Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:49:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc ) Message-ID: <201107191349.p6JDn2H2033289@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <CADGWnjVw_toW0uVB1Kd-3E43Z5stz__09h0%2BbCPW4GideBgthQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From cpghost@cordula.ws Tue Jul 19 07:26:51 2011 > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:27:01 +0200 > Subject: Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc ) > From: "C. P. Ghost" <cpghost@cordula.ws> > To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> > wrote: > >> 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. Do you mean to suggest that an employee _cannot_ give permission to *anyone* (whether it is the employer, or just a friend) to look at any file that is categorized as 'private' ?? If they can give permission for 'someone' to look at a particular file, what prevents them from giving that someone permission to look at _every_ such file? > 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. making back-ups is unlawful. Replacing a failed drive in a > > RAID array is unlawful. Re-arranging storage allocation is unlawful. > > *SNORT* > > >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. ;-) If what is forbidden is 'inspecting by a human being', then running file(1) to build a list of 'suspect' files isn't 'opening' them either. Nor is a -mechanical- process that checks for 'suspicious' "magic numbers". <evil grin> > > 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...). Educational institutions here _are_ subject to somewhat differnet rules than corporates. But here, in general, private property _is_ "private property", and the property owner _can_ dictate -- more-or-less *completely* -- the terms under which he lets 'anyone else' use _his_ property. > 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 =not= a technology 'arms race', it is a simple matter of > > 'personnel 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. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201107191349.p6JDn2H2033289>