And Shane, how exactly do you prove that no one violated that "LPAR Compartmentalization" you just heaved back at me. The whole point is that someone or something has to be empowered to verify the veracity of the acts taking place on a system otherwise there would be no need of this conversation group since there would be no logging because surely it violates that same privacy. I think the privacy you refer to is from "other users", but honestly how is it possible that you and the Systems Admins and Auditors would or could not know each other more intimately. So - I ask again - what real expectation of privacy is there in a Time Sharing System, other than by potential agreement between the users? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Kerr" <shane@time-travellers.org> To: <loganalysisat_private> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [logs] Logging standards? > On 2001-10-27 13:59:41 -0700, todd glassey wrote: > > > > I agree that people have proposed this but there is NO expectation of > > privacy in a TIME SHARING SYSTEM - if for no other reason that it is > > impossible for the OS's Scheduler to not know what you are doing, and > > to document itself, it uses the log Infrastructure. > > No offense, but maybe on *your* system there is no expectation of > privacy. On *mine* there is (and it is documented as precisely as > possible and sent to users when they get an account). > > Simply because the capability to abuse your fellow humans exists does > not mean they should expect to be abused. > > -- > Shane > Carpe Diem > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: loganalysis-unsubscribeat_private > For additional commands, e-mail: loganalysis-helpat_private > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: loganalysis-unsubscribeat_private For additional commands, e-mail: loganalysis-helpat_private
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Oct 28 2001 - 16:55:58 PST