[techtalk] Almost arrested for using telnet

[Kath]

You should have made it clear you were using telnet to GO to a machine not
opening telnet access to the machine you were using.  And then reiterated
that you were checking your email about a job.

Tards :(

Someone I know on a BBS made up a picture to post everytime someone posted a
dumb thread.  I modified it and printed out a few of them to hand to llamas
like this guy.

Here it is (hope it isn't too offensive):

CONGRATULATIONS!

This is in your recognition of your efforts to be a person that increases
the level of faggotry and lameness on this planet!

YOUR CONTRIBUTION HAS NOT GONE UNRECOGNIZED!

- Kath


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tami Friedman" <tami at gnu.org>
To: <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:39 PM
Subject: [techtalk] Almost arrested for using telnet


>         Last Thursday I was using my sneakernet copy of putty on an NT
>         server at the Texas Workforce Commission to check email of
>         fencepost.  I had been doing this for a number of weeks as I am
>         job-searching and have included my email address on my resume.
>
>         Some young male who refused to identify himdelf came over to me
and
>         asked, "Are you using *telnet*?"
>         I replied that I was and he went absolutely ballistic!  He claimed
>         that telnet was strictly against the rules and waved his hand at
>         the posted rules.  The posted rules clearly state that these
>         terminals are to be used for job-search-related functions and no
>         programs may be installed that do not have direct bearing to one's
>         job search.  I pointed out that I was checking my email for a
reply
>         to a job-feeler I had sent out the day before (this was true - I
>         *was* actually using it for job-search-related activities that
day)
>         and pointed out that I was not breaking any rules.  He became more
>         agitated and re-iterated that I was brealking all the rules and I
>         must cease using telnet at once.  I asked him why and he
>         disappeared.  I quickly browsed my email and found the reply I had
>         been looking for, and managed to clumsily (it is m$) cut & paste
it
>         onto my floppy before the young man came back with TWO POLICEMEN
>         who asked me to come down to the station.  Flabbergasted I asked
if
>         I was under arrest at which point they may have blushed a bit (its
>         hard to tell with blacks) and stammered that no, I was not exactly
>         under arrest.  They explained that I had broken the rules on that
>         man's (they pointed to the still unnamed system manager) machines.
>
>         I pointed out that the machines belonged to the taxpayers of Texas
>         of which I was one, and also pointed out that I doubed I was
>         breaking any rules.  I explained that it was mostly a technical
>         issue and if the unnamed manager could explain what danger I was
>         exposing the machines to by running telnet I would be glad to
>         stop.  The unnamed one muttered something about opening ports,
once
>         again refused to give his name (although by this time I had been
>         forced to show my drivers licence and give my ss#) and referred me
>         to his boss, who I will name in another post when I again have
>         access to a terminal with telnet.  For now, I am curious if anyone
>         can give me a good reason why a sysadmin would not allow telnet to
>         be used (when the m$ equivalent of a daemon) is not disabled?
>
>         Thanks
>
> .Tami
>  .signature: syntax error at line 1: `(' unexpected
>
> tami at gnu.org
> (512) 699-7175
> Austin, Tx.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> techtalk mailing list
> techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>