Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <fmkgho$558$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.

This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.

A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

* Chilly8 <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com>:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21f7c32810b96880989986 [at] Adfree.usenet.com...
>> In article <fmkgho$558$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
>>> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
>>> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
>>> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
>>
>> This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.
>>
>> A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.
>
>
> A wedding is a verry SPECIAL occasion, and I see NOTHING
> wrong with surfing wedding-related sites from work, as long
> as you get your work done.
>
>

Using company resources for non company things is likely against company
policy. What part of that are you having trouble with? I'd love to see
you actually own a company and have your staff doing what you suggest
instead of what you are paying them for. How quickly would you change
your tune?

Jason

In article <fml3u8$5k0$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21f7c32810b96880989986 [at] Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <fmkgho$558$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> >> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
> >> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
> >> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.
> >
> > This is why you would be fired if you worked for someone.
> >
> > A company network is for COMPANY BUSINESS, NOT PERSONAL BUSINESS.
>
>
> A wedding is a verry SPECIAL occasion, and I see NOTHING
> wrong with surfing wedding-related sites from work, as long
> as you get your work done.

Again, it's not your call. In our customers networks we even block
access to News and most other sites by default from Managers.

The company makes the rules, you either follow them or get a different
company to work for.

In 90% of cases where people have access to non-company business sites,
those people will waste company time and other resources on personal
crap that costs the company money.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <fmludp$2k8$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> Well, I don't care what people do on my proxy, as long as its
> lawful in France and Mexico, where the main server, and
> backup servers are, respectfively. If some "office drone"
> wants to surf wedding sites through my proxy, they are
> more then welcome to do so.

And that's why all of us consider you an unethical person.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <fmm97m$4m8$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21f85a41334a24e298998a [at] Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <fmludp$2k8$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> >> Well, I don't care what people do on my proxy, as long as its
> >> lawful in France and Mexico, where the main server, and
> >> backup servers are, respectfively. If some "office drone"
> >> wants to surf wedding sites through my proxy, they are
> >> more then welcome to do so.
> >
> > And that's why all of us consider you an unethical person.
>
> Providing a public proxy is NOT unethical, and is LEGAL
> in France, and in Mexico, where my servers are. As long
> as what someone is doing in LEGAL in France, and in
> Mexico, I cannot be charged with any crime for operating
> a public proxy server. Because my servers are in France,
> and Mexico, they are ONLY subject to FRENCH and
> MEXICAN laws, and as long as what someone is
> doing does not violate either French or Mexican laws,
> I am in the clear.

You are not in the clean then YOU ADVISE PEOPLE THAT BREAKING COMPANY
POLICY IS PERMITTED, WHEN YOU ADVISE PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN NOT BE
DETECTED OR MONITORED......

Your beliefs and statements are unethical, you tell people to violate
company policy all the time in these groups.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Chilly8 wrote, On 17/01/08 21:49:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message

<snip>

>> Your beliefs and statements are unethical, you tell people to violate
>> company policy all the time in these groups.

<snip>

> is based in the United States, ANY postings sent to either board is
> NOT SUBJECT to ANY United States law. So any posts I make

<snip>

Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. You keep
failing to address the point that adding to the costs of a business that
is against the companies rules, or advising something which will add to
the costs, is NOT ethical. Legality is a separate issue.
--
Flash Gordon

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Chilly8 wrote:

> I see NOTHING wrong with providing the means to get around

> the school filtering system

You see nothing wrong with advertising people to drive themselves into
serious trouble? Now it's obvious that you are an idiot.

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <fmonun$755$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> and her school-mates were using my proxy, to
> circumvent the school filters,

See, you support unethical activity, you help people circumvent rules
put in place to protect the networks and resources. You are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <fmr298$fhn$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> They were NOT breaking
> any New York laws by using my proxy to tune in to the event.

Actually, many school systems have policy, signed by parents and kids,
that permit the school to permanently disable their computer accounts
for such violations.

You are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

* Chilly8 <chilly8 [at] hotmail.com>:
> But these were just kids. Circumventing the school's filtering system
> to listen as their school-mate performed at this particular figure
> skating event was certainly NOT something that was going to
> haunt them for the rest of their lives. They were NOT breaking
> any New York laws by using my proxy to tune in to the event.
>
> No future employer is going to care much about something
> they did in high school, when they were teenagers.
>
>

Chilly is english not your native language? I figure that has to be the
reason why you can't grasp some basic simple facts.

Jason

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <fms4g9$mbf$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> She told me that her parents
> did not agree with some parts of the Internet usage policy, so
> they set up an encrypted link on the parents broadband link at
> home. When she went to surf the Net, she would make an
> encrypted connection to her parents computer, and then
> surf the net from there. There is no POSSIBLE way the
> admins at Bob Jones University could EVER figure out
> what she was up to.

Yes, there is a clear indicator that she was setup with an Encrypted
link to a residential site - as long as the policy does not permit such
links she could have her internet connection suspended.

If she was found to have surfed, by means of inspecting her computer for
some reason, she could also have her connection suspended.

It doesn't matter if the can see INSIDE the tunnel, it's only that a
tunnel is setup between two sites - and that tunnel is easy to see. Any
admin could easily spot that and then question it.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <fmsbmq$bqs$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21fb2f7712805f93989993 [at] Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <fmonun$755$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> >> and her school-mates were using my proxy, to
> >> circumvent the school filters,
> >
> > See, you support unethical activity, you help people circumvent rules
> > put in place to protect the networks and resources. You are unethical.
>
>
> To tune in, as their school-mate was competing at this skating
> event, to me, shows school spirit, and is NOT unethical.

To break Company/School policy for any reason is unethical - it doesn't
matter what the reason, and a personal reason makes it even more
unethical, it's unethical to break policy when one exists.

You are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Chilly8 wrote:

> There is no POSSIBLE way the admins at Bob Jones

> University could EVER figure out what she was up to.

Are you dumb? As administrators, they have full control over the client, and
could (technically) monitor whatever they want - including the execution of
programs, URLs, screenshots, keyboard and mouse input...

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
> of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.

But it was not HER network connection but of the university which
probably provided her with a free internet connection in her dorm room
with certain restrictions and rules. It is unethical. She broke rules
of a service which was provided free to her.

Gerald

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

On Jan 19, 9:56 pm, "Chilly8" <chil... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> I had a cousin some years ago in who wanted to check up on
> his chidlren.. He worked
> at an office quite a ways away, with a long commute to work,
> so I set him up on my proxy, at the time, where he could
> log in to his home computer, and check up on what his
> then teenage children were up to. It is NOT unethical
> to help a parent check up on their children, which I was

It is unethical to help someone break company rules which are
implemented to protect the company networks and network resources.

> doing in both cases. As far as *I* was concerned, he
> was excerising his PARENTAL RIGHTS to know what

He has a lot of rights but that does not give him the right to break
rules or laws.

> his chidren were up to, and so giving him acccess to
> do that was NOT unethical.

So if he saw that his children were up to something and he jumped into
his car to speed back home, breaking speed limits, breaking street
laws, you would consider that, too, his parental right to check on his
children and thus ethical? If you helped him to get quickly through
some radar checks your doing would be ethical to help him to exercise
his parental right?

Or if he knew that from time to time his children would stay at some
friend's place and he wanted to excersice his parental rights there,
too, and he would thus secretly install some bugs and hidden cameras
there because the friend's parents would never agree to that would you
consider this ethical as well because it is just a parental right to
check on his children? And if you help him to do that you think you
are ethical?

If you agree to work somewhere or agree to use some network resources
at a dorm room you agree to comply with some rules. You usually sign
those rules. Otherwise you would not get the job or you would not get
network access granted. Breaking those rules is unethical. You agreed
to comply with them and now you break them. You are always free to
work somewhere else at a place with different rules or use some other
way to access the internet at your dorm.

Now, if you help someone breaking those rules you are unethical.

Gerald

In article <fmss1j$v82$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> I had a cousin some years ago in who wanted to check up on
> his chidlren.. He worked

So, you keep showing that YOU and people you know and help have a long
unethical history of violating company policy for personal benefit.

You and they are unethical.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <fmsrd3$t87$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> "Sebastian G." <seppi [at] seppig.de> wrote in message
> news:5ve4usF1m58jrU1 [at] mid.dfncis.de...
> > Chilly8 wrote:
> >
> >> There is no POSSIBLE way the admins at Bob Jones
> >
> > > University could EVER figure out what she was up to.
> >
> > Are you dumb? As administrators, they have full control over the client,
> > and could (technically) monitor whatever they want - including the
> > execution of programs, URLs, screenshots, keyboard and mouse input...
>
> This was HER computer in HER dorm room.

You don't seem to understand, the students often sign or agree to having
their communications monitored as part of the agreement for network
service.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <fmsso6$1sr$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Gerald Vogt" <vogt [at] spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:adebdb65-0176-4524-88e5-adb68cd7fce3 [at] y5g2000hsf.googleg roups.com...
> > On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
> >> of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.
> >
> > But it was not HER network connection but of the university which
> > probably provided her with a free internet connection in her dorm room
> > with certain restrictions and rules. It is unethical. She broke rules
> > of a service which was provided free to her.
>
>
> However, her parents were fully within their legal rights to
> provide her with that encrypted connect. The TOS for their
> particular broadband provider allowed them to set up
> such a connection, so her parents were in the clear.

No, the parents do not have ANY right to help her violate network
policy, not at all.

If the TOS permits remote connections for the purpose of surfing the
web, to bypass restrictions, then yes, it would be permitted - but there
is not a single school policy that states "You may use any means
possible to subvert our network security or policy".

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free [at] rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Chilly8 wrote:


> Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws.


It did. Will you accept it finally?


(At any rate, why should we give anyone who abuses Outlook Express as a
newsrader any technical and related juristic competence?)

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

In article <ALdkj.192$G76.48 [at] fe099.usenetserver.com>,
Jason [at] invalid.address.lan says...

> Chilly is english not your native language?

I don't think so - he's an American!
;^)

Jim Ford

On Jan 19, 11:21 pm, "Chilly8" <chil... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Using my proxy did NOT break ANY laws. I must say it AGAIN
> that using my proxy, to check up on his then-teenage children
> DID NOT break ANY laws.

And? The person who used your proxy broke corporate policies. Enough
to get fired. You helped. You provided the service. Unethical.

You can do many things without breaking any laws. It does not mean
that they are considered ethical.

Gerald

Chilly8 wrote:

> Using a proxy is NOT a criminal offence.


Juristic offences don't solely consist of criminal offences... this one is
clearly a civil law offence, specifically employment law.

> It if were, Tor, and other aonymity services would not even EXIST.

Nonsense. The one who uses them is the offender, not the one who provides
the service.

In article <fmt0te$h0o$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" <void [at] nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.21fbce2ea8fabb4e98999f [at] Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article <fmsso6$1sr$1 [at] aioe.org>, chilly8 [at] hotmail.com says...
> >> X-No-Archive: Yes
> >>
> >> "Gerald Vogt" <vogt [at] spamcop.net> wrote in message
> >> news:adebdb65-0176-4524-88e5-adb68cd7fce3 [at] y5g2000hsf.googleg roups.com...
> >> > On Jan 19, 9:46 pm, "Chilly8" <chil... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> This was HER computer, and was HER property, and NOT that
> >> >> of the unversity. That was done from her dorm room.
> >> >
> >> > But it was not HER network connection but of the university which
> >> > probably provided her with a free internet connection in her dorm room
> >> > with certain restrictions and rules. It is unethical. She broke rules
> >> > of a service which was provided free to her.
> >>
> >>
> >> However, her parents were fully within their legal rights to
> >> provide her with that encrypted connect. The TOS for their
> >> particular broadband provider allowed them to set up
> >> such a connection, so her parents were in the clear.
> >
> > No, the parents do not have ANY right to help her violate network

Chilly, you sure post a lot of crap on this newsgroup.
Little, if any, of it is related to Firewalls.