The Amero case and responsibility for security. - Security

This is a discussion on The Amero case and responsibility for security. - Security ; Perhaps a bit OT. Whether Julie Amero's conviction should be upheld or not, I can't say. But the case does point out that every owner of a computer has at least a moral responsibility to take steps to avoid "accidents" ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The Amero case and responsibility for security.

  1. The Amero case and responsibility for security.

    Perhaps a bit OT. Whether Julie Amero's conviction should be upheld or not,
    I can't say. But the case does point out that every owner of a computer
    has at least a moral responsibility to take steps to avoid "accidents" like
    hers.

    It follows that every computer owner should be able to take those steps.
    The incident where uneducated mothers watered down infant formula shows
    that some people are not ready for some aspects of Western society. Yet
    there is a movement to put a computer in the hands of each such person,
    including children. Is that wise?

    Doug L.
    --
    I have spread my dreams under your feet;
    Tread softly, for you tread on my dreams.
    - W.B. Yeats.


  2. Re: The Amero case and responsibility for security.

    Doug Laidlaw wrote:

    > Perhaps a bit OT. Whether Julie Amero's conviction should be upheld or
    > not, I can't say. But the case does point out that every owner of a
    > computer has at least a moral responsibility to take steps to avoid
    > "accidents" like hers.


    It would have been constructive to post a link to the summary of whatever
    "accident" this may have been. I have no idea what this is about. Of
    course, we could all individually google to try to understand what you are
    talking about. Or you could have posted a better message. ... would have
    been better.

    [...]

    > Is that wise?


    Who knows ? (Not me.)

    Try harder next time. As it seems from here and now, this is probably
    spam. And "Perhaps a bit OT".

  3. Re: The Amero case and responsibility for security.

    responder wrote:

    > Doug Laidlaw wrote:
    >
    >> Perhaps a bit OT. Whether Julie Amero's conviction should be upheld or
    >> not, I can't say. But the case does point out that every owner of a
    >> computer has at least a moral responsibility to take steps to avoid
    >> "accidents" like hers.

    >
    > It would have been constructive to post a link to the summary of whatever
    > "accident" this may have been. I have no idea what this is about. Of
    > course, we could all individually google to try to understand what you are
    > talking about. Or you could have posted a better message. ... would have
    > been better.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >> Is that wise?

    >
    > Who knows ? (Not me.)
    >
    > Try harder next time. As it seems from here and now, this is probably
    > spam. And "Perhaps a bit OT".


    It may be spamming. It is more a general issue in relation to security.
    Who will supervise these children, and prevent them from seeing directly
    what they saw there by accident?

    I thought that the story was well known. The link is
    http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/471?ref=rss

    Doug.
    --
    If you don't have a dream,
    How are you going to have a dream come true?
    - Oscar Hammerstein II.


  4. Re: The Amero case and responsibility for security.

    Doug Laidlaw wrote:

    > responder wrote:
    >
    >> Doug Laidlaw wrote:
    >>
    >>> Perhaps a bit OT. Whether Julie Amero's conviction should be upheld or
    >>> not, I can't say. But the case does point out that every owner of a
    >>> computer has at least a moral responsibility to take steps to avoid
    >>> "accidents" like hers.

    >>
    >> It would have been constructive to post a link to the summary of
    >> whatever "accident" this may have been. I have no idea what this is
    >> about. Of course, we could all individually google to try to understand
    >> what you are talking about. Or you could have posted a better message.
    >> ... would have been better.
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >>> Is that wise?

    >>
    >> Who knows ? (Not me.)
    >>
    >> Try harder next time. As it seems from here and now, this is probably
    >> spam. And "Perhaps a bit OT".

    >
    > It may be spamming. It is more a general issue in relation to security.
    > Who will supervise these children, and prevent them from seeing directly
    > what they saw there by accident?
    >
    > I thought that the story was well known. The link is
    > http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/471?ref=rss
    >
    > Doug.


    Hello Doug, and thanks for the link. I was not aware of this story. It
    is a valid concern for many, if not me.

    At risk of sounding superficial, exclusionary or otherwise unfriendly,
    shut them off. This is all public money providing internet access to
    schools. And if there is fault, the fault is in providing the access in
    the first case, and not in some secondary supposed control.

    Turn them off and save a few billion dollars. This is the internet we
    have. I don't like a lot of it, and what I dislike most, I say so. There
    is no "line item veto". Take it as it is or leave it.

    Some smart admins may improve their local pictures. Or not.

    This is our world. This is our network. Speak out if you don't like it.
    I do.

    Prosecuting anyone for failing to block, that's really PTA stuff. Ask any
    teacher about that. If they don't want internet access, then great. Save
    us all a bundle of tax money.

    Wishes.



  5. Re: The Amero case and responsibility for security.

    On Apr 3, 9:10 am, responder wrote:
    > Doug Laidlaw wrote:
    > > responder wrote:

    >
    > >> Doug Laidlaw wrote:

    >
    > >>> Perhaps a bit OT. Whether Julie Amero's conviction should be upheld or
    > >>> not, I can't say. But the case does point out that every owner of a
    > >>> computer has at least a moral responsibility to take steps to avoid
    > >>> "accidents" like hers.

    >
    > >> It would have been constructive to post a link to the summary of
    > >> whatever "accident" this may have been. I have no idea what this is
    > >> about. Of course, we could all individually google to try to understand
    > >> what you are talking about. Or you could have posted a better message.
    > >> ... would have been better.

    >
    > >> [...]

    >
    > >>> Is that wise?

    >
    > >> Who knows ? (Not me.)

    >
    > >> Try harder next time. As it seems from here and now, this is probably
    > >> spam. And "Perhaps a bit OT".

    >
    > > It may be spamming. It is more a general issue in relation to security.
    > > Who will supervise these children, and prevent them from seeing directly
    > > what they saw there by accident?

    >
    > > I thought that the story was well known. The link is
    > >http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/471?ref=rss

    >
    > > Doug.

    >
    > Hello Doug, and thanks for the link. I was not aware of this story. It
    > is a valid concern for many, if not me.
    >
    > At risk of sounding superficial, exclusionary or otherwise unfriendly,
    > shut them off. This is all public money providing internet access to
    > schools. And if there is fault, the fault is in providing the access in
    > the first case, and not in some secondary supposed control.
    >
    > Turn them off and save a few billion dollars. This is the internet we
    > have. I don't like a lot of it, and what I dislike most, I say so. There
    > is no "line item veto". Take it as it is or leave it.
    >
    > Some smart admins may improve their local pictures. Or not.
    >
    > This is our world. This is our network. Speak out if you don't like it.
    > I do.
    >
    > Prosecuting anyone for failing to block, that's really PTA stuff. Ask any
    > teacher about that. If they don't want internet access, then great. Save
    > us all a bundle of tax money.
    >
    > Wishes.

    I think they can control the access to the internet at schools. for
    example by using aproxy server. and i did this for a company before.
    this is very simple. they can control the access to some sites based
    on some sort of black lists and some words. or if they need some
    particular sites for the students they can permit it only and block
    the rest of the internet. they may also use application firewalls and
    so on. and it's not a big work. this will just take some time.
    Wishes.


  6. Re: The Amero case and responsibility for security.

    habibielwa7id wrote:

    > On Apr 3, 9:10 am, responder wrote:
    >> Doug Laidlaw wrote:
    >> > responder wrote:

    >>
    >> >> Doug Laidlaw wrote:

    >>
    >> >>> Perhaps a bit OT. Whether Julie Amero's conviction should be upheld
    >> >>> or
    >> >>> not, I can't say. But the case does point out that every owner of a
    >> >>> computer has at least a moral responsibility to take steps to avoid
    >> >>> "accidents" like hers.

    >>
    >> >> It would have been constructive to post a link to the summary of
    >> >> whatever "accident" this may have been. I have no idea what this is
    >> >> about. Of course, we could all individually google to try to
    >> >> understand
    >> >> what you are talking about. Or you could have posted a better
    >> >> message. ... would have been better.

    >>
    >> >> [...]

    >>
    >> >>> Is that wise?

    >>
    >> >> Who knows ? (Not me.)

    >>
    >> >> Try harder next time. As it seems from here and now, this is probably
    >> >> spam. And "Perhaps a bit OT".

    >>
    >> > It may be spamming. It is more a general issue in relation to
    >> > security. Who will supervise these children, and prevent them from
    >> > seeing directly what they saw there by accident?

    >>
    >> > I thought that the story was well known. The link is
    >> >http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/471?ref=rss

    >>
    >> > Doug.

    >>
    >> Hello Doug, and thanks for the link. I was not aware of this story. It
    >> is a valid concern for many, if not me.
    >>
    >> At risk of sounding superficial, exclusionary or otherwise unfriendly,
    >> shut them off. This is all public money providing internet access to
    >> schools. And if there is fault, the fault is in providing the access in
    >> the first case, and not in some secondary supposed control.
    >>
    >> Turn them off and save a few billion dollars. This is the internet we
    >> have. I don't like a lot of it, and what I dislike most, I say so.
    >> There
    >> is no "line item veto". Take it as it is or leave it.
    >>
    >> Some smart admins may improve their local pictures. Or not.
    >>
    >> This is our world. This is our network. Speak out if you don't like it.
    >> I do.
    >>
    >> Prosecuting anyone for failing to block, that's really PTA stuff. Ask
    >> any
    >> teacher about that. If they don't want internet access, then great.
    >> Save us all a bundle of tax money.
    >>
    >> Wishes.

    > I think they can control the access to the internet at schools. for
    > example by using aproxy server. and i did this for a company before.
    > this is very simple. they can control the access to some sites based
    > on some sort of black lists and some words. or if they need some
    > particular sites for the students they can permit it only and block
    > the rest of the internet. they may also use application firewalls and
    > so on. and it's not a big work. this will just take some time.
    > Wishes.


    The point that I am making is, that clearly this lady did not know what was
    on her computer. A lot of people (me included) think that spyware is a way
    of giving marketing info in exchange for free software. To that extent, I
    support it. But not the kind of spyware she had. Computers should be used
    only by people who understand this point, or who are supervised by such
    people.

    Anyway, too much for an OT thread.

    Doug.
    --
    Experience is not what happens to you; it's what you do with what happens to
    you.
    - Elbert Hubbard


+ Reply to Thread