Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical - Firewalls ; In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says... > The parents where NOT breaking ANY laws provding > their duaghter with the means to bypass the Bess filter. The computer, while personal property, the user is subject to school rules while it's on ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 60 of 60

Thread: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

  1. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
    > The parents where NOT breaking ANY laws provding
    > their duaghter with the means to bypass the Bess filter.


    The computer, while personal property, the user is subject to school
    rules while it's on their (school) network - the user agreed to that
    when they were given access (in 99% of all cases I know of) and that
    means they agreed to NOT violate policy.

    Personal computer, privately owned, it doesn't matter - when you are on
    someone else's network you play by their rules or suffer any penalty the
    network owner wants.

    You continue to show that you're unethical.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  2. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    Chilly8 wrote in his original post:

    > I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
    > people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,

    ....
    > Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
    > NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
    > networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.

    ....
    > I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
    > special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
    > he/she was up to.


    Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
    on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
    the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely
    monitored they might not feel so special. Of course, I'm merely assuming
    that your proxy is advertised as such but, as the rest of this thread
    seems to imply your lack of cluefulness in general in this discussion,
    don't you find it a bit ironic that you're the one raising the indignant
    moralist flag in this situation?

    As for the matter of company bandwidth usage, employers are well within
    their rights to limit staff use of company resources whether it be using
    the postage meter for personal mail, long distance calls to grandma, or
    printing your pictures of your ass on the color printer. The same goes for
    bandwidth consumption. So if your network admin wishes to restrict
    peer-to-peer traffic, flash or ActiveX controls, streaming audio/video, or
    any manner of site filtering/blocking, that's their right to do so as they
    are paying for the bandwidth and for the IT staff that maintains the
    network and cleans the cruft out of your bot net virus infected PC that
    wouldn't need scrubbing if you hadn't been looking at pictures of wedding
    porn in the first place.

    -Gary

  3. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    In article <73e7.479398b4.b15c9@efn.org>, garyd@efn.org.spamsux says...
    > Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
    > on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
    > the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely
    > monitored they might not feel so special.


    See, you've exposed him when we were just going to let him hang himself
    in his own statements....

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  4. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    "Gary" wrote in message
    news:73e7.479398b4.b15c9@efn.org...
    > Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
    >
    >> I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
    >> people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,

    > ...
    >> Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
    >> NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
    >> networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding.

    > ...
    >> I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
    >> special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
    >> he/she was up to.

    >
    > Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
    > on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that
    > the allegedly anonymous proxy server you're hosting was being so closely


    Actually, I am not normally able to monitor what goes on. THAT
    proxy is a filtered proxy for my network, not meant for public
    consumption. The script kiddies that were scanning my site
    found it and posted it to the various public proxy sites. It turns
    out that some filtering proxies have a GAPING security hole
    that allows anyone from around the world to surf through the
    proxy,

    The proxy that IS meant for public consumptoin, the Tor entry
    proxy, I could not monitor that if I wanted to, which is
    why I now advocate people use the Tor proxy, when coming
    from work, because you merely go from machine to another
    random machine on the Onion Router network. By using
    the Tor proxy, instead of the filtering proxy, which was
    found and posted, your activities CANNOT BE
    MONITORED, either by me, OR by your emplyer.

    The Tor proxy is there to allow people to use Tor,
    without having to install the software, very handy
    for people on school or work computers that are
    locked down against installation of new software.

    > As for the matter of company bandwidth usage, employers are well within
    > their rights to limit staff use of company resources whether it be using
    > the postage meter for personal mail, long distance calls to grandma, or
    > printing your pictures of your ass on the color printer.


    There was a radio station in the America some years
    ago that had a contest for some hard-to-get concert
    tickets, of "Fax us a picture of your butt", where people
    had to take a picture of their backside on the company
    copy machine, and then fax that to the radio station,
    where they would decide who had the best backside.
    The winner got tickets to a New Kids On The Block
    concert, which was one of the hottest tickets anywhere,
    at that time.

    This morning DJ crew was one of the zaniest DJs
    ever on morning radio in America, and that was a
    rather zany contest the did.



  5. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical


    X-No-Archive: Yes


    On Jan 20, 10:53*am, Gary wrote:
    > Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
    > > people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,

    > ...
    > > Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
    > > NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
    > > networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding. *

    > ...
    > > I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
    > > special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
    > > he/she was up to.

    >
    > Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
    > on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that


    Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
    them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
    of what they are doing are GONE, becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
    repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
    each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
    an electron microscope is going to recover the data.

  6. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    In article <998a1d33-bc1b-4f1f-a4da-
    0bfed47553cc@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > X-No-Archive: Yes
    >
    >
    > On Jan 20, 10:53*am, Gary wrote:
    > > Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > I did turn one of my proxies back on for a few minutes to see what
    > > > people are using my proxy for, when surfing from work,

    > > ...
    > > > Any employer that would ban sites for planning a WEDDING is
    > > > NUTS. There is NOTHING unethical about using the company
    > > > networks to surf wedding-related sites for planning a wedding. *

    > > ...
    > > > I feel good knowing that I was helping someone be able to plan their
    > > > special day, from work, without the boss being able to know what
    > > > he/she was up to.

    > >
    > > Well, Chilly8, one might question the ethics of a proxy provider snooping
    > > on their users. I'm sure that if your anonymous wedding planner knew that

    >
    > Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
    > them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
    > of what they are doing are GONE, becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
    > repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
    > each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
    > an electron microscope is going to recover the data.


    And there is no proof of that. You still show that you are UNETHICAL AND
    DISHONEST.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  7. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    Chilly8 wrote:


    > Well, I don't keep the logs very long. I erase the logs and overwrite
    > them with Evidence Eliminator every couple days or so, so any tracks
    > of what they are doing are GONE,



    Most likely they're not.

    > becuase I use the DoD spec of 7
    > repetitions of destruction, plus three different kinds of destructs
    > each pass, for a total of 21 passes. If the DoD spec is used, not even
    > an electron microscope is going to recover the data.



    The best, overly aggressive stream generation scheme won't help anything
    against a horribly bad implementation. Evidence Eliminator is such one.

  8. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical


    X-No-Archive: Yes


    "Leythos" wrote in message
    news:MPG.221819459090d038989a17@Adfree.usenet.com. ..



    >And there is no proof of that. You still show that you are UNETHICAL AND
    >DISHONEST.


    I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
    3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass, that
    is
    equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for destruction
    of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
    unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
    a total of 63 times.

    I have a program that can start EE as a service and automatically run
    the disk scrub once a day, and then re-boot the server.



  9. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    Chilly8 wrote:


    > I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
    > 3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass, that
    > is equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for destruction
    > of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
    > unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
    > a total of 63 times.



    I already told that this is very unlikely since EE is a pile of shot doing
    it's job improperly (which is actually not so unexpected).

  10. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    "Sebastian G." wrote in message
    news:619aliF1ubcc6U1@mid.dfncis.de...
    > Chilly8 wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I have EE scrub all the empty space one per day on the hard disk, and at
    >> 3 passes per day, with all three destruction types used on each pass,
    >> that is equal to 63 passes per week, well above the DoD specs for
    >> destruction
    >> of data. So, after a week, any previously erased logs would certainly be
    >> unrecoverable, once the space they were in had been overwritten
    >> a total of 63 times.

    >
    >
    > I already told that this is very unlikely since EE is a pile of shot doing
    > it's job improperly (which is actually not so unexpected).


    Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
    one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
    to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
    that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
    the data.

    There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
    in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
    recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
    slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".



  11. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    Chilly8 wrote:


    > Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
    > one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
    > to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
    > that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
    > the data.



    They were also following the wrong assumption that EE would do its job properly.


    > There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
    > in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
    > recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
    > slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".


    I'd say they were just unlucky or didn't try properly, since it's actually
    quite trivial to create situations where EE fails. Maybe you should take a
    look at the description of "SDelete"
    to get a
    clue what details you have to take care of, and EE doesn't.

  12. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical


    X-No-Archive: Yes

    "Sebastian G." wrote in message
    news:61b3ppF1u0g36U1@mid.dfncis.de...
    > Chilly8 wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Well, it is effective enough to hinder law enforcement. There was
    >> one investigation service, in Britain, that did try, some years ago,
    >> to get the program banned in Britain, becuase they were hollering
    >> that if EE had been used, none of their investigators could recover
    >> the data.

    >
    >
    > They were also following the wrong assumption that EE would do its job
    > properly.
    >
    >
    >> There have been growing calls by investigators and law enforcement
    >> in Britain.to ban the program, becuase THEY say the cannot
    >> recover data from a hard disk where EE has been used. As the
    >> slogan goes "EE works, and now it's official".

    >
    > I'd say they were just unlucky or didn't try properly, since it's actually
    > quite trivial to create situations where EE fails. Maybe you should take a
    > look at the description of "SDelete"
    > to get a
    > clue what details you have to take care of, and EE doesn't.


    Well, when it comes to disk wiping software, I would tell people
    to find something other than EE, because of the fact that in the
    newer versions, they have "product activation",. which ties one
    copy of the program to one machine, which I consider to be
    highway robbery. That is the only reason I have not upgraded
    EE in quite a while, and will almost certainly go to one of their
    comptitors, such as Evidence Blaster, the next time I need to
    upgrade.



  13. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    Chilly8 wrote:

    > and will almost certainly go to one of their
    > comptitors, such as Evidence Blaster, the next time I need to
    > upgrade.



    As if this program would be any less incompetent...

  14. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical


    X-No-Archive: Yes


    Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
    Eliminator? Think again?

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Custom...from_0211.html


    Since I often travel to, or through the USA, I scrub my disk in TWO
    steps. First, I have a "clean" disk image made with Norton Ghost. I
    Ghost my machine with that. Then I use Evdience Eliminator to clean up
    anything that Ghost would miss. If your travel takes you to, or
    through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
    empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
    created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.
    Ghosting the machine, followed by a session of EE, or any other
    programme like it, will ensure that Customs agents in America, as well
    as Australia and Canada (where they are also examining computers now)
    will not be able to recover it. If you travel internationally, you
    NEED some kind of disk wiping program, especially before entering
    America.


  15. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    In article @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
    > Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
    > Eliminator? Think again?


    No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.

    All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
    tracks.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  16. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical


    X-No-Archive: Yes

    "Leythos" wrote in message
    news:MPG.22217b3410dc70a2989a44@Adfree.usenet.com. ..
    > In article > @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
    >> Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
    >> Eliminator? Think again?

    >
    > No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.
    >
    > All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
    > tracks.


    Read the article, Customs can copy ANYTHING from your
    computer, even confidential company information. With all
    kinds of privacy laws, especially if any part of your business
    is in the EU, you could run afoul of EU laws, for what U.S.
    Customs copies off your hard drive. And it could cause
    problems with privacy laws in other countries. To keep your
    company information confidential, EE, or a programme like
    it is a MUST for those who travel internationally, especially
    to, or thorugh, the United States. This way they cannot get
    any temporary files you might generate while accessing your
    company network remotely. If you access your company
    network remotely, EE, or a program like it, is a MUST,
    so that if your computer is ever lost, seized, stolen, etc, etc,
    your confidential company data will STAY that way.



  17. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    Chilly8 wrote:

    > If your travel takes you to, or
    > through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
    > empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
    > created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.



    Well, didn't I already tell you that Evidence Eliminator is an unsuitable
    tool for such a purpose? It will leave traces in file slack, MFT, journaling
    log, USN journals, ...

  18. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    In message <61qioiF20jtgaU1@mid.dfncis.de> "Sebastian G."
    wrote:

    >Chilly8 wrote:
    >
    >> If your travel takes you to, or
    >> through, the US, you MUST have Evidence Eliminator to clean up all the
    >> empty space in the disk, beucase all kinds of temporary files will be
    >> created, even if all your data resides on another server elsewhere.

    >
    >
    >Well, didn't I already tell you that Evidence Eliminator is an unsuitable
    >tool for such a purpose? It will leave traces in file slack, MFT, journaling
    >log, USN journals, ...


    In fairness, US Customs doesn't have the expertise to evaluate such data
    unless you're declared a person of interest...

    Usually they're just surfing for porn or whatever else they can nab
    easily.

  19. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical

    In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
    >
    > X-No-Archive: Yes
    >
    > "Leythos" wrote in message
    > news:MPG.22217b3410dc70a2989a44@Adfree.usenet.com. ..
    > > In article > > @e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
    > >> Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence
    > >> Eliminator? Think again?

    > >
    > > No, people are telling you that EE is not all that you think it is.
    > >
    > > All criminal types and those that are unethical need to hide their
    > > tracks.

    >
    > Read the article, Customs can copy ANYTHING from your
    > computer, even confidential company information.


    If you are traveling with private information on your computer or
    company/medical data on your computer you are asking for trouble.

    Now, you failed to address what I responded it - EE is not all you think
    it is.


    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  20. Re: Wedding Planning Sites - NOT unethical


    X-No-Archive: Yes


    "Leythos" wrote in message
    news:MPG.21fc5120ba1d8539899a2@Adfree.usenet.com.. .
    > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
    >> The parents where NOT breaking ANY laws provding
    >> their duaghter with the means to bypass the Bess filter.

    >
    > The computer, while personal property, the user is subject to school
    > rules while it's on their (school) network - the user agreed to that
    > when they were given access (in 99% of all cases I know of) and that
    > means they agreed to NOT violate policy.



    I can't blame some parents for doing that. Long, LONG ago,
    I did chat with one girl in one chat room, who was a student
    at Bob Jones University, who was using an AOL dial-up
    account through her cell-phone, despite the campus rules,
    to get on. She paid for her AOL account a year ahead
    of time, and logged on through her cell phone and AOL
    account. Cell phones, themselves, are not prohibited at
    BJU, just using them to access the Internet, instead of
    using the on-campus network. Since modern cell phone
    signals are scrambled, I don't see HOW they could
    find out you were accessing the Internet via your cell
    phone, since they could not eavesdrop on the signal.
    Encrypted digital cell phone service has been around
    since at LEAST the late 1990s. So short, of using
    illegal cell phone jammers, it would be difficult, if
    not IMPOSSIBLE, for Bob Jones U, to stop someone
    from accessing the Internet from their cell phones, be it
    through dial-up, or through faster 3G networks. She got
    away with using her cell phone, and AOL accont, becuase
    the signal cannot be eavesdropped upon.


    I found out that BJU has some of the TIGHEST rules
    of any college ever. You are not allowed to watch TV in
    the dorms. When you go home to your parents, you are not
    allowed to watch any movie above a G rating, or any TV
    show above a TV-G rating.

    Since I implemented my public VPN server, I have
    seen a lot of traffic coming from Bob Jones University,
    and now I can see why, with all the DRACONIAN
    rules they have. Since some of the P2P TV services
    usually have the major U.S. television networks being
    rebroadcast by SOMEONE, I am seeing hits into
    my VPN server coming from Bob Jones U, so TVU
    and TVANTS, where people are rebroadcasting the
    TV networks. Since the connection to MY server
    is encrypted, that is no POSSIBLE way the admins at
    Bob Jones U can find out WHAT is going on. I did
    see a lot of traffic from BJU going to the TVU feed of
    CBS affiliate KPIX in San Francisco, during the
    NCAA basketball tournament. Seems that a lot of
    BJU students wanted to tune into the games, without
    the University administration knowing about it. All
    that University administration would know is that people
    were downloading heavily encrypted data packets at the
    rate of 420K for each person connected. As the saying
    goes, "The book is open, but the pages are in an unreadable
    language".



+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3