On Wed, 30 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, James, and everyone else,
>
> Actually, you're both guilty here. In some posts you didn't specify, and
> both of you have pontificated as if you are talking about some sort of
> universal law. I called "Penguina" on it, so I'd be remiss if I di
At 17:28 30/05/2001 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> But not while you're on my payroll, and not using my equipment and not
> >> using my telephone, and not using my internet connection. I, as a
> >> private employer, have every right to monitor what goes on with my
>stuff,
> >> including wha
Hi,
> Oh so now suddenly James decides to Be Specific.
While I disagree vehemently with some of James' views, in all fairness he
was specific to the EU from the outset. That became less clear as the
thread went on, and I'm not at all sure that's his fault. The thing we all
need to remember, I
At 5/30/01 01:11 PM , Penguina wrote:
>On Wed, 30 May 2001, James Sutherland wrote:
>
> > i.e. don't mention it to the people whose human rights she's violating, or
> > the employer who'll fire her for doing so, or the police who would fine
> > the company into the ground for allowing her to do so
On Wed, 30 May 2001, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> > > At 5/29/01 06:02 AM , James Sutherland wrote:
> > >
> > > >The *US* courts, you mean? I'm talking about *EU* law. That's the whole
> > > >point: this is legal in the US, but NOT in the EU. One of the few a
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 05:56:53AM +1200, penguina sed:
> If the EU has its head so far up its hindquarters that it doesn't
> allow private employers to monitor and regulate the use of company
> infrastructure, then no wonder the EU is so far uh..."behind."
This kind of nationalistic attitude d
On Thu, 31 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> > At 5/29/01 06:02 AM , James Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > >The *US* courts, you mean? I'm talking about *EU* law. That's the whole
> > >point: this is legal in the US, but NOT in the EU. One of the few areas
> > >the EU has got it right, IMHO - for the most par
> At 5/29/01 06:02 AM , James Sutherland wrote:
>
> >The *US* courts, you mean? I'm talking about *EU* law. That's the whole
> >point: this is legal in the US, but NOT in the EU. One of the few areas
> >the EU has got it right, IMHO - for the most part, I think I prefer the US
> >system (2nd am
At 5/29/01 06:02 AM , James Sutherland wrote:
>The *US* courts, you mean? I'm talking about *EU* law. That's the whole
>point: this is legal in the US, but NOT in the EU. One of the few areas
>the EU has got it right, IMHO - for the most part, I think I prefer the US
>system (2nd amendment, bette
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> James wrote:
>
> > Just as a company is free to
> > ban personal 'phone calls, or charge for them, but not to record them, the
> > company can prohibit WWW surfing, or charge users for the bandwidth they
> > use - but logging what users do is a viola
James wrote:
> Just as a company is free to
> ban personal 'phone calls, or charge for them, but not to record them, the
> company can prohibit WWW surfing, or charge users for the bandwidth they
> use - but logging what users do is a violation of their privacy. Usage
> logs must not be made avai
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> Penguina wrote:
> > > I don't think that the person who pays the rent on the office space,
> > > financed the PCs and pays for the bandwidth every month would feel
> > > the same way.
>
> James Sutherland wrote:
> > We aren't talking about the EMPLOYER here,
Penguina wrote:
> > I don't think that the person who pays the rent on the office space,
> > financed the PCs and pays for the bandwidth every month would feel
> > the same way.
James Sutherland wrote:
> We aren't talking about the EMPLOYER here, but about other people. Of
> course the employer
On Mon, 28 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Another case, this one thru a coworker. In the process of trying to
> track down an unsolicited advertiser, getting nothing though their EU ISP
> he contacted their local Consulate and was rebuffed.
UCE isn't a government issue: it's legal. The onl
Whoa!!! Let's not get the legal system present in the US of A confused
with he Rest of the World!
I realize that the spin in Washington is that 'Everyone Should Work Like
US...", but it's just no so.
I am hosting an exchange student from Germany this year. When I poked
amongst the files in the
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> (I'm taking out the attribution here, because the debate is about the
> ideas, not who said them)
Attribution is still relevant, and it's rather rude to anonymise others...
> > > Or if I'm working in the same office and offensive material is on display
> >
On Sun, 27 May 2001, Kai MacTane wrote:
> At 5/26/01 08:28 PM , Penguina wrote:
> > > Viewable by all! Only problem is the privacy issue. She may not be
> > > *allowed* to do that.
> >
> >Just put it in a passworded area (see the .htaccess thread) and only
> >give the password to the responsible
At 5/26/01 08:28 PM , Penguina wrote:
> > Viewable by all! Only problem is the privacy issue. She may not be
> > *allowed* to do that.
>
>Just put it in a passworded area (see the .htaccess thread) and only
>give the password to the responsible people. Anyone who thinks this
>is invasive, try k
(I'm taking out the attribution here, because the debate is about the
ideas, not who said them)
> > > > > What I do in private cannot reasonably be held as harassment by anyone: by
> > > >definition, they aren't involved. If anyone is offended by the contents of
> > > >my PC, the only person li
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Conor Daly wrote:
> On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 06:51:19PM +0200 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> Liese thought:
> >
> > > > What I do in private cannot reasonably be held as harassment by anyone: by
> > >definition, they aren't involved. If anyone is offended by the contents of
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Conor Daly wrote:
> On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 03:13:53PM +1200 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> Penguina thought:
> >
> > Why not write a script to put each users' web access cache list
> > (from the squid cache) up on an intranet web site--viewable by
> > their line superv
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 06:51:19PM +0200 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Liese thought:
>
> > > What I do in private cannot reasonably be held as harassment by anyone: by
> >definition, they aren't involved. If anyone is offended by the contents of
> >my PC, the only person liable for anything
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> Why not write a script to put each users' web access cache list
> (from the squid cache) up on an intranet web site--viewable by
> their line supervisor--you know, the one who approved the account
> in the first place.
>
> Then leave it up to them to figur
Hi Liese,
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Liese wrote:
[...]
> And thats just http. Include email in the picture and it will become
> apparent how desperate i really am.. The shit that is send by email is
> unbelievable. Porn, jokes, virusses, hoaxes, ...
Hm, well, you don't have a limitation regarding th
> > What I do in private cannot reasonably be held as harassment by anyone: by
>definition, they aren't involved. If anyone is offended by the contents of
>my PC, the only person liable for anything is that person: they are
>criminally liable for unauthorised access to my data.
I don't agree wit
> > Actually, James, the squid cache is very different from the content of
any sessions, it's merely a list of the sites visited.
>
> The squid CACHE is a great deal more than that; it actually contains a
copy of most of what was downloaded. Presumably you're talking about the log
files, which lis
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Neale Green wrote:
> From: "James Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sat, 26 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> >
> > > Why not write a script to put each users' web access cache list
> > > (from the squid cache) up on an intranet web site--viewable by
> > > their line supervisor
- Original Message -
From: "James Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Penguina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Liese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [techtalk] Sick of surf an
On Sat, 26 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> Why not write a script to put each users' web access cache list
> (from the squid cache) up on an intranet web site--viewable by
> their line supervisor--you know, the one who approved the account
> in the first place.
Liese said in her e-mail she couldn't
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 03:13:53PM +1200 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Penguina thought:
>
> Why not write a script to put each users' web access cache list
> (from the squid cache) up on an intranet web site--viewable by
> their line supervisor--you know, the one who approved the account
> i
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:57:21AM -0700 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Kai MacTane thought:
> >help here: if you do have a lot of mail traffic, attachments are probably
> >a large part of that. Check first, though: do your users NEED attachments
> >for anything? If so, you'll need to make some
Why not write a script to put each users' web access cache list
(from the squid cache) up on an intranet web site--viewable by
their line supervisor--you know, the one who approved the account
in the first place.
Then leave it up to them to figure out what to do.
In one place I can remember, th
At 5/25/01 05:22 AM , James Sutherland wrote:
>How big's the line in question?? Presumably it's not a particularly busy
>WWW site you host? If I understand you correctly, the problem is not the
>content they are downloading, but the fact they're using a large amount of
>bandwidth to do it?
This
Paul wrote:
>Not really wanting to plug any commercial products but it does sound like
>the only way would be to stick in some sort of filtering proxy that uses
>content-based filtering.. I've not come across any for squid myself but
>the company I work for was looking at a product called SurfC
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Liese wrote:
> This question is not really linux related but i'm getting desperate.
> There are about 300 users in the company where i work. Our website is
> running on a local system, using suse, apache and mysql. Last year we had
> to upgrade our line to the outside world,
At 11:58 25/05/2001, Liese wrote:
>Hi,
>And we are not allowed to step up to a user and say "hey, our logs show
>that last month you've been surfing porn sites for over 20 hours, you must
>stop this", or "We've noticed you have about 100MB of pornography
>attachments on your drive, you are
Hey Liese,
I have the same responsibility in my company, although my situation is only
1/10 the size.
My attitude at this point is that im not going to restrict browsing.
I do however have a running tail on the squid log.
Get each user to read, and sign, a computer usage agreement contract. T
Hi,
This question is not really linux related but i'm getting desperate.
There are about 300 users in the company where i work. Our website is
running on a local system, using suse, apache and mysql. Last year we had
to upgrade our line to the outside world, not because the incoming traffic
(t
38 matches
Mail list logo
