[ale] OT: Well it is going to hit the list sooner or later.

[Kenneth W Cochran]

>Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 10:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Mike Panetta <ahuitzot at mindspring.com>
>To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts <ale at ale.org>
>Subject: Re: [ale] OT: Well  it is going to hit the list sooner or later.

Ok, this happened kinda in my own backyard, so I feel I should
answer a few points I guess...

>I am not quite sure how it clouds the issue.  The boss that he spyed
>on was an obvious thief.  He was stealing the companies money by

Neither you nor we know that...  We (the public) are only seeing
one side of this story/issue.  For example, the publicity of
this could be the work of his lawyer seeking election year
publicity/sympathy.  (Yes, presumptuous of me, sorry...)

>goofing off while being payed to do the job he was hired for.  Its
>obvious to me that the higher ups would not have given the sysadmin
>permission to spy, because they were probably doing the same thing.

Quite presumptuous I'd say...  You/we just don't know.

>The sysadmin was trying to save the company money (and thus the
>state assuming its a govt institution) which is the moral obligation
>of anyone working for a company.  He should not have been fired,

The "sysadmin" was operating *far* outside his authorization.

If he was installing unauthorized software, *especially*
spyware on end-user machines and/or making, umm, "other"
network/system reconfigs (e.g. in support of such snooping)
that caused trouble(s) elsewhere, then he should have been
dealt with according to established policies/procedures.

If there were some problem(s) with people running "improper"
software on workstations (e.g. solitaire/games on a "business"
system), then that can & should be handled by different, less
obtrusive & more reliable (& more proactive) means, for example,
OS-installation/configuration.  (See followup discussion in /.)
Again, this should have been handled by established policies/procedures.

>in fact there should have been an investigation into everyone in
>the company at that point to see where the dead wood was.

IIUC there was indeed an investigation & it is still ongoing.
This happened *months* ago.  The agency in question has been
under a *lot* of scrutiny/investigation of the years & is under
a Consent Decree for some other things.  They are under constant
"surveillance."

>I so no clouds here...
>
>Mike

No clouds indeed...
What we're seeing on /. & hashing about here is nowhere
near "the whole story," and as best I can tell, still under
investigation.

-kc

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dow Hurst <Dow.Hurst at mindspring.com>
>Sent: Aug 1, 2004 10:33 AM
>To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts <ale at ale.org>
>Subject: Re: [ale] OT: Well  it is going to hit the list sooner or later.
>
>Excellent point using SAGE ethics.  This is a situation where the
>obvious outrage at the guy getting fired clouds the issue.  I'll keep
>the SAGE ethics in mind and get a CYA letter from someone higher up
>before pulling a stunt like that guy did.  Sincerely,
>Dow
>
>
>J.M. Taylor wrote:
>> [... SAGE Code of Ethics commentary...]
>>Jenn
>></end>