eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) (05/22/91)
Are sysadmins or departments or universities responsible for "harrassing mail"? I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my business to tell people what they could write in their mail messages. This particular situation seemed to be two people arguing with one another, one using ruder language than the other. The post office doesn't check what kind of mail they get in the mail boxes. They only investigate in cases of mail fraud as far as I know. What is supposed to be the situation on computer networks? Do we shut down "alt.flame"? ++Eric Fielding eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May21.232534.17880@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu writes: > > I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from >someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our >system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my Don't bother to try creating a principle to cover the general case. Just do the following: (a) Send a message to the person complained about, indicating that a complaint has been received. Remind him/her of general responsibilities of users. Do so in a friendly but firm tone. (b) Send the complainer a message indicating that you have sent such a note. But remind the complainer that you do not read private email messages, so there is no action you can take unless the abuser's behavior is such as to cause problems which are publically visible. Suggest that the two users settle their own problems. Use a friendly but firm tone. (c) Consider whether your wording was sufficiently non-accusatory that you can send each carbon copies of the messages sent to the other. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (05/22/91)
My own feeling is that I make no attempt to censor or preview mail, but if I get complaints about harrassing, offensive, or libelous mail, I take them very seriously. The idea is that we grant people access to our computers for specific purposes. And that doesn't generally include bashing or defaming other people. Now if you want to set up your own computer and your own network, you can say anything you want. But if we're providing you the computer access for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass us. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/22/91)
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: [...] >But if we're providing you the computer access >for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass >us. [...] How does this compare with your university's general policies? Does your university prohibit "embarassing" student organizations from using "free" university resources such as building space for meetings or talks? - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.004900.21797@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > >Now if you want to set up your own computer and your own network, you can >say anything you want. But if we're providing you the computer access >for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass >us. Only one question: do students pay to attend your university? If so, where does the 'free' part originate from? --- jason --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Phillips ----> jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Northwestern University
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.042638.18885@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) writes: >In article <1991May22.004900.21797@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >> >>Now if you want to set up your own computer and your own network, you can >>say anything you want. But if we're providing you the computer access >>for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass >>us. > >Only one question: do students pay to attend your university? If so, where >does the 'free' part originate from? > > --- jason > (smile) You obviously have no idea how a university is financed. If each student had to pay his share of running the university, tuition would be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, or more. Some very small private universities do manage to collect nearly all their operating expenses from tuition. They are noted for high tuition and not having very much to offer. (Small, mediocre schools for the rich.) The rest of us have many funding sources: -- Tuition (this is a small to negligibly small part of it); -- Grants and research contracts (this pays for a whopping large part of the computer facilities at most institutions); -- The endowment (in the case of most good private universities, this consists of a large collection of investments that produce large income every year); -- Subsidy by state legislature (in the case of most state universities, this covers a LARGE part of the operating expenses, IN ADDITION to income from the endowment [=land grant]). My personal opinion is that in-state tuition should be zero. As it is, tuition is a very small part of the University's income, and it gives students the unfortunate illusion that they are paying for the University's services. In reality, everyone that we admit is thereby receiving a large scholarship -- we educate people without making them pay anything like the real cost of the education. By "for free" I also meant another thing. Computers are generally set up by specific units within the University (departments, the computer center, etc.) for specific purposes, and users (or users' departments) very often do not have to pay the department that owns the computer in order to be allowed to use it. Finally, by "embarrass" I was referring specifically to email intended to libel or harrass -- NOT to the ideas expressed in the mail, but rather to the intent of carrying out a destructive personal attack. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.040819.29865@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >>But if we're providing you the computer access >>for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass >>us. > >How does this compare with your university's general policies? Does >your university prohibit "embarassing" student organizations from >using "free" university resources such as building space for meetings >or talks? > We do not allow organizations to engage in personal harrassment or libel either. And that's the kind of "embarrassing" mail I was talking about. I'm not proposing to censor the _ideas_ expressed in the mail. There's another difference. Buildings are provided by the university as a whole. Computers are provided by specific departments or units for specific academic purposes. Net access is heavily subsidized by NSF and similar organizations FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHERING ACADEMIC RESEARCH. It is not a communications common carrier like the telephone company or the post office. It has specific purposes which vary somewhat depending on exactly where, and how, you are attached to it and who's paying. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) (05/22/91)
eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) writes: > I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from >someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our >system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my >business to tell people what they could write in their mail messages. >This particular situation seemed to be two people arguing with one >another, one using ruder language than the other. > > The post office doesn't check what kind of mail they get in the mail >boxes. They only investigate in cases of mail fraud as far as I know. >What is supposed to be the situation on computer networks? Do we shut >down "alt.flame"? You should regard yourself as a 'common carrier' in this case. Your job is to deliver the mail, not censor it. You provide connectivity service to users, not behavioural control. If somone doesn't like the contact of another person, they should take it to the people who have authority over that person, not the sysadmin. If you got a rude letter from your banker, who would you complain to -- the post office or the president of the bank? As for dealing with the offended party, inform him that you have no authority over your users and suggest that he contact someone at your site who has such authority. -- "SPAM is a registered trademark of a pork product packed only by Geo. A Hormel & Co. Corp." -- Sun Technical Bulletin, March 1991, pg ii
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/22/91)
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: [...] > Net access is heavily subsidized by > NSF and similar organizations FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHERING ACADEMIC > RESEARCH. Just a small clarification: NSFNET supports both research and education. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/22/91)
Another clarification: If you send me e-mail falsely saying that I was a Nazi deathcamp guard, you have not (legally) libeled me. The purpose of libel law is to protect my reputation against false statements. One condition of libel is it be "published" in the sense that you have shown the false statement to someone other than me. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
mac@cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun) (05/22/91)
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: <jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) writes: <<mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: <<<..... But if we're providing you the computer access <<<for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to.... <<Only one question: do students pay to attend your university? If so, where <<does the 'free' part originate from? < (smile) You obviously have no idea how a university is financed. < If each student had to pay his share of running the university, < tuition would be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, or more. < Some very small private universities do manage to collect nearly < all their operating expenses from tuition. They are noted for high < tuition and not having very much to offer. (Small, mediocre schools < for the rich.) < The rest of us have many funding sources: < -- Tuition (this is a small to negligibly small part of it); At Kansas State University, students' tuition pays somewhere between 20--25% of the total cost of running the university. (The Regents periodically adjust fees to keep them near 25%.) In-state undergraduate fees are currently about $730/semester; non-resident $2,130/semester. And if you'd like to hear how many Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, ... scholarships KSU students have received in the last 10 years, I could probably come up with those outstanding figures, too! --Myron. -- # Myron A. Calhoun, Ph.D. E.E.; Associate Professor (913) 539-4448 home # INTERNET: mac@cis.ksu.edu (129.130.10.2) 532-6350 work # UUCP: ...rutgers!ksuvax1!harry!mac 532-7353 fax # AT&T Mail: attmail!ksuvax1!mac W0PBV @ K0VAY.KS.USA.NA
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.042638.18885@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) writes: : >Only one question: do students pay to attend your university? If so, where >does the 'free' part originate from? : These yearns can be continued ad absurdum. The like-minded follow-up question would naturally be should paying a tuition mean a right to send harassing mail. (Of course it doesn't, but if one asks the one question, why wouldn't this logically follow :-). ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37 School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.123607.3430@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > (smile) You obviously have no idea how a university is financed. > If each student had to pay his share of running the university, > tuition would be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, or more. > [...] > The rest of us have many funding sources: > -- Tuition (this is a small to negligibly small part of it); > -- Grants and research contracts (this pays for a whopping large > part of the computer facilities at most institutions); > -- The endowment (in the case of most good private universities, > this consists of a large collection of investments that produce > large income every year); > -- Subsidy by state legislature (in the case of most state universities, > this covers a LARGE part of the operating expenses, IN ADDITION > to income from the endowment [=land grant]). As someone who used to be a student and is now on the other side of the question as a large lab administrator, I've thought about this a bit. It's certainly true that the students themselves don't pay the bills for the facilities. But, without the students the school wouldn't be able to get the grants needed to fund labs like the IPL. So, I feel that telling them all to take a flying leap and go buy their own computers is rather naive. Besides, the whole point of a university is to let people learn. But, I'm curious about the general opinon of people here in this group. Is this going to be a place for continuous petty spouting of rules and regulations and rebuttals? Doesn't sound all that interesting. Then again, I suppose that would be what would be discussed in comp.unix.policy. Is there a charter somewhere? (What's the policy on asking for charters? ;) -- Rodney
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/23/91)
In <1991May22.124033.3668@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >In article <1991May22.040819.29865@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >>mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >>>But if we're providing you the computer access >>>for free, and the network access for free, you have no right to embarrass >>>us. >> >>How does this compare with your university's general policies? Does >>your university prohibit "embarassing" student organizations from >>using "free" university resources such as building space for meetings >>or talks? >> I don't know about their policies, but in Mikes defense I would have to guess YES. If the student organization is gathering for something purely defamatory like a "The dean is a fink" rally, I do think they would deny use of campus resources. Mike certainly wasn't talking about topics or content that would be controversial but, as he said in another post, harassing. -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/23/91)
In <scs.674919197@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) writes: >> I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from >>someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our >>system. My attitude was that I didn't think that it was any of my >>business to tell people what they could write in their mail messages. >>This particular situation seemed to be two people arguing with one >>another, one using ruder language than the other. >> >> The post office doesn't check what kind of mail they get in the mail >>boxes. They only investigate in cases of mail fraud as far as I know. >>What is supposed to be the situation on computer networks? Do we shut >>down "alt.flame"? >You should regard yourself as a 'common carrier' in this case. Your >job is to deliver the mail, not censor it. You provide connectivity >service to users, not behavioural control. If somone doesn't like >the contact of another person, they should take it to the people who >have authority over that person, not the sysadmin. If you got a rude >letter from your banker, who would you complain to -- the post office >or the president of the bank? I generally agree, but not in all cases. In the case of a corporate or government E-Mail system the function of the gateway and its administrator might be more than just a common carrier. Rather, in many cases it should be regarded as a "liason" to the organization and "representative" to the external E-Mail community. I don't mean that E-Mail should be monitored or censored on a regular basis but,in many cases theadministrator should support the user in his/her organization in alleviating problems in any way possible, including blocking mail from offensive parties if requested. I think interconnectivity is a wonderful thing and it would be a shame if a corporation or agency had to shut down their gateway because the administrator told the CEO he was not responsible for the content of mail and could not effectively help him solve the problem. The sysadmin should be there to assist their users in ANY way possible. >As for dealing with the offended party, inform him that you have no >authority over your users and suggest that he contact someone at your >site who has such authority. Further, I think this kind of approach gives a poor image of your organization. I know this wouldn't work in our case. When (I hope soon) more of our users get on-line I would think management would consider any harassing mail to be a poor reflection on the Administration and would want the problem solved posthaste. I would think that in a case where you are in the same organization or closely linked you could pass the complaint along to the proper party yourself (if the grievance sounds legit). If you are a member of the same organization and were acting as a representative you could even have some resolution procedures on paper. Such procedures might entail: A Confront the accused in a non-accusational tone. Do they | confirm that a message was sent? | +-yes-B Get some background info. Was the content questionable? | | | C-yes--- Pass the information along to the persons manager. | | | D-no---- Drop the subject. | | F-no--E-maybe- Ask the complaintant for a copy and attempt to authenticate and review it. Return to B. In any case I think you should inform the other party that the matter is being investigated and that you will try to help. Maybe even attempt to inform them of the resolution if appropriate. Of course, this approach might not apply to those administrators of systems like UUNET or providers of general news and mail feeds, but in cases where a person who appears to be a representative of an organization to which image is important, I think the sysop has to respond positively and quickly or risk losing the resource (gateway) to "bad press". -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov
HANK@BARILVM.BITNET (Hank Nussbacher) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.042638.18885@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jason Phillips) says: >Only one question: do students pay to attend your university? If so, where >does the 'free' part originate from? Not all services provided by a university are open to the student body merely because they pay tuition. A freshman can't go in and use a $2 million electron scanning microscope and a sophmore can't walk into the $100 million particle accelerator and 'try it out'. The problem with network is that the true value is hidden from the user. All one sees is a simple $1000 terminal so one says 'Heck, what damage am I doing here?' But the cost of the fiber-optic backbones that run throughout the campus, the Ethernet segments in the buildings, the bridges, repeaters, routers, the phone lines are all unseen. It is all underground in some hidden place. Each university has at least $2 million in network infrastructure and many have well past that amount. So the question then is 'Does paying tuition entitle a student to do whatever he wants with university equipment since he has paid for it?' If the answer is yes, then we might as well pack up and let them play with the colliders. If the answer is no, then the use of equipment is a privilege and not a right. If it is a privilege, then the university is entitled to make its own set of rules by which the student body has to abide. Not every university creates the same set of rules (some don't allow students to use the network at all) and I guess future students will have to factor in network policy when selecting their university. Previously, students have selected universities by their academic standards, by the campus aura, by how the dorms look, by how close it is to home or the bar. Perhaps it is time that high school students also examine university network policy before deciding on which university to attend. If you don't like the policy of one university, then don't go there. But please don't say that net-access is a right. It is a privilege that should not be abused. > > --- jason > >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Jason Phillips ----> jasonrey@casbah.acns.nwu.edu >Northwestern University Hank Nussbacher Israel
chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (05/23/91)
According to rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II): >But, without the students the school wouldn't be able to get the grants >needed to fund labs like the IPL. This line of reasoning is specious. There is a practical infinity of things without which a university could not function: faculty, staff, buildings, phones, books, ... To single out students as essential and therefore give them what amounts to _carte_blanche_ with university property is unjustified. -- Brand X Industries Custodial, Refurbishing and Containment Service: When You Never, Ever Want To See It Again [tm] Chip Salzenberg <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) (05/23/91)
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > [[ a long, thoughtful response to my suggestions to: ]] >>eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) writes: >>> I am a part-time sysadmin, and got some complaints a while ago from >>>someone who received rude mail messages from one of the users of our >>>system . . . >I generally agree, but not in all cases. In the case of a corporate or >government E-Mail system the function of the gateway and its >administrator might be more than just a common carrier. Rather, in many >cases it should be regarded as a "liason" to the organization and >"representative" to the external E-Mail community. But this is clearly not the case. Eric is the guy who trundles the mail cart down the hall. He is overstepping his own authority if he attempts to manage user behaviour in any way, shape or form. Until then, the proper course for him to take is to put complaintants into touch with those who have authority. >I don't mean that E-Mail should be monitored or censored on a regular >basis but,in many cases theadministrator should support the user in >his/her organization in alleviating problems in any way possible, >including blocking mail from offensive parties if requested. You're actually advocating Eric censor (I hate that word) outgoing mail from a user over whom he has no authority. Brrrrr! If I found our site postmaster doing this, I'd fire the postmaster. >I think interconnectivity is a wonderful thing and it would be a shame >if a corporation or agency had to shut down their gateway because the >administrator told the CEO he was not responsible for the content of >mail and could not effectively help him solve the problem. That's not what was suggested. There are lots of things Eric could do to help. But he should not take those actions unilaterally, and the CEO (or person in authority) has to be made aware of both the cost of the actions taken (yeah, rewrite all the sendmail.cf files so as to exclude mail from person a to person b) and has to take responsibility for dealing with the end user. -- "SPAM is a registered trademark of a pork product packed only by Geo. A Hormel & Co. Corp." -- Sun Technical Bulletin, March 1991, pg ii
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/23/91)
>>In article <1991May22.040819.29865@m.cs.uiuc.edu> >> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: [...] >>>How does this compare with your university's general policies? Does >>>your university prohibit "embarassing" student organizations from >>>using "free" university resources such as building space for meetings >>>or talks? chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >I don't know about their policies, but in Mikes defense I would have to >guess YES. If the student organization is gathering for something >purely defamatory like a "The dean is a fink" rally, I do think they >would deny use of campus resources. Mike certainly wasn't talking about >topics or content that would be controversial but, as he said in another >post, harassing. [...] I don't think a "the dean is a fink" rally (or e-mail) should count as harrassment. The Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, the main expression of student academic freedom in the US, says: --(begin quote) --- B. Freedom of Inquiry and Expression 1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak only for themselves. 2. Students should be allowed to invite and to hear any person of their own choosing. Those routine procedures required by an institution before a guest speaker is invited to appear on campus should be designed only to insure that there is orderly scheduling of facilities and adequate preparation for the event, and that the occasion is conducted in a manner appropriate to an academic community. The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a device of censorship. It should be made clear to the academic and larger community that sponsorship of guest speakers does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement of the views expressed, either by the sponsoring group or the institution. --(end quote) --- -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (05/23/91)
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: [...] >Of course, this approach might not apply to those administrators of >systems like UUNET or providers of general news and mail feeds, but in >cases where a person who appears to be a representative of an >organization to which image is important, I think the sysop has to >respond positively and quickly or risk losing the resource (gateway) to >"bad press". >-- >-- >Charles "Chip" Yamasaki >chip@oshcomm.osha.gov Is *this* this official view of OSHA? Seriously, I think difficulty can often be avoided by appending a disclaimer to the effect: The views expressed here are the author's own and do not neccessarily represent the views of OSHA." This is especially important for newsgroup postings. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) (05/23/91)
In article <scs.675001777@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: > >But this is clearly not the case. Eric is the guy who trundles the >mail cart down the hall. He is overstepping his own authority if he >attempts to manage user behaviour in any way, shape or form. Until >then, the proper course for him to take is to put complaintants into >touch with those who have authority. >That's not what was suggested. There are lots of things Eric could >do to help. But he should not take those actions unilaterally, and >the CEO (or person in authority) has to be made aware of both the cost >of the actions taken (yeah, rewrite all the sendmail.cf files so as >to exclude mail from person a to person b) and has to take responsibility >for dealing with the end user. I think we need to keep a few things in perspective. First, the sysadmin is responsible for the smooth operation of the systems under his control. Generally speaking, the sysadmin usually becomes aware of "harassment" problem when the "harassee" notifies him of the occurrence. At that point, the sysadmin should be shown a copy (electronic or otherwise) of the harassing notes by the "harassee". At no point, has the sysadmin monitored any email. Most sysadmins have the authority to warn a user of inappropriate behavior and to deny them access to the computer system. If you're not sure of that authority, you should check with your supervisor and straighten that point out. Presumably, your site has issued some type of policy statement that clearly states what is acceptable use (or what is not) and this statement should also state the sysadmin' authority. If the "harasser" persists in the inappropriate behavior then the sysadmin becomes a liaison for the dept. head (or CEO, etc.) in handling the situation. I don't think sysadmins are "cart trundlers", censors, judges, etc. Their function is more similar to an apartment manager, i.e., they create a workable environment and stay out of the way UNLESS someone complains about something. It is not our function to determine what is "obscene", "harassment", etc. That is for the legal system to decide. It IS our function to be able to collect the necessary information for others to make those judgments. In this sense, we are like the police,i.e., patrolling, responding to complaints, collecting evidence, transferring the evidence to the judiciary. The key point is that an adequate computer usage policy is critical for enforcing responsible use of computer facilities. The next step is having some sort of proof that the user is aware of and AGREES to abide by these rules. As sysadmins, we should focus our discussion on how to devise this policy statement and how we can enforce such a policy. I think this should be the main point of this group's discussion. -Randy Marchany VA Tech COmputing Center Blacksburg, VA 24060 INTERNET: marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) (05/24/91)
In article <1766@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes: >It is not our function to determine what is "obscene", "harassment", >etc. That is for the legal system to decide. It IS our function to be >able to collect the necessary information for others to make those >judgments. In this sense, we are like the police,i.e., patrolling, >responding to complaints, collecting evidence, transferring the evidence >to the judiciary. Wow! Here was I thinking system administration was a technical job to do with configuration files and backups and so forth, but it's really "like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly NOT from any unix manual I have ever seen. If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters, it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to deal with the problem in any way shape or form. If somebody needs their technical assistance THAT is their job (which may include providing technical assistance to some "investigator" who "patrols", "collects evidence", "responds to complaints" etc if you happen to work in an institution that doesn't have better things to do with it's employees time). Just because some harassment makes use of a computer does not change the issue any more than if it happened to be typed on a word processor instead of a typewriter. Would that make it the responsibility of the word processing pool to investigate, patrol and collect evidence etc? Or would it become a sysadmin's problem if the word processor happened to be part of a corporate LAN? Only the NOVELTY of computer networks makes people imagine that somehow they raise different issues when used for harassment. Even word processors are sufficiently familiar that nobody expects those in charge of maintaining them to "patrol" and "collect evidence" about what they are used for. Just because a computer is used to make beeping noises down a telephone line to harass somebody, "by email" does not make that a computer issue any more than heavy breathing down a telephone line is a telecom issue. >The key point is that an adequate computer usage policy is critical >for enforcing responsible use of computer facilities. The next step is >having some sort of proof that the user is aware of and AGREES to abide >by these rules. As sysadmins, we should focus our discussion on how to >devise this policy statement and how we can enforce such a policy. >I think this should be the main point of this group's discussion. If somebody is put in charge of "administering" the office mail room, or the office furniture, are they supposed to "focus" on "enforcing responsible use" of the mail or the furniture? Why not focus on delivering the best possible mail service or on having adequate stocks of furniture available and repairs arranged promtly when required? There are real "policy" problems that sysadmins have to deal with, mainly related to resource allocation between competing priorities. Although they are economic and management issues that should be dealt with by people who understand something about costing of resources etc, in practice computer sysadmins with no skills in such matters are often forced to deal with them, simply because others are so completely ignorant of the nature of the resource constraints involving computers. It would be very helpful if this group provided assistance in dealing with such real problems instead of getting absorbed in the fantasy life of people who really wanted to be police officers rather than sysadmins. -- Opinions disclaimed (Authoritative answer from opinion server) Header reply address wrong. Use cmf851@csc2.anu.edu.au
marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: > >If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters, >it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to >deal with the problem in any way shape or form. > True, but if the investigator asks you for data on the matter, do you know HOW to collect the data in a form that could stand up in a judicial arena (company board of inquiry, university honor court, court of law...)? If not, you could actually impede the investigation. Is your organization willing to accept liability for that? >Just because some harassment makes use of a computer does not change the >issue any more than if it happened to be typed on a word processor >instead of a typewriter. Would that make it the responsibility of the >word processing pool to investigate, patrol and collect evidence etc? > Of course not, but we're not talking about word processors or typwriters (see wordprocessor.policy or typewriter.policy, :-)), we're talking about computer systems/networks. The overall discussion applies to any unauthorized use (whatever that may be) of a site's computing resources, be it a single computer or a network of them. > >If somebody is put in charge of "administering" the office mail room, >or the office furniture, are they supposed to "focus" on "enforcing >responsible use" of the mail or the furniture? Why not focus on >delivering the best possible mail service or on having adequate >stocks of furniture available and repairs arranged promtly when >required? >There are real "policy" problems that sysadmins have to deal with, >mainly related to resource allocation between competing priorities. > That's what other discussion groups such as comp.os.vms, comp.unix.ultrix, comp.unix.admin and the like do. THIS discussion group should be concerned with the broad area of management policy, IMHO. 99% of a sysadmins time is spent on the issues mentioned above, such as resource allocation, setting up the user environment, etc. Policy enforcement is sort of like insurance, you don't spend a lot of time thinking about it until you have to. > >It would be very helpful if this >group provided assistance in dealing with such real problems instead >of getting absorbed in the fantasy life of people who really wanted >to be police officers rather than sysadmins. > My goodness, no need to get personal about this. After all, this is just a discussion. Again, I fear we've drifted off course. The real issue is how do sysadmins deal with unauthorized use of their computing facilities (single computer or network of computers). I don't think we should get bogged down in discussing what is harassment and what isn't. Besides, I don't want to be a police officer, just a pro beach volleyball player....:-). -Randy
etb@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Bushnell) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: >In article <1766@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu >(Randy Marchany) writes: > >>It is not our function to determine what is "obscene", "harassment", >>etc. That is for the legal system to decide. It IS our function to be >>able to collect the necessary information for others to make those >>judgments. In this sense, we are like the police,i.e., patrolling, >>responding to complaints, collecting evidence, transferring the evidence >>to the judiciary. > >Wow! Here was I thinking system administration was a technical job >to do with configuration files and backups and so forth, but it's really >"like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly NOT from >any unix manual I have ever seen. > >If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters, >it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to >deal with the problem in any way shape or form. If somebody needs >their technical assistance THAT is their job (which may include >providing technical assistance to some "investigator" who "patrols", >"collects evidence", "responds to complaints" etc if you happen >to work in an institution that doesn't have better things to do with >it's employees time). > Not all sys admins are only "telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics" who are strictly dedicated to machine maintenance. Some (many?) are also people managers and (reluctant) paper-pushers. Resolving personnel disputes may well be part of their jobs, and having "better things to do" doesn't solve any problems. You're right, of course, in that the Unix manuals generally don't feature pages for intelligence(1) or irrationality(7) or how-to-get-along-with-your-co-workers(8). 8-) -- Eric Bushnell Univ of Washington Civil Engineering etb@u.washington.edu
afoiani@nmsu.edu (Anthony "Tkil" Foiani) (05/24/91)
I have to aggree with whoever [sorry, lost the ref] said that SAs are more than telephone technicians, etc. You're talking about the difference between a System Administrator and a System Operator. An operator is the equivilant of the telephone technician; he/she/it should not be setting policy or dealing with users very much. A System Administrator, on the other hand, is one who does set policy, and should be the one to deal with complaints directed at his/her/its system. A third class is the User Assistant, who exists to help the users; I mention this only to avoid confusion in the "operator" instance. Cheers, Tony -- Tony Foiani a.k.a. Tkil (afoiani@nmsu.edu) or (mcsajf@nmsuvm1.bitnet) Supporting: Unix / DOS / VMS / Macintosh / "What's this?" "As the water flows over the bridge, | As we walk on the Floodland | "Rain From Heaven" As we walk on the water, we forget | _Gift_ We forget. Rain from Heaven." | The Sisterhood
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/24/91)
In <1766@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> marchany@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Randy Marchany) writes: >I think we need to keep a few things in perspective. First, the sysadmin >is responsible for the smooth operation of the systems under his >control. Generally speaking, the sysadmin usually becomes aware of >"harassment" problem when the "harassee" notifies him of the occurrence. >At that point, the sysadmin should be shown a copy (electronic or >otherwise) of the harassing notes by the "harassee". At no point, has [more of a very very (ok maybe just one very) thoughtful response] AMEN. If we don't provide support to our users someone is bound to confuse us with Microsoft. -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/24/91)
In <1991May23.132025.20299@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: >>-- >>Charles "Chip" Yamasaki >>chip@oshcomm.osha.gov >Is *this* this official view of OSHA? >Seriously, I think difficulty can often be avoided by appending a >disclaimer to the effect: The views expressed here are the author's >own and do not neccessarily represent the views of OSHA." This is >especially important for newsgroup postings. ABSOLUTELY! You got me there, and I have taken care of it immediately. Good point. Please note that the new disclaimer on my message should also apply to all of my previous postings. Sorry for not including it sooner. -- -----------------------+--------------------------------------------------- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki| The opinions expressed here are my own and are not chip@oshcomm.osha.gov | supported or even generally accepted by OSHA. :-) -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
ben@bucsf.bu.edu (Benjamin Cline) (05/24/91)
In article <283BB48D.13A3@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: According to rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II): >>But, without the students the school wouldn't be able to get the grants >>needed to fund labs like the IPL. > This line of reasoning is specious. There is a practical infinity of > things without which a university could not function: faculty, staff, > buildings, phones, books, ... > To single out students as essential and therefore give them what > amounts to _carte_blanche_ with university property is unjustified. I would like to see you start University without students then. At times it seems that is what the administration here would like to do. As ridiculous as it may seem many of us undergrads want an education too. benjamin -- Benjamin Cline ------------------------------ *ben@bucsf.bu.edu 235 Harvard Ave. |Practice: Theory that does | benji@gnu.ai.mit.edu Apt. #1 | function properly. | *prefered Allston, Ma 02134 ------------------------------
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi) (05/24/91)
>In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: >> >>If somebody makes harassing phone calls or writes harassing letters, >>it is NOT the job of telephone technicians or typewriter mechanics to >>deal with the problem in any way shape or form. : How come people always come up with analogues that first look so persuasive on the surface, but always have some fatal basic flaw in their argumentation. Deliberate nitpicking or serious counter arguments? (You may pick your own counter-counter arguments starting from SysOps and SysAdmins are not "mere" technical maintainers). ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi Moderating at garbo.uwasa.fi anonymous ftp archives 128.214.12.37 School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
rodney@picasso.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (05/25/91)
In article <283BB48D.13A3@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >According to rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II): >>But, without the students the school wouldn't be able to get the grants >>needed to fund labs like the IPL. > >This line of reasoning is specious. There is a practical infinity of >things without which a university could not function: faculty, staff, >buildings, phones, books, ... > >To single out students as essential and therefore give them what >amounts to _carte_blanche_ with university property is unjustified. Don't forget desks, chairs, and overhead projectors. I don't think the students get free run of the computer facilities, but they should be taken into consideration. Several people here are scoffing at them because they don't pay anything for the computer labs, the funding comes from external sources. My point was simply that there would be no external funding if the school wasn't there and the students are largely responsible for the school if by sheer numbers alone. I'm saying this (not officially or anything) from the point of view of a staff member. I'm not a student here that's whining that no one lets me use the fancy computers. -- Rodney
Paivi.Hyvarinen@hut.fi (Paivi Helena Hyvarinen) (05/27/91)
In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: ..."like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly NOT from any unix manual I have ever seen. Would "from my employer" qualify? A part of my work (the one I get paid real money for :-) is "enforcing the university computer network rules" - meaning observing the news, handling complaints from users and starting investigations if necessary. And I'm not the only one that our bosses expect to take care of these duties alongsides with the rest of the system maintenance and technical user support. When you have over 4000 users on a network (and more coming in every fall), the job gets less and less technical and more and more like human management. You spend days after days informing about the rules, thinking through them, debating them with colleagues and clients, checking out complaints, discussing them with the accused offenders and victims, collecting data from logfiles etc. etc. etc. Of course, you might say that you will not have anything to do with police work - but then you most likely won't work here. It takes all the employees' (and the users'!) cooperation and critical observation to keep the rules up-to-date and respectful to both the admin's and the user's rights. Furthermore, trying to set a good example is the hardest work of them all. Paivi -- @ Paivi Hyvarinen, systems analyst (part time) @ Paivi.Hyvarinen@hut.fi @ @ User Services Section @ @ @ Computing Centre, Helsinki Univ. of Technology @ Voice: 358 + 0 - 451 4316 @ @ Otakaari 1 M, SF-02150 Espoo, Finland @ Reception: U133 Thu 10-12 @
wollman@emily.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) (05/27/91)
For several years, before I gave up on PCs as being a bad job, I followed the twists and turns of FidoNet. Early on while I was using that network, they had a very simple policy, which I think is probably very good advice even for many more advanced networks. It was this: 1. Do not be excessively annoying. 2. Do not be excessively annoyed. -GAWollman Garrett A. Wollman - wollman@emily.uvm.edu Disclaimer: I'm not even sure this represents *my* opinion, never mind UVM's, EMBA's, EMBA-CF's, or indeed anyone else's.
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk (Jesper Lauridsen) (05/27/91)
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >> >>Only one question: do students pay to attend your university? If so, where >>does the 'free' part originate from? >> >> --- jason >> > (smile) You obviously have no idea how a university is financed. > If each student had to pay his share of running the university, > tuition would be $100,000 to $200,000 per year, or more. Sure? > Some very small private universities do manage to collect nearly > all their operating expenses from tuition. They are noted for high > tuition and not having very much to offer. (Small, mediocre schools > for the rich.) Why on earth should rich people send their children to mediocre schools?!? Doesn't make any sense to me. People able to pay those sums you mention should be able to see if they get anything for their money. -- |Jesper Lauridsen | | | Datalogisk Afdeling | "I have things to do and news to read" | | Matematisk Institut | | | Aarhus Universitet | - rorschak@daimi.aau.dk |
sven@cs.widener.edu (Sven Heinicke) (05/28/91)
In article <PAIVI.HYVARINEN.91May27040748@vipunen.hut.fi> Paivi.Hyvarinen@hut.fi (Paivi Helena Hyvarinen) writes: Date: 27 May 91 02:07:48 GMT In article <1991May23.184642.29771@newshost.anu.edu.au> cmf851@anu.oz.au (Albert Langer) writes: ..."like the POLICE"! Where do people GET these ideas? Certainly NOT from any unix manual I have ever seen. VMS manuals do get into this a bit. Would "from my employer" qualify? Well, the aditude of the employer has a big word in it. If I had my way (and disk space) I would have a guest account. But, if I did start a guest account the admin and the admin found out about it (a big if) I would get into big trouble. -- sven@cs.widener.edu Widener CS system manager Sven Mike Heinicke and Student (pssmheinicke@cyber.widener.edu (if you must)) -- sven@cs.widener.edu Widener CS system manager Sven Mike Heinicke and Student (pssmheinicke@cyber.widener.edu (if you must))
chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) (05/29/91)
According to rodney@picasso.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II): >I don't think the students get free run of the computer facilities, but >they should be taken into consideration. Granted, any computer installation designed without consideration for the needs of the users is a WOMBAT. But the control always rests with the owners. And, property laws being what they are, that's not likely to change. Students who think they own the place are sadly mistaken. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.com>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> perl -e 'sub do { print "extinct!\n"; } do do()'
wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) (05/29/91)
If a person yells in open air a harrasing statement, is the medium, the air, to blame? Or is the person who is harassing? The net is in this case merely the medium of communication. If there are problems, let the offended party use the E-Mailed message as evidence in normal vocal or phone harassment disciplinary avenues. You are assuming a judicious stance on a personal matter, one better suited for 'personal' policy rather than 'system' policy. John Wagner
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/30/91)
In <1991May29.025740.499@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes: >If a person yells in open air a harrasing statement, is the medium, the >air, to blame? Or is the person who is harassing? The net is in this >case merely the medium of communication. If there are problems, let the >offended party use the E-Mailed message as evidence in normal vocal or >phone harassment disciplinary avenues. You are assuming a judicious >stance on a personal matter, one better suited for 'personal' policy >rather than 'system' policy. Where do people get these strange analogies? You can't compare open air to E-Mail. I don't think I should have to explain this one, but anyone who would make such a ridiculuous statement obviously need it explained. Open air is a free and absolutely necessary element that is ever-present. It is assumed, in fact has been proven to be required for human survival. Humans (most anyway) are capable of vibrating it through the use of their own personal vocal chords, thus causing this "yelling" phenomenon you discussed, without the use of corporate resources. This makes it imparctical, at best to regulate and the privilige is nearly impossible to revoke. Therefore, it must be covered by other policies (which I'm sure it is in many places). E-Mail on the other hand, is a resource that is not an absolutely necessary resource to 99% of all corporations or organizations. It is normally paid for by the transport supplier, as well as the equipment used to generate, store, and access it. Since the PRIVILEGE to use it may be revoked at any time if its use results in problems that detract from the organizational goal, the use of it should be treated as a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. In virtually any organization I would think that if the wrong person is annoyed by the E-Mail system (or users thereof) and the problem is not resolved to the users satisfaction, the system could be disabled and all of the other users would suffer. I have seen some outrageous comparisons drawn in this thread, but this takes the cake. Speaking of which, E-Mail is like fruit-cake. If someone beats you with a fruit-cake we can't just outlaw fruit-cake, so why pursue those nasty fruit-cake muggers? -- -----------------------+--------------------------------------------------- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki| The opinions expressed here are my own and are not chip@oshcomm.osha.gov | supported or even generally accepted by OSHA. :-) -----------------------+---------------------------------------------------
wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) (06/01/91)
The fellow from occupational health & human services seems to have been at err. He claimed that it is dificult to stop a person from communicating via air. And yet, as he followed to point out, it has happened quite often. The mere act of passing a razor across the lower end of the tongue is a policy which has been used by many regimes of unbearable dictatorship and in many barbari c lands noted for hand-chopping, torture, etc. His advocacy of this method may indeed prove pleasurable to a bureaucrat, as it simplifies things greatly, but as an impartial, free-minded citizen of the United States I beg to differ. The interesting thing is that he sugested that if a user abuses the network, then the network is to blame. Prior to this he claimed that networking is a privelege, and not a right. Well, if I'm not mistaken, at least here at the U.C., the network exists to fulfill a certain purpose. I.E., it had a cause for being. It was not some rich uncle's toy. That purpose was to be utilized by members of the community as a communications tool far superior to normal methods. Perhaps this isn`t the case at the OH&HS, but around here the thing is being used. When certain persons are given control over this network, they often feel, as people do, that it could be a tool with GREAT potential at furthering their personal beliefs, moral outlooks, etc. And so, in the same way that giving a quarter to a beggar follows from some personal orientation, taking advantage of the network might be for them a responsibility. And yet, this clashes with the original intent; to provide an eficient, reliable medium of communication. John Wagner :
jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart) (06/10/91)
In article <scs.675001777@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: [...much deleted...] >attempts to manage user behaviour in any way, shape or form. Until >then, the proper course for him to take is to put complaintants into >touch with those who have authority. I will modify this a bit considering my own situation, and I have an idea that a few more of you are in the same. When you are dealing with a student population, who exactly, is their authority on such matters if not the sysadmin for computer in question? We're wrestling with that very problem right now...their parents? I think not. :) >You're actually advocating Eric censor (I hate that word) outgoing mail >from a user over whom he has no authority. Brrrrr! If I found our site >postmaster doing this, I'd fire the postmaster. Do sysadmins add and delete the accounts? Do they handle diskspace requests, do they tell them they did "a bad thing" when they tried to 'su root' 25 times in a row? I believe that sysadmins _do_ have some authority over the users on that system, and now we have to draw an infamous line of where that authority stops and starts. How do you control people who attack others on a listserv for instance? It is a discussionary medium, and many people can be offended in one piece of mail. Is it right for those people to be told "we can't do anything"... which comes close to advocating that attack? Or, alternatively, do we "speak" to the user and "suggest" that perhaps he could do better? Is there any harm in that as opposed to passing the complaint-ant to "someone in charge?" Though perhaps this is sly, a message from "sysadmin" is usually taken very seriously by the populus of a machine. If that message contains a well worded suggestion that "perhaps, due to complaints, it would be best if messages such as these were toned down or stopped," many users will take notice and the problem is solved. And, in all that, we're not censoring until a person force-ably stops outgoing mail, edits it, etc. It is just a suggestion. I ask hoping for constructive responses... is this a solution? --Ace -- Ace Stewart | Affiliation: Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu jstewart@sunrise.bitnet jstewart@mothra.cns.syr.edu jstewart@sunspot.cns.syr.edu ace@suvm.bitnet rsjns@suvm.bitnet
pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (06/15/91)
On 10 Jun 91 16:12:28 GMT, jstewart@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Ace Stewart) said: jstewart> Do sysadmins add and delete the accounts? Do they handle jstewart> diskspace requests, do they tell them they did "a bad thing" jstewart> when they tried to 'su root' 25 times in a row? I believe that jstewart> sysadmins _do_ have some authority over the users on that jstewart> system, and now we have to draw an infamous line of where that jstewart> authority stops and starts. By the same token, the guy in the company stationery store will or will not give you pencils and paper. To me authority means "supervisor" or "manager", not "sysadmin". Sysadmins are there to make the system work, to provide a service, not to manage humans. They are technical NCOs, not officers. jstewart> How do you control people who attack others on a listserv for jstewart> instance? It is a discussionary medium, and many people can be jstewart> offended in one piece of mail. That is the problem of the offendor. And the problem of the offended party. As soon as you, the provider of the service, get involved, you have to take issue with the contents of the offensive message. This requires judgement and legitimate authority. A sysadmin should never get embroiled in these things. jstewart> Is it right for those people to be told "we can't do jstewart> anything"... which comes close to advocating that attack? Advocating by omission? Are you sure? Personal responsibility no longer exists? jstewart> Or, alternatively, do we "speak" to the user and "suggest" jstewart> that perhaps he could do better? Is there any harm in that as jstewart> opposed to passing the complaint-ant to "someone in charge?" Yes, that you are essentially blackmailing the user. Just like the stationery guy that does not like you and tells you there no more pencils when the store is full just because he does not like you. Petty harassment, by people who are in a position of "power". Your duty is to cooperate with users, whether you think they are "bad" or "good", under the directives of people responsible for human management. These must judge, where appropriate, whether behaviour is "good" or "bad", and give you the relative directives. Otherwise every little petty NCO in every type of organization can hold everybody else at ransom. jstewart> And, in all that, we're not censoring until a person jstewart> force-ably stops outgoing mail, edits it, etc. It is just a jstewart> suggestion. I ask hoping for constructive responses... is this jstewart> a solution? The solution is to know who is in charge and have good human relationships. Not to take into one's hands petty "authority". You may reply that if proper behaviour does not work or is otherwise inappropriate, and there is no hope to rectify the situation, then expediency wins. Yes, that's true. But then the organization has poor managers. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk