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.