs to xyz company, and it is monitored and we will nail your a$$ if you do anything wrong in the motd).

When I was at my Uni, I was approached once by one of the professors who was in charge of the systems. He told me the following: "We've taken out the ability to change the keyboard settings" (This was on Sun Workstations) "because whenever you setup your Icelandic keyboards, the next user has a problem logging in as the keyboard settings aren't reset at logout". I took a close look at the guy with disgust, stood up and entered the Indy sections. Altered a keyboard settings file, to represent my keyboard and ignored the twit, the Indy did the "resetting at logout by default". His failure in setting up the systems properly, is not my concern. The computers are a tool, a tool for accomplishing my work ... the work of system integrity is certainly his, but if he can't do that without limiting my ability to utilize these tools... that's because of his incompetence. A University utilizing such incompetence as a professor, or a corporation employing such incompetence as part of their professional work is not something I want to be a part off ... I'm never that hungry, luckily.