earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) (06/01/91)
I would like to get the opinions of Sys Admins on the following scenario: You work for company XYZ. XYZ has an explicit policy that says that reading another employee's e-mail is considered Gross Misconduct, punishable by immediate termination. One of the users on your system(s) goes on vacation, and sets up a "vacation" message to automatically reply to e-mail. As we all know, the "normal" format is something like From: joeuser (via the vacation program) Subject: Away from my mail I will be out of the office for N days(/weeks/months). Your mail concerning "$SUBJECT" will be read when I return. Now, consider the following. What if the user instead had a message like I am out of the office for N weeks. I'm stressed out and I can't handle being around all these annoying (insert appropriate term, like "Jews" or "Niggers" or some other potentially-offensive epithet). Your mail concerning "$SUBJECT" will be read ... or, perhaps not so blatant or milder, I am out of the office until <Date>. I was suspended by XYZ for being a bad boy/girl and am being punished. Your mail concerning ... Someone receives this "vacation" message and contacts Joe User's boss about it. Joe User's boss contacts you and demands that you change the .vacation.msg file to remove anything which does not say "I am out of the office until ..." or "Your mail concerning ...". Food for thought: - Do you do what Joe User's boss demands? Do you change it, and then deny responsibility because you were merely acting as an agent for Joe User's boss (whether you agree in principle with changing the message or not)? - What happens if Joe User returns, finds his .vacation.msg tampered with, and demands that heads roll due to the company policy of not allowing anyone to read other people's e-mail? What if Joe User claims that the .vacation.msg file is directly related to e-mail, and therefore tampering with it without his knowledge is morally/ethically equivalent to reading his e-mail? [Please followup to comp.admin.policy rather than e-mail, as I don't get mail] [on this machine. Thanks.]
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.211508.7023@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) writes: >One of the users on your system(s) goes on vacation, and sets up a "vacation" >... offensive message example > >Someone receives this "vacation" message and contacts Joe User's boss about it. >Joe User's boss contacts you and demands that you change the .vacation.msg file >Food for thought: >- Do you do what Joe User's boss demands? Do you change it, and then deny I wouldn't touch his .vacation.msg file. I would just create an alias in the system aliases file which effectively bypassed the vacation message. Depending on circumstances, I might also make some changes to /etc/passwd, but that is a different story. -- =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940
seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.211508.7023@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) writes: > >You work for company XYZ. XYZ has an explicit policy that says that reading >another employee's e-mail is considered Gross Misconduct, punishable by >immediate termination. > >One of the users on your system(s) goes on vacation, and sets up a "vacation" >message to automatically reply to e-mail. [...] > >Now, consider the following. What if the user instead had a message like > > I am out of the office for N weeks. I'm stressed out and I can't > handle being around all these annoying (insert appropriate term, > like "Jews" or "Niggers" or some other potentially-offensive > epithet). Your mail concerning "$SUBJECT" will be read ... > >or, perhaps not so blatant or milder, > > I am out of the office until <Date>. I was suspended by XYZ for > being a bad boy/girl and am being punished. Your mail concerning ... > >Someone receives this "vacation" message and contacts Joe User's boss about it. >Joe User's boss contacts you and demands that you change the .vacation.msg file >to remove anything which does not say "I am out of the office until ..." or >"Your mail concerning ...". > An interesting hypothetical. I'd say in the first case, the mail should be considered 'harrassing' and the sysadmin should edit the offending file *and* notify Joe as soon as possible that it has been modify and why. (Also, just for CYA reasons, get the order from his boss in writing. Might not help, but it couldn't hurt.) The second case is a lot grayer. If Joe was indeed suspended and this is fairly common knowledge among the employees of XYZ, you might be steping on his freedom of speech. After all, XYZ has thier side, he has his. If I were placed in that situation, I would both get it in writing and document in a return memo my objections to it. But I would also probably go ahead then and do it anyway, since if I didn't, I might well wind up suspended for insubordination/refusal to follow orders/failing to knuckle und (And before anybody flames me for this response, bear in mind that as you get older and accumulate responsibilites and dependencies, you tend to supress your sense of outrage. Ten years ago I'd have told XYZ to stuff their request. But my family can't live on my wife's take-home.) ****************************************************************************** Bill Seward -- Analyst, Programmer, System Manager, User Training, Operations and whatever else needs doing. Cutaneous Pharmacology & Toxicology Center, NC State University SEWARD@NCSUVAX.BITNET SEWARD@CCVAX1.CC.NCSU.EDU
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (06/02/91)
seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward) writes: >The second case is a lot grayer. If Joe was indeed suspended and this is >fairly common knowledge among the employees of XYZ, you might be steping >on his freedom of speech. After all, XYZ has thier side, he has his. Irrelevant argument. The Company has no obligation to provide resources to any employee to facilitate his freedom of speech. In this hypothetical, there are only 2 issues: A) is the vacation file "email"? and b) does management have the right to control what an employee does with the company's resources and does it have a right to take steps to verify compliance with that policy? The obvious answers are A) no and B) Yes. Most employees feel that they have some right to use email facilities for incidental personal or other use. While most companies allow such use, there is no "right" involved. The central question is really B. Does the company have the right to set and enforce policy? Yes indeed. And just as it has the right to search an employee's desk if it thinks something is amiss, it has the right to search computer files for the same purpose. For the totally paranoid, I hope that this hypothetical company has issued an ECPA statement to each employee to cover any ambiguities. Most companies choose not to enforce most policies regarding E-mail use for personal business but that is simply because it is considered good employee relations. No rights involved. If an employee wants to send private personal E-mail, the mechanism is very simple. He has to only buy the equipment and establish a node of his own. For those that might doubt the right of companies to police their electronic media, consider the case where instead of an employee being suspected of saying nasty things about the company, he was suspected of engaging in industrial espionage. Makes it kinda clear doesn't it? Now suppose that instead of espionage, it was sabotage? Could not saying nasty things about one's employer while still employed there be considered sabotage? I think so. As a system admin in this situation, seeing no ethical dilema, I'd do exactly what my boss told me to do. I'd document it, of course, to CYA. This instance seems much ado about nothing. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"
braun@dri.com (Kral) (06/03/91)
In article <1991May31.211508.7023@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) writes: >I would like to get the opinions of Sys Admins on the following scenario: [company policy says "no one reads another's email"; someone sets up something offenseive in their .vacation.msg file; that user's boss tells you, the sysadmin, to change the message - what do you do?] This is an easy one. I take it up the chain of command until someone with appropriate authority makes a decision on it. With this kind of policy in place, I got no "bidness" playing politics; let the guys who get paid for it do that. -- kral * 408/647-6112 * ...!uunet!drivax!braun * braun@dri.com "Talking trash, touching on truth" -- Micheal Hedges "1-900-I-LUV-YOU"
otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) (06/08/91)
In article <0094970A.3B0DBBC0@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU>, seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward) writes... >In article <1991May31.211508.7023@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle (Sun Software)) writes: >> >>You work for company XYZ. XYZ has an explicit policy that says that reading >>another employee's e-mail is considered Gross Misconduct, punishable by >(And before anybody flames me for this response, bear in mind that as you >get older and accumulate responsibilites and dependencies, you tend to >supress your sense of outrage. Ten years ago I'd have told XYZ to stuff >their request. But my family can't live on my wife's take-home.) Ok, I'll do it.. XYZ Stuff it! When they can't find any more serfs willing to put up with violations of their individual rights, maybe they'll come around, just like all those %^&%*&^ COBOL shops.