🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Feb28.1...@athena.mit.edu>, pur...@athena.mit.edu (James
R Purdon) says:
>
>I've since learned that this sort of administrative policy was locally
>called "who screams".  The idea is to see who complains, with the
>assumption being only the innocent will object. IMHO it's a bad policy.

A similar event happened here recently.  First, let's call the system
administrator in question "Butch", and the machine "ButchVM".

Well, some people I know were running various sorts of "illegal" programs
on ButchVM.  One was running a "chat machine" (similar to Relay, for those
familiar with Bitnet).  Apparently, he had been told that this was "illegal"
and persisted to run it.  (Note that I have never been formally told that
such a thing is against Bitnet policy, just that it needs the sysadmin's
approval.  They were basing this argument on the fact that it *is* against
Bitnet policy.  Hm.)

Anyway, there were several other "illegal" servers of various sorts.  But the
one that apparently got Butch really peeved was the "Aboveground Server",
which had, among other things, solutions to adventure games, Star Trek
parodies, and lots of Monty Python lyrics.  Well, I'm told that much of this
material is (C)opyrighted, and that the person running the server, Tim, was
in "big trouble."  (As far as I know, nothing actually happened to him.)

Well, I had once requested an index of the files on the server, and had been
sent it.  Well, Butch used this as an excuse to rummage around my ButchVM
account, whereupon he found the REXX source for another "chat machine."  This
chat machine had never been run on ButchVM, and I got really peeved when
Butch disabled my account simply because it was there.

Of course, they couldn't be bothered to tell me.  The only notice I got was
that "CMH not in CP directory" when I tried to log on.  Nice.

Well, a couple of weeks passed, and I was getting really pissed off.  So I
went to talk to Butch.  He told me the above information, so I *assume* that
it was true.  I told him I thought "it's a piss poor way to administrate a
system."  The only things I could get out of him were, "So?  It's our system;
we can do whatever we want." and "What do you want me to do about it?"  I
finally got sick of his attitude, and went to see his boss, Mr. Apple.

Well, Mr. Apple gave me a long horangue about "illegal" progams and
(C)opyrighted software, and how bad PSU's name on the net is, and how the FBI
was investigating the (C)opyright infringements (Bullshit!).  I sat, and
listening, and ignored ever word he said.  Well, after a little bit of
bickering, he said the same thing as Butch, "It our system; we can do whatever
we want." and he made it clear that I, being a student, was insignificant next
to the research that was going on.  (This was bullshit, too.  ButchVM is rarely
used for *anything*.)

Well, I finally managed to get my account back.  Frankly, I hope I really
pissed off Butch and Mr. Apple.  They both deserve it.

I thought in the American judicial system that only *overt* acts were
admissable evidence.  Never having run the chat machine on my account, what
*overt* act had I committed, storing a file there?  Gimme a break.  Does
anyone *really* think this is the proper way to administrate a system?


Virtually,
- Charles Martin Hannum II       "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within."
    (That's Charles to you!)     "To life immortal!"
  cmh117@psuvm.{bitnet,psu.edu}  "No noozzzz izzz netzzzsnoozzzzz..."
  c9h@psuecl.{bitnet,psu.edu}    "Mem'ry, all alone in the moonlight ..."