Looking through other users' (unprotected) files

[Mike Don't have strength to leave Meyer]

In article <2849 at rsch.WISC.EDU> mcvoy at rsch.WISC.EDU (Lawrence W. McVoy) writes:
>In article <3561 at mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> jbs at mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) writes:
>>Does someone's home being unlocked give you the right to violate it
>>without permission?  Does someone's desk being unlocked, or in an
>>unlocked office give you the right to look through it?  Does someone's
>>files being in a world-readable directory, or set world-readable give
>>you the right to read them.  I think not.  
>
>>Jeff Siegal
>
>Well, Jeff, you are 100% wrong here.  The analogy between a home and a
>computer is not in any way shape or form a valid one.  Unless that disk 
>that is spinning around belongs to you personally, you can't tell me 
>which bytes I can and cannot look at by suggesting that it is immoral
>for me to look at bytes without my name on them.  You have been given
>a means by which you may deny me access.  If you choose not use this
>mechanism, then you have given me implicit permission to look at your
>files.  

No, it's perfectly valid. Unless you own the disk, you have no right
to assume that you can look at anything that DOESN'T have your name on
it. Let's look at YOUR version of the analogy, and see how it works in
the real world.

>	If you insist on a real world analogy, try this:  it's as if
>someone said, "Here, use my house.  There are other people that I let
>use my house, so here are some keys.  Use them to lock up your stuff.
>If you don't, anyone else can play with your stuff, just as you may
>play with anything you find."  See the difference?  It's not *your*
>house, it's everyones' house.

Would you rent an apartment under those conditions? I damned well
wouldn't. Would you get upset if you left your door unlocked while you
left for a short time, and came back and found your neighbors
rummaging around in your apartment? How about your landlord?

Most people would, and that's because the defaults for the real world
are that your home & property are private, unless you give permission
for others to play with them. If the conditions differ from the
default, then this should be stated FROM THE START.

I hope you see the problem with your analogy - you want to make the
default conditions different from the real world, and assume that you
don't have to tell people that this is so.

And note that this still isn't *my* house, someone else owns the
building. And it isn't "everybody," either. The same applies to a
computer - someone owns the thing, and chances are that it isn't "the
users."

Like a landlord, if you run the system, you can use whatever rules you
like. But if the defaults are different from the real world, the onus
is on YOU to make sure that users know it. If the rules are "anybody
can read anything," then that's fine - so long as you tell the users.
Likewise, if the rules are "reading files you don't own without
permission is a criminal act," this is also fine. And since that's the
way the real world works, that's the correct default.

[Of course, you should still tell people that there may be users with
defective ethical systems, and that NOTHING is save from being read by
others. Like the quote that started this - if you leave the door
unlocked and someone rummages around in your home, you don't have much
room to complain. But the rummagers actions are still illegal and
unethical.]

	<mike