gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (04/15/86)
In article <132@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: > How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your > rights to open other people's mail? In article <4697@ut-sally.UUCP>, nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: > In my opinion the system administrator does not *own* the system, any more than > an appointed or elected official owns the system he/she administers, but power > corrupts and a system administrator has a lot of power. I assume in time we > will evolve a code of ethics for this new situation, and I hope it will follow > the pattern of our past: "Thou shalt not read other people's E-mail, either." I posted something earlier that said basically "if you ask me to relay mail at my expense, don't expect privacy". I got three or four responses, none of which understood my position. Let me try again. If you send mail through other peoples' machines, *don't expect* it to be private. For example, if you are Sun Microsystems, don't send your conversations with Motorola through AMD. If you are DEC, don't send your marketing plans for new machines through AT&T. If you are a movie star, don't send your innermost secrets through the National Enquirer. Etc. There *is* a difference between abusing your root privilege and reading mail in transit. When I had root privileges at Sun, I didn't use them to read other peoples' mail; they were fellow employees and presumed to be trustworthy, as I was presumed to be trustworthy. On the other hand, not everyone on the uucp net is trustworthy, and checking at least who is sending to who through my system has sometimes saved me *and them* some hassles, expenses, etc. Furthermore, if I am in business and my competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine, at my expense, why should I ignore this? I don't ignore their other mistakes that give me information or market share... (I can see the scramble as companies implement mail-checkers to look for info in their uucp traffic. Maybe that's why AT&T is sponsoring ihnp4...) I could try to make a case that innocently reading mail in transit is like amateur computer hacking: it keeps people honest so they don't get burned by *serious* spying, hacking, etc. But I won't; I don't need to. If you want to be absolutely *sure* I won't read your email, don't send it through hoptoad. (PS: Besides being sysadmin, I *do* own hoptoad. I don't see that it changes things much one way or the other, though, since a sysadmin's job is to watch over usage of the machine, including usage by third parties via uucp.) PS: Mail policy at Sun was twofold: (1) Anyone caught snooping through anyone else's personal mail would be fired. (2) Don't send very private stuff through email because it fails, gets misrouted, bounced, etc and could be disclosed even without anyone's malicious intent. I think it's a good policy. -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa Post no bills.
kathy@gsg.UUCP (Kathryn Smith) (04/16/86)
With respect to the original posting, I suspect the systems where the SA has time to randomly read the mail going through are VERY few and far between. Our systems here at GSG are small compared to most of the sites on the net, and I certainly don't have that kind of time. The only reason I would look at mail going through the system is if our mailer is having fits, or I have reason to think someone is trying to break in here/elsewhere with it. Otherwise, it is not my business. On a more general level, however, I think if you went around to most companies and talked to the accounting/administrative people who don't really know how UNIX works, they would be shocked to discover that someone with the root password could look at all their files trivially. They just don't realize that anything you put in a computer is fundamentally insecure with respect to a core group of people. Finally, if you want to be really sure that no one else is reading your mail, there are lots of encryption and decryption programs out there. True, very few, if any, of them are fool proof, but how many of you really think someone wants to read your mail badly enough to bother breaking an encryption program to do so? This will cure 99.9% of the 'Peeping Toms'. Personally, I could wish more SA's paid attention to the mail that goes through their system. I spent about two months last year trying to find out why a previously working mail path between here and mit-eddie stopped working. I must have sent out more than thirty mail messages trying different paths, most of which neither got through to their destination, nor came back as undeliverable. They must have gone somewhere, but apparently none of the SA's involved either noticed, or cared enough to help me solve the problem by answering the pleas in the messages to tell me where it was going, if it wasn't reaching MIT. I think an SA who pays some attention to what goes through his/her system is a great improvement over this situation. Kathryn Smith General Systems Group Salem, NH (...decvax!gsg!kathy)
dave@ur-helheim.UUCP (04/16/86)
In article <692@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >In article <132@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: >> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your >> rights to open other people's mail? > >In article <4697@ut-sally.UUCP>, nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >> the pattern of our past: "Thou shalt not read other people's E-mail, either." > etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc > >I think it's a good policy. >-- >John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa > Post no bills. I guess the solution is for mail partners to pass a crypt key in USmail that will be used for all further "secure" purposes. My bet is your sites don't want to know about others private mail enough to tackle a random crypt key ecryption/decryption. Personally, I find reading other persons mail for whatever personal or corporate gain you envision repugnant. Your arguments of your legal responsibility for thru transit are specious and often repeated on this forum (stargate related). I refuse to believe culpability for thru- traffic can be held to the site adm. If the service you provide as a thru- site is totally blind -- as in the case of the phone company -- you are less likely to be held liable. (Perhaps negligent though, eh??!!) The case cited here is illegal activity involving interstate transmission of telegraphs. But telegraphs are not phones and are not guaranteed private or secure. blind service. -- "The Faster I Go the Behinder I Get" --Lewis Carroll Dave Carlson {allegra,seismo,decvax}!rochester!ur-valhalla!dave
gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) (04/17/86)
The biggest problem that confronts someone trying to spy on others is the sheer volume of material that must be perused. If a sysadmin (or superuser) has a vendetta against one person, they can make that person's life unbearable. Otherwise, to find really good, incriminating stuff on a network of large computers is like searching for a needle in a haystack. -andy
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/17/86)
From John Gilmore (hoptoad!gnu): >I posted something earlier that said basically "if you ask me to relay mail >at my expense, don't expect privacy". I got three or four responses, >none of which understood my position. Let me try again. > > If you send mail through other peoples' machines, *don't expect* it to be > private. No argument. I see a lot of difference between this statement, though, and the earlier article. There's a world of difference between a simple *caveat emptor*, and saying "if you're that dumb, I have a right to exploit it." More below. > Furthermore, if I am in business and my >competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine, >at my expense, why should I ignore this? Sense of fair play? Or is that obsolete? Here's an example for you: it's well known that con men depend on the greed and stupidity of their victims, and some of them are quite vociferous in defending their own morality on that basis. What's your opinion? I once had a burglar who'd ripped off my apartment the previous day call me in the middle of the night to inform me it was my fault I was hit. He told me that the lock on my door was a joke (probably true), and I had no right to expect anything else. What's your opinion? I know these aren't perfect analogies; con games and burglaries are illegal, reading others' email is not. But it's not a legal point I'm trying to make, it's one of ethics and simple good taste. Even as a matter of law, though, I would suggest that you not mention it publicly if you gain some benefit from reading competitors' email. Computer privacy law is mostly untested, and you can never be sure what precedents some judge might decide were relevant if you were taken to court. Perhaps a lawyer could comment on this point. >I could try to make a case that innocently reading mail in transit is like >amateur computer hacking: it keeps people honest so they don't get burned >by *serious* spying, hacking, etc. But I won't; I don't need to. If >you want to be absolutely *sure* I won't read your email, don't send it >through hoptoad. I won't. But wouldn't it be simpler, since you seem to be a small site, to just be a leaf node? As you yourself point out, forwarding mail that's neither from nor to your site gains you nothing but phone bills. I may be wrong, but I'd be surprised if your feeds would demand more of you when your resources are limited. I also can't see what service you provide the rest of us by forwarding mail if you're going to pick and choose what mail is worthy to forward. Why bother? My statement that I won't send mail through hoptoad is not temper, it's practicality. I get no benefit from having my mail swallowed up without trace, and I have no desire to burden a minor node with my mail if they can't afford to forward it. >PS: Mail policy at Sun was twofold: > >(1) Anyone caught snooping through anyone else's personal mail would be fired. >(2) Don't send very private stuff through email because it fails, gets >misrouted, bounced, etc and could be disclosed even without anyone's >malicious intent. > >I think it's a good policy. Me, too. But, how does this square with your stated willingness to check out the mail of any competitor dumb enough to route sensitive information through your site? I know there can be an honest difference of opinion about what the proper tradeoffs are between system costs/security, and the cooperation and courtesy we have a right to expect from any site that voluntarily participates in the net. But I honestly can't think of a worse way to handle this problem than what you appear to be suggesting: that every site, really every SA, decide on a case-by-case basis what they will forward, and what they won't. As a responsible SA, I hope you will seriously consider what the likely end result would be if every site took an "I'll think about it" policy to the forwarding of mail. And as for privacy, you said it yourself: no one can keep you from reading others' mail; the corollary is that no one can *make* you read it, either. If you seriously assert the right to take advantage of someone else's carelessness by reading private mail in pursuit of business success, I hope you're prepared to accept that others will judge you *personally* for it. "Everybody does it" cuts no ice with me, and has the nasty ability to become a self-fulfilling prophecy when it's asserted publicly. If I am still misinterpreting your position, my apologies. Your article doesn't state you'd ever refuse to pass on anyone's mail, but it's certainly implied that one of your reasons for watching mail through your site is to decide if you want to let it pass. Further clarification will be welcome if this is not the case. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
tim@ism780c.UUCP (04/23/86)
In article <1480@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >> >> Furthermore, if I am in business and my >>competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine, >>at my expense, why should I ignore this? > > Sense of fair play? Or is that obsolete? Here's an >example for you: it's well known that con men depend on the greed >and stupidity of their victims, and some of them are quite >vociferous in defending their own morality on that basis. What's >your opinion? I don't think the con men analogy is correct. It would be correct if I called up a machine at my competitors, noticed that they had no root password, logged in as root, and read secret files. They _are_ being stupid for doing this, but I would not feel right about reading their stuff. But the E-mail case is different. They are the ones putting their stuff on my machine. It seems to me that they are the ones taking advantage of me! They are using my machine to compete with me. If they are dumb enough not to encrypt their data, then I see nothing wrong with reading it. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim
bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (04/24/86)
In article <692@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.UUCP writes: >In article <132@fai.UUCP>, ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) writes: >> How do the rest of you system administrators feel? Is it within your >> rights to open other people's mail? > > >I posted something earlier that said basically "if you ask me to relay mail >at my expense, don't expect privacy". I got three or four responses, >none of which understood my position. Let me try again. > > If you send mail through other peoples' machines, *don't expect* it to be > private. I understood your position perfectly. Of course you can't *expect* it to be private, at least not with assholes like you around. Your position is basically that you can behave unethically because you own the machine. Yes, you physically *can* behave unethically, but that doesn't make it right. What you're saying is analogous to: "The US Government has a right (even a duty by your standards) to open mail and read it because it's passing through their facilities." In fact the US postal service does not have that right, and neither do you. The only reason it's not illegal now (and it may very well be... I just don't know if a test case has come up yet) is that the technology and widespread use is too new to be covered by existing law. When the law catches up, you can bet your ass that what you're doing will be illegal. At the present it is at the very least unethical and you are a jerk for doing it. > >For example, if you are Sun Microsystems, don't send your conversations >with Motorola through AMD. If you are DEC, don't send your marketing plans >for new machines through AT&T. If you are a movie star, don't send your >innermost secrets through the National Enquirer. Etc. Only because there are assholes like you around who will behave unethically. > >some hassles, expenses, etc. Furthermore, if I am in business and my >competition is dumb enough to pass sensitive data through my machine, >at my expense, why should I ignore this? I don't ignore their other What you're saying is that if an action profits you, even if damaging someone else, that it's okay for you to do it. BS!!! > >I could try to make a case that innocently reading mail in transit is like >amateur computer hacking: it keeps people honest so they don't get burned >by *serious* spying, hacking, etc. But I won't; I don't need to. If Amateur computer cracking (I think this is what you mean by your misuseof the term "hacking") is wrong, too. You say that at Sun the policy was: >(1) Anyone caught snooping through anyone else's personal mail would be fired. Why do you think that was? BECAUSE IT IS UNETHICAL!!!! >I think it's a good policy. Then use it and fire yourself, you jerk! >-- >John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa > Post no bills. It seems you have the Nixon syndrome (the other day he said that the only thing he learned from Watergate was: "Destroy all the tapes"). GET SOME ETHICS!!!!!!!!!!! --MKR "There's nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -"Dirty" Harry Callahan
barmar@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Barry Margolin) (04/25/86)
In article <1974@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >But the E-mail case is different. They are the ones putting their >stuff on my machine. It seems to me that they are the ones taking >advantage of me! They are using my machine to compete with me. If >they are dumb enough not to encrypt their data, then I see nothing >wrong with reading it. By that reasoning, it would be OK for a mail order company to use the credit card number I conveniently provided them in order to make purchases from my account. Whether or not it is wise of me to make such purchases using a credit card rather than a check, the fact remains that it is wrong of them to take advantage of it. If you advertise your willingness to pass on mail, I think it would not be unreasonable of me to expect you to act in good faith. However, I agree with the opinion that it would be stupid to make such an assumption if you were a competitor of mine. Corporate spying may sometimes be unethical, but it takes place nonetheless. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
mwm@ucbopal.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (04/26/86)
In article <736@mmm.UUCP> bngofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: >Yes, you physically *can* behave unethically, but that doesn't make it >right. What you're saying is analogous to: "The US Government has a right >(even a duty by your standards) to open mail and read it because it's >passing through their facilities." In fact the US postal service does not >have that right, and neither do you. Uh, might I point out one minor difference between the US postal service and John Gilmores sun? The Post Offal is paid for by money taken from the public, and is a government organization. John Gilmores Sun, on the other hand, is paid for out of John Gilmores pocket, and belongs to him. The analogy is bogus. For example, the Post Awful HAS to deliver all mail, as long as the aren't breaking federal laws in the process. John doesn't have to - he could silently quit forwarding mail from off-site, or just mail from obnoxious name-calling nitwits. Likewise, the PO makes a habit of keeping copies of all e-mail that goes through their system (they may have changed that by now - I hope so). I doubt that any mail system not funded by the infinite pockets of the US taxpayer could afford to do that. I also suspect that you (among others) would scream bloody murder if some mail admin claimed to be doing that. >The only reason it's not illegal now (and it may very well be... I just >don't know if a test case has come up yet) is that the technology and >widespread use is too new to be covered by existing law. Great - you don't like the way somebody runs their system, so you get the government to threaten to jail the mail admin. Of course, at the same time, people are working on making it illegal *NOT* to read the mail going through your system, by holding you liable if the law is broken with mail passed over your system (yeah, I know it's a silly idea - but the stupidity of the US govt is never to be underestimated. The post offal, being a government organization, would be exempt from that law, of course). Of course, this may all be moot - the post office has publicly stated that e-mail is *MAIL*, and belongs to the post office by law. Any other agents delivering mail should be shut down. Therefore, there won't be any problem with mail admins reading forwarded mail - nobody but the PO will be forwarding mail (and keeping a copy, probably). Yes, reading other peoples mail is unethical. But if I were in Johns shoes, and found my phone bill doubling, I'd start collecting stats (by looking in my uucp logs, *NOT* at the mail) about where the mail is going to. If it turns out that the bulk of it was going to one person, I'd probably open it to find out what the devil they were up to, as the alternative of refusing to forward mail to that person is even worse. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about the phone bill or bounced mail, so I never look at other peoples mail. By the same token of course, I don't go wading around in other peoples files, even though I could. It's still private material, and reading it is unethical. How many other system admins do the same? Anyone want to make looking at files on a system illegal, along with mail? <mike
jj@alice.UUCP (05/03/86)
Several points: 1) net.news.adm is NOT the proper place to call John Gilmore an asshole. You may feel that way, but net.news.adm is NOT the place to say so. In fact, netnews of any sort isn't the place to say so. Netnews isn't the place to suggest anything of the sort, like sending someone lots of nasty mail, either. <John? You there?, That still annoys me when I think about it, that being the first attempt on the still fledgling nutnoise to censor someone and all.> 2) All of the flamage about "reading others' mail" is silly. UUCP links are NOT, repeat *N*O*T*, repeat *B*L*O*O*D*Y* *W*E*L*L* *N*O*T* private links put up for Unix (Tm AT&T) mail users. UUCP links are put up and supported strictly for whatever the machine's owners want them supported for. No more, no less. If they tell you that they will examine mail, or put quotas on mail, or whatever they say, you are BOUND to accept it, because they OWN the machine, they PAY for the machine, they have made NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION whatsoever to deliver or maintain the security of mail <except in the case of the few public systems that have specifically agreed to such, and to whom you PAY MONEY for the SERVICE that is not FREE>, and they have no reason to accept you as a freeloader. None! Certainly computer mail is generally considered "sacred", but that's only, simply, and strictly a matter of policy of the machine's owner and operator, who can set any standard they like. If you, the freeloader, don't like it, freeload somewhere else. Naturally, if you're paying, then you can expect whatever contractual obligations you have negotiated and paid for to be honored, on those machines/owners who made the contractual obligations, and no others. I don't own, operate, or adminiister any machines, so don't bother sending my your harrassing, ill-considered, poorly thought out, and pseudo-morally based garbage. Stop calling people "assholes" on this public service while you're at it. Stop using administration groups for garbage postings, try using the "junk" nesgroup if you MUST try to waste our time and money. -- TEDDY BEARS UNITE! HUG A SHY PERSON TODAY! "I wish I was home again, back home in my heart again, ..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj