[techtalk] Sick of surf and porn addicts

[James Sutherland]

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
> > >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 with this. When there is a problem with a computer, it is my
> > job to fix it. Which means finding out what the problem is. If, at that
> > time, i get exposed to porn-related material this offends me. It is
> > belittleing (right word?) to me as a woman, it is rude and is it obscene.
> > But my access is not unauthorised.
>
> Or if I'm working in the same office and offensive material is on display
> on someone else's PC, I'm not involved in any "unauthorised access" but I
> could be the object of harassment dur to the display of such material.

If it's on display (i.e. visible to others), that's another matter; I was
meaning the contents of the user's home directory or whatever, which is
private to that individual. Obviously, the level of privacy of each user's
PC will vary from place to place: I tend to think in terms of individual
offices/cubicles, where what the user does on the PC is private unless
they have a visitor.

> Conor (Who harasses the NT admin by hanging up Tux and
> userfriendly.org posters :-)

LOL! You could try porting the login script my friend has - it tracks the
top 10 uptimes on the network, and this machine's position in the chart.
The highest listed is slightly under 203 days, on a 2.0 kernel; no 2.4
boxes listed yet... I wonder how many NT machines would make it into the
top 10? ;-)


James.