|
|
| Author |
Message |
e4808mc
|
|
Guest login id
| 
Feb 4 05:40 UTC 1997 |
I'm entering this partly because Marcus suggested it.
However, I don't see how disallowing the word "guest" as a login id solves
the problem. The person could just create a new account calle, for example,
"stupid" or "jerk" and continue the behavior.
> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 18:26:30 -0500 (EST)
> From: Catriona Davis <e4808mc@cyberspace.org>
> To: staff@grex.cyberspace.org
> Subject: Stupid jerks
> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.970203182517.11696A-100000@grex.cyberspace.org>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> This just came in
>
>
>
> Ok: Telegram from guest on ttyh0 at 18:24 ...
PINE 3.94 MESSAGE TEXT Folder: INBOX Message 1 of 3 END
>
> Ok: Telegram from guest on ttyh0 at 18:24 ...
> i hope this disrupts your BBS session!
> EOF (guest)
>
> Can we do anything about it?
>
>
There was a *big* discussion about "guest" access in co-op.
I argued that we shouldn't have a "guest" loginid, for reasons
including just this problem. Other people argued differently. Co-op
is definitely the right place to re-open this discussion.
-Marcus Watts
random grex staff person
and member at large
|
| 64 responses total. |
e4808mc
|
|
response 1 of 64:
|
Feb 4 05:47 UTC 1997 |
Here's what I received a few minutes later
Telegram from guest on ttyh0 at 18:31 ...
> go fuck your self
> EOF (guest)
>
>
> In fact, here's another even as I type
>
> Telegram from guest on ttyh0 at 18:32 ...
> WOOKIE!
> EOF (guest)
This looks like random harassing behavior, and I'm not sure there is any real
way to stop it. Steve G. did a quick fix, but there is no way to keep
him/her from creating a new id and continually harassing me unless I want to
stop receiving chat/talk/telegram messages totally.
There was actually another message between 18:24 and 18:31, again rude and
gross.
What can be done about this?
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 2 of 64:
|
Feb 4 15:17 UTC 1997 |
Do you respond to this stuff?
|
snafu
|
|
response 3 of 64:
|
Feb 4 15:31 UTC 1997 |
If this person is only using an account NAMED guest, I don't think we can do
anything about it, unless we're going to do something about all the other
people with annoying randoms !tels.... We can't focus on someone just because
they're named "guest"
|
dang
|
|
response 4 of 64:
|
Feb 4 16:56 UTC 1997 |
This is not a "guest" account. Grex does not have "guest" telnet access.
However, there is an account on Grex that has the id guest. It is a personal
account. I'm not sure what we can do about this situation, besides turn off
your permissions. Jan is working on .yeswrite/.nowrite files. Until they
get written, turning off your permissions is the only possibility, I think.
|
scg
|
|
response 5 of 64:
|
Feb 4 19:19 UTC 1997 |
It was a personal account claiming to be a guest account. Since it was
claiming to be a guest accounWaccount, when Grex does not have a Guest
account, I disabled it. Of course, that does nothing about the harrassment
problem.
|
snafu
|
|
response 6 of 64:
|
Feb 4 20:26 UTC 1997 |
If it was a personal account, what is all the fuss about? Just because people
might think it's a guest account? If not, what? Are we disabling any account
which sends annoying !tels? If so, I'll have to begin making a list...
|
richard
|
|
response 7 of 64:
|
Feb 4 23:18 UTC 1997 |
"guest" should be a mail alias if its not being used...good idea to disable
it...that person can get another login. Its like if someone had the login
"root2" and started bogus emails claimning to be the real root.
If we are going to have anonymous reading, may as well have guest access
(read-only)...its the same thing.
|
jenna
|
|
response 8 of 64:
|
Feb 4 23:56 UTC 1997 |
guest is somebody's account, obviously the smebody is mean.
But it is a good example of why not to have abguest account...
not even an e-mail afress to complain to
|
mary
|
|
response 9 of 64:
|
Feb 5 00:01 UTC 1997 |
Unless this account was a security risk I wish staff (scg)
had not disabled it. I'd really hate to see staff starting
to police the system and step in with heavy superuser status
when the problem is social.
|
scg
|
|
response 10 of 64:
|
Feb 5 00:19 UTC 1997 |
The justification I used to disable it, which I agree was proabbly somewhat
questionable, was that since it was claiming to be a guest account, and Grex
does not have a guest account, the account shouldn't be there. Finger guest
to see what I mean.
All I did was change the password, not delete the account. If this user
really cares about their account, they can ask to have it back.
One thing that tends to get lost in discussions like this is that the Grex
staff is a group of already rather busy peole, running a 15,000 user system
in our spare time. Lots of discussion of everything is great, but there are
also times when things have to be done, and decisions have to be made.
|
vicious
|
|
response 11 of 64:
|
Feb 5 03:12 UTC 1997 |
Ok I am going to be on guests side here, Look you peopoe FIRst I read the
plan, guest could change that
STAFF DID NOTHING!!! Other then change his password to get him to
do somehing about his account or social problems!!
That spells to me disfunctional staff!
What kind of person can expect a change in attitude without
leaving room for it!?!?!
Well my staffer?!!?
And as far as the person who guest was "harrasing" goes, She teled staff
AFter
she send guest about a bunch of X's, seem's like some people are hipocratical
about attacking people then blaming them.. Well sinve that person showed their
ability to defend themselfs and staff showed their ability to be narrow minded
and NOT give guest a chance I think the staffer should change the passwrod
to wahat it was an just leave guest mail like a warning\ which usally comes
before you make an action !!!
I thiniyou all who acted on this were stupider then guest and suck
|
robh
|
|
response 12 of 64:
|
Feb 5 09:08 UTC 1997 |
That response made absolutely no sense to me. Maybe I should
re-read it after I get up tomorrow.
|
tsty
|
|
response 13 of 64:
|
Feb 5 13:26 UTC 1997 |
No Plan
you read it? hmmmmmmm.
|
robh
|
|
response 14 of 64:
|
Feb 5 17:56 UTC 1997 |
Sounds like someone managed to break root, then. >8)
(Or, more likely, vicious is a personal friend of "guest".)
And you can forget about changing the password back to what it
was, it's not possible to do that. I would have though a super-cool
computer expert like you would have known that. Grex staff can
only reset passwords, we can't decrypt the password file any more
than others users can.
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 64:
|
Feb 5 19:18 UTC 1997 |
Well, not quite. You can always save the encrypted version of
the password before resetting; putting the encrypted version
back in would restore the password, even though you didn't know
what it was.
|
elkboy
|
|
response 16 of 64:
|
Feb 5 21:26 UTC 1997 |
YOU IDIOTS!! Hmm, lets reset the password, and not give this person another
chance... THAT SOUNDS LIKE A STUPID FUCKING IDEA TO ME!! And shut the hell
up with your stupid 'super-cool computer expert' shit, he said nothing of the
sort... gods wtf is wrong with this place?!
|
vicious
|
|
response 17 of 64:
|
Feb 5 23:47 UTC 1997 |
You guys are really stupid, I would think Just in case you decided to be just
about this you'd at least be able to change the password back.. And then again
you also seem stupid enough to have changed iit in the first place.. MNET
staff gives people a chance at least somewhat, How dare me have firfriends
with people onlie, SORRY ROBH!! It just goes to show, my favoret staff emeber
is no better... Well anyway since you staffers get so much done FOR the users
after insulting them.. Also robh shouldn't you be more mature? I think that
was an attack on my charector I don't like it.... Oh well God I better pray
to you now for forgivness, the truth is too much for you jesus
|
srw
|
|
response 18 of 64:
|
Feb 6 01:47 UTC 1997 |
There's nothing like a well-reasoned response.
I was a little surprised that scg disabled the account, but his justification
seems quite clear. It was an impersonating account. We already have a policy
that prevents person A from impersonating person B.
The account was not disabled because of harrassment. In fact we don't do that.
This doesn't strike me as heavy handed, and I am a bit shocked at the personal
attacks being made on staff members. If you want to attack staff members,
and especially if you just call them "stupid", you are within your rights,
but it is not likely to cause any of the staff to take your ideas seriously.
We do listen to well-reasoned responses, though.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 19 of 64:
|
Feb 6 02:12 UTC 1997 |
Jenna--I don't understand exxactly. Are you saying grex shouldn't have a
guest account (i.e. an account that you don't need to run newuser to use, and
that anybody can access), or that grex shouldn't allow people to name their
account 'guest' (i.e. run newuser, create an account, and give it the login
'guest')?
|
vicious
|
|
response 20 of 64:
|
Feb 6 03:42 UTC 1997 |
Look, robh tellig me something I didn't say PLus mocking me about it is an
attack on me.. And he is a staff emeber ...
And how do you guys know that guest even knows whats going on here? Maybe
guest can't ask for it back if say maybe guest doesn't make another account
|
scg
|
|
response 21 of 64:
|
Feb 6 04:53 UTC 1997 |
(guest didn't have a .plan when I looked at it. What it did have was a full
name of "Guest Account." That combined with a login of guest sure looked to
me like it was impersonating a guest account, which would presumably be an
official account that people could log into to without having to run newuser.
|
ariel0
|
|
response 22 of 64:
|
Feb 6 09:06 UTC 1997 |
Ok now I don't know exactually what a guest account is suppose to be (or do)
I am basically computer illiterate. I do know how ever that In my opinion
disabling that account was violating the right of that user. I mean I know
it was made by someone who either is trying to get attention, kidding around,
or trying to prove a point. But disabling it with no prior warning is wrong
(in my opinion). Who knows? Maybe there name or last name is guest (not meant
to be sarcastic) I am not trying to bash the grex staff in any way shape or
form because they helped me out last month with a harrassment problem I was
having and God knows they didn't have to. In a scarry way vicious does have
a point what if 'guest' has no clue about this at all? aAnd like someone else
said if you are disabling accounts that are harassing I can give you a list
. I get 'tels' and 'talk requests' from people that want cyber-sex . I don't
know about you but I know many users on here that are under the age of 15 and
they shouldn't have to deal with that and niether should anyone else. I think
if you censor one you have to censor all or it isn't fair. There are some very
dirogitory logins that users have and 'guest' isn't one of them('pussy however
is and that in my opinion is gross and noone should have to look at it) So
again if you censor one you have to censor all or give 'guest' his or her
login back. I hope that this was a logical response to your problem......
Ummm...Cutie Will You Be My Valentine??????? I Almost Love You *smiles*
Remember if you censor one user you have to censor ALL users . It is only
fair so I guess I am on 'guests side on this one. Punishing him and not
everyone else or not even warning him before hand violates his rights as a
user. Thank You for your time
|
davel
|
|
response 23 of 64:
|
Feb 6 13:12 UTC 1997 |
Conceivably guest might be in the dark, but there's no reason for it to remain
so. One of its friends & supporters might well tell it. It might email staff
saying "for some reason I can't log in"; if it can give convincing evidence
that it's the *real* owner of the guest account, staff will give it a new
password to use until it can set the password on its own. Finally, it may
create a new account, and use that (or an existing alternate account) to read
this item, ask around, or otherwise find out. It may now be reading this very
item. For all we know, it may have contributed to this item already.
On the whole, I can't get too excited about the possibility that an anonymous
account being used (apparently) for the purpose of harassing people might be
temporarily unavailable. And "if you censor one user you have to censor ALL
users"? As several people have already said, the rule against using accounts
for impersonation is generally applied; I can remember a few time it's been
applied, myself (from my time on staff, plus from past coop discussions, I
think). So, yes, everyone is "censored" in that very limited way: here you're
perfectly free to say (hmm ...) Bill Clinton (or Bob Dole, or Ross Perot, or
vicious) is a jerk, using pretty much whatever language you think appropriate
for it - but you aren't free to take out an account in the name Bill Clinton
which purports to be owned by the current president of the USA, whether you
use that to try to defend him or to try to make him appear to be a jerk.
So what? This "censorship" doesn't prevent you from expressing any view
whatsoever.
|
valerie
|
|
response 24 of 64:
|
Feb 6 14:31 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|