And, yet, the person that used your proxy could get fired for such a violation of company policy - and if you instructed the person on how to violate the policy you could be liable for his loss and the companies loss if their network is compromised by that violation.
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.
Chilly8 wrote in his original post:
...
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 p*rn in the first place.
-Gary
See, you've exposed him when we were just going to let him hang himself in his own statements....
X-No-Archive: Yes
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.
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.
X-No-Archive: Yes
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=20 DISHONEST.=20
--=20
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a=20 drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" snipped-for-privacy@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Most likely they're not.
The best, overly aggressive stream generation scheme won't help anything against a horribly bad implementation. Evidence Eliminator is such one.
X-No-Archive: Yes
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.
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".
They were also following the wrong assumption that EE would do its job properly.
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.
As if this program would be any less incompetent...
X-No-Archive: Yes
Some people think there is no legimate person needs Evidence Eliminator? Think again?
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.
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.
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, ...
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.
X-No-Archive: Yes
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".
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.