Regarding Anonymity

Regarding Anonymity

Secure Home | Search | About
 Networking Firewalls    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Regarding Anonymity ChronJob 01-03-2008
Posted by Flash Gordon on January 10, 2008, 6:53 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Chilly8 wrote, On 10/01/08 22:23:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>> Sebastian G. wrote, On 10/01/08 19:32:
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
>>>> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL.
>>> The logs will show the original URL requested by the webbrowser, because
>>> the webbrowser itself logs.
>> Personally I would just publish a company policy forbidding the use of
>> *any* proxy. Then all I would have to do is prove that a proxy had been
>> used, not what it was used for. Proving what it was used for would, of
>> course, be a bonus.
>
> However, if you can get to your computer using Internet Desktop

<snip>

Irrelevant. Using any form of remote desktop or remote terminal for
anything other that company business should also be in the published policy.

>>>> And I see NOTHING unethical about listening to Internet radio at work,
>>>> as long as you are getting your work done.
>>> Except if you signed an agreement which forbids doing so.
>> Also companies *pay* for their bandwidth, they don't get it for free.
>> Someone listening to the internet radio (or more especially *everyone*
>> listening to it) could increase the charges the company has to pay for
>> internet connectivity, or cause problems for business related usage of the
>> internet. Since it is generally not permitted *and* can cost the company
>> in real hard cash I would say that it *is* unethical.
>
> Well, providing an open proxy on my machine for the purpose
> of allowing circumvention of filtering systems is NOT illegal.
> As I have said, if it were, Tor would have been shut down long ago.
> You would not see these lists of open proxies all over the net,
> either. Running my own Tor entry proxy, to allow people, primarily
> from work or school computers, there are locked down against
> installation of additional software, to allow the Tor network to
> be used, without installing the software, is LEGAL.

Whether or not you are allowed to run a proxy or tor is also irrelevant.
I was saying why it is not ethical for people to listen to Internet
Radio at work is not ethical (unless the employer allows it). Whether
they do it though a proxy and whether they get caught has nothing to do
with whether it is ethical and whether the company would be within its
rights to discipline staff for doing it.

Also note that whatever technical means are used to disguise the access
it does not prevent the boss from walking up behind an employee and
seeing that they have headphones plugged in to the computer.

Now explain to me how it can be ethical for an employee to increase the
costs of the company by doing something the company states is not
allowed. Not whether your service works, not whether what you are doing
is legal, but whether what the *employee* is doing is ethical when it is
against a clearly stated policy and costs the company money.
--
Flash Gordon

Posted by Chilly8 on January 10, 2008, 7:35 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
X-No-Archive: Yes



> Also note that whatever technical means are used to disguise the access it
> does not prevent the boss from walking up behind an employee and seeing
> that they have headphones plugged in to the computer.

Headphones don't have to be plugged into the computer. One could
plug in one of these SoundFeeder FM transmitters and keep it
out of sight, and then listen through any ordinary cheatp FM
headphone radio. You will appear to be listening to one of the
local radio stations.



Posted by Flash Gordon on January 11, 2008, 4:40 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Chilly8 wrote, On 11/01/08 00:35:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>> Also note that whatever technical means are used to disguise the access it
>> does not prevent the boss from walking up behind an employee and seeing
>> that they have headphones plugged in to the computer.
>
> Headphones don't have to be plugged into the computer. One could
> plug in one of these SoundFeeder FM transmitters and keep it
> out of sight, and then listen through any ordinary cheatp FM
> headphone radio. You will appear to be listening to one of the
> local radio stations.


ANSWER THE QUESTION!
How is it ethical to do something BANNED by the company which costs the
money! This is at least the third time I have asked you.

As to your suggesting, it still does not help. Boss sees headphones on
and asks to see the radio. If headphones are too small to see it does
not help because boss asks question and user has problems hearing
because of radio giving the game away.
--
Flash Gordon

Posted by Leythos on January 11, 2008, 6:46 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
>
> > Also note that whatever technical means are used to disguise the access it
> > does not prevent the boss from walking up behind an employee and seeing
> > that they have headphones plugged in to the computer.
>
> Headphones don't have to be plugged into the computer. One could
> plug in one of these SoundFeeder FM transmitters and keep it
> out of sight, and then listen through any ordinary cheatp FM
> headphone radio. You will appear to be listening to one of the
> local radio stations.

Again, if it's on the company network it will be seen as traffic to a
non-business partner site.

--

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)

Posted by DevilsPGD on January 10, 2008, 7:36 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
wrote:

>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>> Sebastian G. wrote, On 10/01/08 19:32:
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
>>>> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL.
>>>
>>> The logs will show the original URL requested by the webbrowser, because
>>> the webbrowser itself logs.
>>
>> Personally I would just publish a company policy forbidding the use of
>> *any* proxy. Then all I would have to do is prove that a proxy had been
>> used, not what it was used for. Proving what it was used for would, of
>> course, be a bonus.
>
>However, if you can get to your computer using Internet Desktop
>Connection, you can then get to what you want that way. Remember,
>that IDC is basically a "dumb terminal" to any Windows Vista or
>XP machine. Your computer becomes nothing more than a keyboard,
>mouse, screen, and speakers for the remote machine you are accessing.
>Since your home PC, and your ISP is handling the traffic, it is harder
>to figure out what you are doing. Since you are using nothing more than
>a "dumb terminal", it would not violate any policies against using
>proxies.

True, but it would violate policies on accessing remote machines without
authorization.

You wouldn't even need that policy though, just a simple "No personal
use of bandwidth" would be an all-inclusive policy.

Rather then worrying about what traffic *is*, a network admin simply has
to prove what the traffic *isn't*

Namely, is it legitimate business? No? Then it's in violation.

It doesn't matter if it's streaming media, remote access to a home PC,
online banking, a proxy, or whatever else.

Depending on the position of the employee, there are good odds that they
don't have any legitimate reason to be transferring any sort of
encrypted data, so the simple fact that the data is encrypted is
sufficient to know it's in violation of company policy.

Upon noticing unidentified traffic, the net admin would contact HR, who
would contact the appropriate management and then query the user, and if
the user doesn't have a valid business need explanation, they would be
placed on probation or terminated as the need arises.

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Subscription Anonymity Services August 11, 2007, 11:52 am

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy