response 18 of 163:

Sep 24 20:21 UTC 2000

Willard and Eric, please see the Grex staff's statement on privacy at
http://www.cyberspace.org/staffnote/privacy.html

We certainly do not believe in allowing roots to have "unfettered"
access to people's files.

However, it is true that Grex does not and can not provide an absolute
guarantee of privacy to its users.  We do our best, but there are
exceptions.  You walked into one of them, the one described in the
document above as "Users Causing Problems on Grex."

Our resources are very limited.  Any user running programs that cause
the use of an excess number of resources (telnet ports, in this case) is
eventually going to be investigated.  Our responses vary from ignoring
it, to asking the user to stop (sometimes by Email, sometimes by
embedding a note in the program so they will see the message next time
they try to use it), to removing the tools, to deleting the account, to
reporting the abuse to the ISPs from which the user connects.  We try to
scale our responses to the severity of the offense and the persistance
of the user.

You're being treated in a manner consistant with the way we treat dozens
of other users every week, and consistant with our long-standing
policies.  Also, I think, a manner consistant with common sense.  I
can't imagine M-Net handles things much differently though I couldn't
find any form of privacy policy posted there.

response 20 of 163:

Sep 24 20:24 UTC 2000

Without knowing every detail of this "case", I would generally recommend
that a user be *warned* first before any action is taken to change
the contents of a user's directory. 

response 22 of 163:

Sep 24 20:34 UTC 2000

Up until I said I was evading the idle zapper, Grex's staff had no
reason to believe that I was doing anything wrong.  I think it
would've been more appropriate for scott to ask me to stop (I would
have) than to take it upon himself to waltz through and modify private
files.

response 24 of 163:

Sep 24 20:42 UTC 2000

#21: I dunno.  I'm assuming I'm on the list, which means that my home
     directory and its contents are subject to inspection by any Grex 
     staff member at any time with or without cause, justification or
     warning. 

     You guys wanna read my E-Mail, too?  Your access to the system
     allows you to do so, so have at it, why don't you?

response 26 of 163:

Sep 24 21:18 UTC 2000

http://www.cyberspace.org/staffnote/privacy.html

NOTE: By "causing problems" we mean technical problems, not social
problems. No degree of rudeness and unpleasantness would justify any
staff investigation of a user's private files or mail.  Only actions
that appear to undermine system security or performance may do so.


This is where I think the line is being crossed here.  Sending mass
telegrams may be rude and unpleasant, but it does not hamper system
security or performance, and therefore, by Grex's own privacy policy,
there is absolutely no justification for my privacy being invaded and
my data being tampered with.  Especially in light of the fact that
'mesg n' and 'mesg ne' are both very well documented.  

This isn't an argument of whether or not mass telegrams are kosher.
I'm trying to make the point that no matter how annoying they are,
they are not justification for the action taken by Grex's staff.

Additionally, I think it a fair argument that a tool that defeats the
idle timer is also not a threat to system performance or security,
although it is admittedly rude and unpleasant for me to tie up
resources when I am not immediately available to use them.  It is,
however, just as much my right to use those resources as any other
user who might log on, and leave his keyboard to pour a cup of coffee,
or use the 20 minute party timeout to add an additional buffer to the
idle rule.

It is polite to log off when you are not at your keyboard.  It is not
destructive or disruptive to not do so.

I submit that Grex's staff has had no business, by its own stated
privacy policy, opening and corrupting my personal files, and
respectfully request an apology.

That having been said, I think my point is made.  I don't mind
standing in line to read Agora -- it's worth the wait.  I just hope
everyone who has observed this situation will give some consideration
to the amount of respect I was afforded by certain members of the
staff.  I make no claims to whether or not I deserve any respect in
this case, but I've certainly demonstrated the staff's standards of
conduct pretty clearly, I think.

Nuff said.

response 28 of 163:

Sep 24 22:21 UTC 2000

#27: Hi, Frank.  Pleased to meet you.

You'd be more indignant for my cause if it were your privacy that had
been violated because of staff impropriety.  Put yourself in my shoes
for just a moment, and ask yourself how you'd feel. 

Scott is in a unique position of not only having verbalized his very
strong feelings about my presence here, but also having the ability to
do something about it.  Were he a more professional root, he would've
turned this matter over to someone without a vendetta.  Instead, he
took it upon himself to handle the situation improperly.

The proper response to this situation would have been an E-Mail or a
telegram.  

If you want to start another item about how bad a person I am, and how
I'm the worst thing to ever happen to grex, and how I am the scum of
the earth, and how I should be shot, you go right ahead.  The point of
this item is that all of those things aside, I am entitled to the same
privacy that you should be fighting for.

response 30 of 163:

Sep 24 22:29 UTC 2000

I don't *have* to put myself in your position, because I have no history of
nor intent to disrupt the operation of grex, make other grexers' conferencing
experiences miserable, try to hack my way past the rules grex has established
for fair use.  Thus I have no fear of staff invading my privacy.  And it
wasn't just your stupid graffiti in agora that got you investigated, so don't
try to play the victim.  It's more like more pathetic attempts to get
attention.

response 32 of 163:

Sep 24 22:50 UTC 2000

#30: Okay, so when exactly is it appropriate for staff to violate
     their own written privacy standards, then?  All the time, or just
     when someone would be in a position to worry about it?

response 34 of 163:

Sep 25 02:35 UTC 2000

Mike, Grex's privacy policies weren't violated.  You were pretty clearly
running stuff to get around the idle zapper, and sending mass tels, both of
which I'm sure you knew would get people upset with you.

And this was not a matter of Scott unilaterally deciding he didn't like you
and deleting your files.  Normally, if somebody were running the programs you
were running, the files would have been splatted without a second thought.
In your case, there was some discussion in the staff conference about it,
wondering whether you were being enough of a pain that making you obey the
rules might get a worse reaction out of you.  In other words, the only reason
your case is any different from the normal twits doing what you're doing is
that in your case we waited longer before acting.

response 36 of 163:

Sep 25 04:03 UTC 2000

   I see nothing wrong with linking it--it belongs in coop.  But let
it be talked about here as well.

response 38 of 163:

Sep 25 05:11 UTC 2000

It would help if newuser announced that staff will inspect directories of
users causing system mischief such as (fill in this space), and will be
delete such scripts upon discovery. Being forewarned, no user can complain
unless an innocent script is deleted. 

response 40 of 163:

Sep 25 05:57 UTC 2000

I don't see any benefit to putting a long list of do's, don'ts, or
consequences into newuser.  It's most all common sense, and in fact most
people can figure it out.  Even for the few that might benefit, putting
it in newuser is moderately pointless.  It certainly would not have
helped in the least with this particular case.  There's no question but
that this person had much experience with this kind of environment, so
to the extent he was constitutionally capable, he would already have
understood what was not acceptable behavior, and what the likely
consequences were.  From the arguments presented by this person, it
seems extremely likely he was "testing the limits".  A more explicit set
of rules is not likely to have helped at all in this situation, because
it would have only solidified the notion in his head that he could rely
on external governance of his behavior, and externalize any blame for
the consequences of his behavior.  This is of course a very popular
solution in small to medium sized social groups where the power figures
have more actual power and greater discretionary ability to administer
corporal punishment as needed to the posterior of any offenders.  It's
not such a useful solution on grex, where there are significant
statuatory limitations on the power and authority of "those in charge",
and in many cases, a numbers and distance problem as well.