Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:27:01 +0200
From:      "C. P. Ghost" <cpghost@cordula.ws>
To:        Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc )
Message-ID:  <CADGWnjVw_toW0uVB1Kd-3E43Z5stz__09h0+bCPW4GideBgthQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201107191157.p6JBvwf0032763@mail.r-bonomi.com>
References:  <4E25626E.3080509@my.gd> <201107191157.p6JBvwf0032763@mail.r-bonomi.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> w=
rote:
>> The poorly written IT TOS of a company can never bypass the law,
>> regardless of anything you agreed to in your company's TOS.
>
> "male bovine excrement" applies.
>
> For example, if it is part of the _terms_of_emplyment_ -- which one
> *agreed* to, by going to work there --that you (the employeee) give
> permission for the company, or it's agents, to examine any file you
> store on the system.

It depends on the jurisdiction. For example, in Germany, you as an
employee CAN'T waive some basic rights by law, and every waiver
you've signed with your employer is automatically null and void, at
least the provisions that affect those specific rights. It may not be
the same in your jurisdiction though, so you may be right too... in
your jurisdiction.

>> It *is* unlawful for them to even open your files as long as they are
>> clearly labeled as private.
>
> Oh my. =A0making back-ups is unlawful. =A0Replacing a failed drive in a R=
AID
> array is unlawful. =A0Re-arranging storage allocation is unlawful. =A0*SN=
ORT*

>From context, I assume he was meaning "opening" manually, i.e. inspecting
by a human being. Merely copying files as in backups and normal day to
day sysadmin routine, doesn't count as such, even though it is technically
open(2)ing. ;-)

> This is a corporate environment, it is in the terms of employment that
> company computers are for "business use only", that anything on the
> machines is 'work done for hire', and thus property of the company.

Again, jurisdictions vary widely. We here in Europe are at the farthest
spectrum in terms of privacy protection of workers (students etc..) in
the workplace (school etc...). It may be different elsewhere. And since
the OP was in France, we're discussing this under the assumption
that their laws are pretty severe w.r.t. privacy, and at least meeting
if not exceeding European privacy and data protection standards.

> It's =3Dnot=3D a technology 'arms race', it is a simple matter of 'person=
nel
> management' and addressable on that basis.
>
> This does _not_ mean that 'technology' cannot serve a function in policy
> enforcement -- it simply means that technology, _in_and_of_itself_ is
> not "the solution".

Agreed.

-cpghost.

--=20
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADGWnjVw_toW0uVB1Kd-3E43Z5stz__09h0+bCPW4GideBgthQ>