Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judges Take a Stance Against Workplace Monitoring
parvati writes: "The NYTimes is reporting that federal judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the largest of the 12 regional circuit courts) disabled software on their office computers that monitored downloading of music, streaming video, and pornography--software that had been installed by the Washington-based Administrative Office of the Courts after a survey showed that 3-7% of the judicial computer traffic included streaming video and the like. The judges say that they are concerned about "the propriety and even the legality of monitoring Internet usage." The AOC is not pleased."
find / -name '*your_base*' -exec chown us.us {} \;
s/exec/print | xargs
One chown process for a gazillion files instead of one for each file. Yours reminds me of people who do 'cat filename | grep pattern' instead of 'grep pattern files'. YOU SUCK!
Just because a few of us can read write and do a little math, doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the universe
A google search for Leonidas Ralph Mecham turns his name up many times in all CAPS. Must be a prat =)
Chuck Berry owned the womens' toilets in his motel.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
Not to seem argumentative (because for the most part, I agree with you), but you don't need technical savvy to understand privacy violations. Your average human being understands what it means to have your every move watched. Your average human being (at least, the ones who were raised in the United States) also have a problem with being needlessly watched. Even with all the grief we tend to give federal judges, they are people as well and I'm sure they want the same basic rights as any one else, privacy being one of them. This stuff is just common sense. Understanding what the caveats are in an anti-trust case when you've got lawyers and experts throwing legal and technobabble at you...now that takes a special kind of judge.
My sigs always suck.
Hey smart-guy, check your time zone. 10:21AM EDT equals 7:21AM PST. Not everyone lives next to the Atlantic.
Note that in the article, Judge Kozinski is reported to state in a memorandum that he believes monitoring for content is a violation of anti-wiretap statute. This is independent of whether the judges themselves or the judiciary employees want to avoid monitoring for idealistic and legalistic reasons or simply as an end-run around being caught downloading MP3s, AVIs, inappropriate content for the workplace, or simply stealing the bandwidth provided to them as a matter of course for their use in their employment. Don't forget that the judges are employed by us (the taxpayers) via the government to administer and adjudicate the laws that are created by the legislative and executive branches that we choose to elect.
Kozinski's point is actually a very good thing. He asserts that regardless of why he or the judiciary may oppose this monitoring of employee web usage, he has a valid point because this sort of invasion of privacy is violating the anti-wiretap laws.
This may have an interesting effect on the case before FBI's keystroke-logging of Scarfo's computer to acquire his PGP key.
August 8, 2001
Rebels in Black Robes Recoil at Surveillance of Computers
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 -- A group of federal employees who believed that the monitoring of their office computers was a major violation of their privacy recently staged an insurrection, disabling the software used to check on them and suggesting that the monitoring was illegal and unethical.
This was not just a random bunch of bureaucrats but a group of federal judges who are still engaged in a dispute with the office in Washington that administers the judicial branch and that had installed the software to detect downloading of music, streaming video and pornography.
It is a conflict that reflects the anxiety of workers at all levels at a time when technology allows any employer to examine each keystroke made on an office computer. In this case, the concern over the loss of privacy comes from the very individuals, federal judges, who will shape the rules of the new information era.
The insurrection took root this spring in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco and the largest of the nation's 12 regional circuits, covering 9 Western states and two territories. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the ultimate governing body of the courts, is to meet on Sept. 11 to resolve the matter.
The conflict between the circuit judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts, a small bureaucracy in Washington, deteriorated to a point that a council of the circuit's appeals and district judges ordered their technology staff to disconnect the monitoring program on May 24 for a week until a temporary compromise was reached. Because the Ninth Circuit's was also linked to the Eighth and Tenth Circuits, the shutdown affected about a third of the country and about 10,000 court employees, including more than 700 active and semiretired judges.
Leonidas Ralph Mecham, who runs the Administrative Office of the Courts, and who ordered the monitoring of all federal court workers, said in a March 5 memorandum that the software was to enhance security and reduce computer use that was not related to judicial work and that was clogging the system. A survey by his office, he wrote, "has revealed that as much as 3 to 7 percent of the judiciary browser's traffic consists of streaming media such as radio and video broadcasts, which are unlikely to relate to official business."
Officials in the judicial branch on both sides of the issue provided several internal memorandums written as the dispute continued over the weeks.
After the shutdown, Mr. Mecham complained in a memorandum that disconnecting the software was irresponsible and might have resulted in security breaches, allowing unauthorized outsiders access to the judiciary's internal confidential computer network. "The weeklong shutdown put the entire judiciary's data communication network at risk," he wrote on June 15.
Mr. Mecham warned in that memorandum that on the days before the software was disabled, there were hundreds of attempts at intrusion into the judiciary's network from places like China and Iran.
But Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit responded that the concerns were overblown and that the circuit's technical people carefully monitored computer activity during the week that the software was disabled.
In a June 29 memorandum, she said that there was no evidence that the electronic firewall used to block hacking had been breached and suggested that Mr. Mecham had exaggerated the potential of a security breach because having hundreds of attempted breaches per day was routine and routinely blocked.
The Ninth Circuit disconnected the software, she wrote, because the monitoring policy was not driven by concern over overloading the system but Mr. Mecham's concern over "content detection." Many employees had been disciplined, she noted, because the software turned up evidence of such things as viewing pornography, although they had not been given any clear notice of the court's computer use policy.
Moreover, she wrote, the judiciary may have violated the law.
"We are concerned about the propriety and even the legality of monitoring Internet usage," she wrote. Her memorandum said that the judiciary could be liable to lawsuits and damages because the software might have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which imposes civil and criminal liability on any person who intentionally intercepts "any wire, oral or electronic communication."
She noted that the Ninth Circuit had ruled just this year that the law was violated when an employer accessed an employee Web site. In fact, the issues of what is permissible by employers have produced a patchwork of legal rulings and the matter has never been addressed directly by the Supreme Court.
Judge Alex Kozinski, a member of the Ninth Circuit appeals court, drafted and distributed an 18-page legal memorandum arguing that the monitoring was a violation of anti- wiretap statute. [italics added]
Judge Kozinski, widely known for his libertarian views, said the court employees who were disciplined, an estimated three dozen, could be entitled to monetary damages if they brought a lawsuit.
A spokesman for Mr. Mecham said that the software could not identify specific employees but workstations. When unauthorized use was detected, Mr. Mecham's deputy, Clarence Lee Jr., wrote to the chief judge of the district, urging that the employee who used the workstation be identified and disciplined. One such letter includes an appendix listing the Web sites that employee had visited, some of them pornographic. There is no evidence that any alleged abuse of the system involved judges.
Judge Kozinski said: "Aside from my view that this may be a felony, it is something that we as federal judges have jurisdiction to consider. We have to pass on this very kind of conduct in the private sphere."
Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of the George Washington University Law School, author of a recent book on privacy, "The Unwanted Gaze" (Vintage 2001), said, "It's fascinating that the courts have to grapple with these issues so close to home." The law is evolving, he said, adding: "This drama with the judges reminds us of how thin the privacy protections are. There's a real choice right now whether e-mail and Web browsing should be regarded like the telephone or a postcard."
Judge Edwin L. Nelson, who is chairman of a judges' committee that deals with computer issues, said in an interview that his group met last week and drafted proposals to deal with monitoring. Judge Nelson would not discuss the proposals but they are almost certain to resemble policies used in the rest of the federal government, in which clear notice is given to computer users that they may be monitored.
Jim Flyzik, vice chairman of an interagency group that considers computer privacy issues in the federal government, said that each department had its own policy but that clear and unambiguous notification of monitoring was usually an element.
In the private sector, a survey by the American Management Association this year found that 63 percent of companies monitored employees' computer use. END OF ARTICLE
The number is actually far less than one percent. For well over ninety-nine percent of all cases, the Federal Appellate Courts are as far as it goes.
the page this article links to has the mpeg of Steve Ballmer you dumb-ass.
oops wrong comment, should have been on the parent
DrSkwid
A company's bandwidth is the property of that company, not the property of its employees to do with it whatever they please. Responsible companies keep track of how their resources are being used, and take apropriate action when those resources are being misused.
Don't fool yourselves; this isn't about the right to privacy. This is about slackers defending the right to do whatever you want with company resources.
Most people take a different view of laws, rights, and justice, when to them. Most people agree that drug dealers should not profit, so it's ok to take their drug proceeds; hence we have forfeture laws. You get arrested for drunk driving, you lose you care even if you are not convicted.
My workplace uses blocking software. In conjunction with an investigation, a supervisor request or normal network maintenance, we occassionally monitor Internet (primarily WWW) usage. Each time we can't a half dozen folks who are then reprimanded or fired.
Our CEO's feeling is that we should not have to tell our employees that using a company provided PC and Internet bandwidth during the workday to surf porn it not OK. With the last few rounds of discipline however, we have put out a notice to all employees, the boss put out a letter to supervisors requiring them to council their staff and we initiated a user statement of agreement that is signed prior to being issued an account.
All that is great CYA. It is disappointing to see folks who should be setting the example protect the immature habits of a few. It is crap like this that is that is causing American jobs to go elsewhere. I am not for worker abuse, but like one of my bosses used to tell me "When you name is on the bottom of your paycheck, you will get a vote in workplace policy".
First the judges did not disable the monitoring software. The judges had the IT dept disable the software. Also these judges say in there that the only reason they took issue with this monitoring is because the employees were not clearly notified. Where I work we have started firing people on third shift for looking at porn all night. It pisses me off as I am the guy who has to track them down via IP and a log file from a firewall. While I disagree with firing people for the first offense here it was clearly stated in the employment handbook that everyone here signed. It says basically use of company computer resources will be monitoring and going to non buisiness related sites can result in termination. Since it is clearly stated they, the judges, would have no problem with this. Basically, as long as your company tells you that they are monitoring you they can. Same as video surveillance in the workplace. As long as they tell the employees they can tape all they want.
I am 31337 or something.
Everytime they give access to a new service, they should at least inform about rules for accessing it. And when you're joining the company they should inform you about any existing policies. When where you last informed about excessive monitoring and restrictions on privacy during a job interview?
I don't believe that I've ever heard of a policeman being convicted of killing anyone during their normal job duties.
On Feb 4th, 1999 Amadu Diallo was gunned to death in the doorway to his apartment by half a dozen police officers, all of whom were dressed in street clothes. Amadus crime? He was reaching for his wallet. He was even shot in the bottoms of his feet as he lay dying.
Not one of these police officers spent even one day in prison.
At ruby ridge a mother, her fourteen year old son and her baby daughter were all killed by FBI Agents. The mother was holding the baby in her arms when the sniper killed them both with a single shot.
These agents were never even charged with a crime.
At Waco Texas 50 people were burned to death by federal agents, because the agents couldn't just walk away and let the people scatter to be arrested elsewhere.
No agent was ever charged with a crime, even though a lot of documentation was hidden/distroyed illeagelly by the FBI in order to stop any further investigations in the matter.
A police officer can kill you at anytime and get away with it by claiming that he thought you were going for a gun. And they will not even face a days time in prison. Most of the time they won't even be charged with a crime.
During the Seattle riots most of the police officers that were the most brutal towards the peaceful protesters were the ones with no identification on. I believe that these units were specicial federal police units that were brought in to allow the WTO to meet.
The disconect between what the live coverage showed and what the national press coverage showed was really disconcerting. It is obvious to anyone who watched both that we now live in a police state with our news outlets controlled by corporations.
I'll be able to tell my grandchildren what freedom used to be like. Right before my grandchildren turn me into the thought police and I am dragged off to a concentration camp to die.
What a lovely future we are heading towards.
WTF? Why would an employer not have complete control over what you do with THEIR computers while they are PAYing you to WORK for them. This is not play time, you are not at home. You have a computer at work so that you may use it for specific functions to accomplish your job. They are not a common carrier, they are not your home internet provider, they do not host your default mode of private communication. An employer's computers and network connectivity exists for one purpose. To DO WORK. Would you expect to use the business car with out accountability, use the business phone without accountability, use business stati
So even if you post a story with a login-free link included, the editors will clean it up to cover their backs. Frankly, I can't blame them; since almost everyone knows how to dodge the info-collector it's not worth risking a fairly well justified law-suit.
disclosures ridiculous... while I agree with some of it, I totally disagree with the majority of the concept.. it's like saying "well it doesn't say in the agreement that I signed that I can't throw food at the customers..." You cannot nail down every single firing offense that exits. If people don't get it that porn shouldn't be downloaded at work, maybe they belong working at chuckie cheese. As a side note, as an administrator, if I'm told that I'm not allowed to monitor content of packets on the network, exactly how far does that go? Can you not sniff network traffic at all? If you can't sniff content then you are handcuffed horribly.... Maybe your sniffer filters out the content by mine doesn't...
But just because there's no evidence doesn't necessarily imply that there aren't any abuses. It's like with that old adage: "If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
I work for a consulting firm that does a great deal of work for the government. If I'm surfing porn or whatever during their time, then that's not a legitimate use.
Mass downloading on the other hand is something else entirely. As I type, I have slackware 8.0 downloading and I regularly listen to streaming radio feeds while I'm doing my work. Those are the uses that I think are the most important. IMHO, It's no different from having the radio on or listening to a cd.
Except you are using some of their finite amount of resources to do this. Listening to the radio takes no resources (except for the tiny amount of electricity, which they give you permission to use by saying you can listen to the radio). Downloading Slackware and listening to streaming audio uses a piece of their bandwidth.
I work at a company that only has a partial T-1 (768 kb/s). If we had people downloading Slackware and listening to streaming audio, it could potentially impact our bandwidth for legitimate work related activity. Should we be able to monitor and make sure people aren't using our (limited) resources for things they shouldn't and thereby negatively affecting the productivity of others? Of course we should, so how is this any different? If you are continually on the phoen making personal calls, you can be disiplined (they can't monitor the content of your calls, but they can monitor how much you use the phone). That is because it is a limited resources (there are only so many lines) and if you are using then for non-business related activities, you could impact people trying to use then for business.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Did you hear the story about the two judges arrested for drunk driving on the same night? They get to talking, and figure out that they could be the judge at each other's trial, and get off a lot easier.
So, on the day of the trial, the first judge takes the bench, the second says he is representing himself, etc., etc.. To speed things up, the defendant pleads guilty, the judge asks, are you sorry for what you did, etc., etc., the defendant shows "due remorse", and the judge decides to let him off with time served.
The two then switch places, even swapping the same black robe there in the court room, each wearing their golfing outfits underneath, and switch places.
The current defendant pleads guilty, and shows "due remorse". The judge looks over the desk, and says, "if memory serves, this is the second DUI in a row that has come before the court. In the past, the court has been lenient on this particular offense, but it looks like we have to send a message to the community. $5000 fine and time served!"
I agree, this probably won't turn into a real court case. All this talk about illegal wiretaps and other nonsense sounds scarier than a nice, simple privacy amendment to the constitution. I wouldn't like my IT department getting a court order to "wiretap" my connection because they think I may be "stealing" excessive bandwidth from the company. Is it a worse crime if you are "stealing" from a government institution?
The solution is clear - either a privacy ammendment, which clearly states the right to privacy and lets future legislation and court cases decide the boundaries (not likely in the near future), or just go to a better company, one that's not as draconian. And you wonder why there is a shortage of tech workers for government jobs?
-- Dan
"Doesn't surfing improve productivity as a way of taking break?"........Not if the employee spends 7 hours surfing. Of course that 'never happens' in the real world. If the problem wasn't so bad, the companies would have never spent the money to monitor or filter Internet activity. Basically a few losers at a few companies have loused it up for everyone else. Still doesn't mean that public employees have any more freedom from monitoring than you or I do.
I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
So you're say that judges get horny during the day just like the rest of us?
Maskirovka
read the article once
they did not disable it themselves
and i doubt you needed tachnical savvy to read the memo "employees please note that from next monday all internet access will be monitored"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
er how do you monitor the download of chunked data in separate connections available in the ftp, http and napster protocols?
downloads > 10mb make no sense (particularly as thousands of pr0n mpgs are 10Mb (and I know cos I have them here)
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Judges are just to interpret the laws, not rule wether they are just or not. If there is a law they don't like (say the DMCA), they can't do anything about it.
Being pissed off just makes it easier for the loser to get the ruling overturned on appeal.
I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
And businesses are part of the government, because they all need to get a license from the government to be allowed to operate.
The monitoring program ran on a computer connected to the firewall. That computer had several functions. One was to monitor web browsing. Another was intrusion detection. By ordering the techs to diconnect this computer from the network, they also diconnected the intrusion detection for the entire federal judiciary's intranet.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Wait a second here. I read this to mean that it was ruled a violation of privacy to visit someone's website? This seems a bit far in the other direction. Does anyone have any more information? I am firmly against workplace monitoring, but at the same time, I can't imagine how some one could post a web page and not expect visitors.
-db
How do you tella judge what they can and can't look at in the course of their duties? If they're working on a case that involves online porn they may need to visit the site!
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Yeah...that's right. I came up from the ranks.
As a former manager of a staff of phone support techs, this doesn't sound good. Privacy doesn't (or shouldn't) apply in cases where you're using company products to conduct company business. You're there to work, and they have every right to see what you're doing when you're doing it.
I know that monitoring software (via software pretty similar to VNC but neither beer-nor-speech free) helped us get rid of a few folks who were surfing porn, netsexing, and even downloading 1337 h@><0r utilities. I think once we even stopped a rep from verbally abusing a customer via a trouble ticket response because we caught him typing the message. Without these tools, they would have just minimized the windows and the company would have been open to liability. Now, if this precedent applies to all monitoring of workstations, companies are far less able to enforce their employees' behavior, for which the employer is accountable. In short, bunk.
My workplace monitors IP traffic left, right and sideways.
My thoughts on the matter...?
Well, lessee, <tap>,<tap> ...areyou listening, OK!
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Remember, it is illegal in Massachusetts to record cops when they pull you over in a public place. So had it been in MA, the video beating or Rodney King would have been ruled "inadmissible evidence" and been thrown out of court... unless Holiday first got the cops permission to videotape their illegal action.
You're forgetting that sexual harassment laws would essentially allow all the female employees (and with a good enough lawyer the male ones) of the company to sue and collect billions in damages for the fact that a single individual was storing porn on company equipment. Remember the presence of pornography in the workplace, even if only one person ever looks at it, constitutes sexual harassment under U.S. laws and that monitoring all employees is required to avoid liability.
Im suprised everyone hasnt' figured this one out yet.. When the NYTimes puts up an article up on nytimes.com, they also archive the article, id imagine its just put up onto a server with much more storage and the article doens't ever get moved or erased.. So.. EVERY TIME you see a article coming from nytimes.com, and you click on it, you'll get the logon screen. Up at the address bar, you'll see somethin like, http://www.nytimes.com/yadayada=http://www.nytimes .com/story
Just remove the first url, up to the equal sign, and then change the www, to archive.
E.G.
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/national/08C OUR.html
AOC = Asian Orgazm Council
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
I wouldn't have a problem with being monitored if it was spelt out in my employment contract that I would be. If I cared about that, I could then insist on higher pay, or not take the job, if I didn't want to be monitored.
The problem occurs if employers can just start monitoring without informing employees, and without creating the expectation that they will follow through, so that employees can decide for themselves whether to accept it or not.
It is a sad world where you can not mirror the site without hiding behind the AC checkbox because you will be mercilessly assaulted as a karma whore.
Geekizoid: The Small Shiny Things Network ©
Gobble a dick!
Henry Ford once wrote "If you find yourself with and indispensibe employee, fire him as quickly as possible." As an IS&T Manager I run into developers like you every day. Your shit doesn't stink and your code is the best and everyone else is stupid, right? Wrong. I would rather work with a professional who can do his job properly without the attitude. You'll be suprised how fast your company replaces you and won't even miss a beat. It amazes me when I hear someone spouting off like the company "owes" you something. They pay your salary and you do the job according to their rules for that salary, that's it. Don't do work from home. It's OK. But your replacement probably will, and he/she will be rewarded for it.
It's worth trying, and certainly less invasive than monitoring traffic from individual machines.
Would you work in a company that sets up a video camera (full feed, audio, etc) in back of your desk watching everything you do, while taping all your phone conversations?
No?
Then why do you put up with people monitoring your computer use?
To: All Chief Judges, United States Courts
From: Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder
Re: Clarification of AO Correspondence on Intrusion Detection System Shutdown
You have received a memorandum from Director Mecham dated June 15, 2001, regarding the Administrative Office's use of intrusion detection software on the Data Communications Network (DCN). This memorandum will provide you with additional information about why the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit directed that this software be disconnected for a brief period. Before doing so, let me emphasize two points:
1. The security of our computer systems has not been compromised. The firewall that protects the Internet gateway for the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits was not breached during the few days that the intrusion detection software was inactive. Our computer staff has assiduously investigated every rumored firewall breach both within and outside the Ninth Circuit. Thus far, every report of an incident has proven to be groundless.
2. All the Ninth Circuit seeks is a responsible, common sense resolution of the issues involved in Internet monitoring, after careful deliberation by the Judicial Conference. Internet Security The computer and networking equipment that permits courts in the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits to access the Internet is located in San Francisco. These Internet access servers are controlled remotely from the AO offices in Washington, D.C. The servers are protected by a security system (hardware and software) that establishes a firewall between the DCN and the greater Internet. The firewall prevents unauthorized persons (hackers) from gaining access to the DCN and PACER networks. The servers also are equipped with an intrusion detection system, consisting of internal and external sensors, which enables the AO to detect hacking attempts. The intrusion detection system has some limited capacity to stop hackers, but is not a substitute for the firewall.
The best analogy is to a locked door and a surveillance camera. It is the door that keeps intruders out. The surveillance camera simply keeps track of who tried to enter and when. At no time has the firewall protecting the DCN been deactivated. Nor is there any evidence that the firewall has been penetrated. Our systems staff hosts the Internet websites for courts in the three circuits. We have contacted all the systems managers in the three circuits and none of them report any evidence of intrusion or damage to their court web sites. Furthermore, the current debate has nothing to do with the PACER network on which the court Pacernet, Electronic Case Filing, and Internet web servers reside, a point that is confused in Director Mecham's June 15 memorandum. These websites are protected by a separate arm of the intrusion detection system, which was unaffected by the actions of our judicial council. The PACER network's intrusion detection sensor was never touched, and thus continually operational during the period in question.
Internet Monitoring
The intrusion detection system also can be used for purposes unrelated to security, such as use of Internet bandwidth (capacity). In this case, the AO had configured part of the system to identify individual computers within the DCN that had been used to access Internet sites dealing with pornography, music, stock trading, and gambling. Information gleaned from this surveillance was being used by the AO to seek disciplinary action against court employees. On May 23-24, 2001, AO monitoring was discussed by both the Executive Committee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. Reaction from both bodies was sharply negative. The Executive Committee adopted a resolution urging the Judicial Council to direct that the relevant internal intrusion detection system be disconnected until such time as the AO agreed to use it for security monitoring only. The resolution was passed unanimously by the Judicial Council. The circuit executive immediately disconnected the relevant internal intrusion detection system and notified the chief judges of the Eighth and Tenth Circuits and the AO of this action. As it turned out, the relevant portion of the intrusion detection system had shut down on its own sometime over the previous five days. This shutdown apparently went unnoticed by AO systems staff, which is responsible for DCN monitoring, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Our Reasons
The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit took these actions for the following reasons:
1. We are concerned about the propriety, and even the legality, of monitoring Internet usage by court employees. A non-frivolous argument can be made that such activity violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2511, which imposes civil and criminal liability on any person "who intentionally intercepts . . . any wire, oral or electronic communication." This is of particular concern in our Circuit because of the construction given the Act in Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 236 F. 3d 1035, 1046 (9th Cir. 2001), which found liability when an employer accessed an employee website. The Act defines "electronic communication" quite broadly, including "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, date or intelligence of any nature." 18 U.S.C. 2510(12).
2. We are particularly concerned that inadequate notice about the practice of monitoring had been provided to the judges and court staff. Most judges felt that surveillance of individual Internet activity as a means of enforcing an Internet policy without notice to the employee was inappropriate. If such an activity were to be put in place, it ought to be the result of official action of the Judicial Conference with notification to court staff.
3. We believe that there had been inadequate discussion about this policy and practice by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Indeed, it appeared to us that surveillance of employees and possibly even judges had been initiated without specific authority from the Judicial Conference or the Executive Committee. Judges were also concerned that the policy had been implemented without the input and consideration given other similar actions, such as the protection of privacy in electronic case filing. Many judges were concerned about the potential scope of the monitoring. The system has the potential to allow real time observation of individual Internet activity. Indeed, virtually the only function of the "inside" sensor is to monitor the Internet activities of court personnel, not to track incoming Internet activity. Much of the monitoring was not driven by bandwidth concerns, but content detection. Judges believed that a careful policy needed to be in place defining the scope of any monitoring and disclosure of monitoring results.
4. We are concerned about chief judges being asked to report to the AO on actions they may have taken. This is particularly troublesome without Judicial Conference policy directives. Why should a chief judge respond to the AO? Moreover, if a chief judge chooses not to respond, what would the AO believe is the appropriate next step? What is the basis for this? Since there is a "perk" aspect to some Internet use, how much privacy should be given to courtpersonnel? If an employee engages in phone sex at work or places bets over the phone to his/her bookie, it would be embarrassing to the Judiciary, but we do not monitor all Judiciary personnel's phone calls to try to catch such potentially embarrassing conduct.
5. We are concerned that the definition of "inappropriate use" is too broad or might otherwise not be accepted by many chief judges. We are not convinced that downloading music or video files compromised bandwidth to the extent meriting monitoring. Many judges believe that less intrusive methods of administering an Internet policy ought to be pursued before actually conducting surveillance on employee Internet activity. Most court units have only just begun to educate and inform court staff about Internet concerns, particularly bandwidth usage. For example, many employees who were simply innocently unaware of bandwidth consequences would "stream" audio newscasts, particularly during the recent election and aftermath. In many court units, this practice was not against any official policy. Some judges believe that we ought to give court units an opportunity to address this in the first instance before monitoring.
6. Many judges were concerned that recording and monitoring information kept by the AO would be an inevitable part of any Senate confirmation process. In addition, some judges observed that if limiting embarrassment were the goal, we were creating great potential for embarrassment by intercepting, organizing and summarizing this material.
The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit fully supports legitimate system monitoring to detect hackers and outside threats to the security of the DCN. It believes that to the extent that the Committee on Automation and Technology and the Judicial Conference of the United States authorized any monitoring to date, it was for purposes of detecting hackers. The council does not believe that the judiciary leadership intended the process to be used to monitor the activity of judges and court personnel with the concomitant disciplinary action
sought by the AO.Next Steps
The Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States has directed the AO to cease monitoring for non-security purposes and asked the Conference's Automation and Technology Committee to develop a policy before the full Conference meets. The Automation and Technology Committee has formed a subcommittee that is looking into the issue.
Our need as a Judiciary to discuss these important issues and formulate an informed, legally viable and necessary policy is indeed the original point raised many months ago by our circuit executive with the Administrative Office. We gain nothing by disparaging each others' motives or by engaging in threats, but gain everything from a full, accurate, and candid discussion of the important issues at the heart of this problem. We in the Ninth Circuit welcome the opportunity to participate in that discussion.
Well, if they notify you upon receipt of employment
Except that NOBODY notifies employees of policy concurrently with the offer. The policy notification only happens *after* you have started the new job, when they have you over a barrel. And they change policies freely during your employment, leaving you no choice but to accept or walk out. This is a significant power differential, and it suggests that these are not "contracts freely entered into", but that there is some measure of coercion involved.
For further proof, imagine asking for a copy of the employee handbook in an interview. Do you think you'll get that offer? I'll bet it wouldn't help your chances. That says volumes about the coercive nature of this so-called "contract".
Thank you for the no-login link :)
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Good analogy! - just like coins in a newspaper dispenser, your e-mail address will be returned to the wider circulation of e-mail addresses around the internet by large companies. You have no say where that coin goes after it enters that machine, and the same goes for your e-mail address once given out.
-Nano.
What's the difference between my boss listening to me talk on the phone by standing near me and installing a wire tap? What about if I have some good reason for doing something, not just being some statistic. If a boss is looking over your shoulder, they may understand _why_ you are doing something. The fact that according to statistics you contacted a porn site 3 months ago can get you fired, even though that porn site was a re-direct from another site that was one letter off of some other site that _was_ business related.
I'd love to see the rule that says your employer is required to allow you to surf the web and use their network while you are on break.
Well, at _my_ job I'm allowed to browse the web whenever I like, or read a book etc. If nobody is asking for my help, I can do pretty much whatever I want. But my job isn't like most, so I wasn't trying to be specific to me. I'm at work right now, and my boss is very happy to let me read /.
I'm not saying that an employer sould be _required_ to let someone browse the web on break, but I think it's a good idea. You have a break, you decide you want to look up something, so you do it. It's called employee morale.
At least come up with some real arguments.
See above, employee morale sinks if the employees think bosses are checking up on every little thing they do. If there seems to be a problem, there are other ways of dealing with it than "everyone's a criminal, we're monitoring you, trust the computer, the computer is your friend."
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
This is my fucking story! I posted it at 8:30 am this morning and it immediately was denied, then that cock sucker Michael turns around and posts it at 9:02. You fucking suck dick wad.
Think of it this way: Users should have the ability to maximize performance and reduce overhead, just like admins.
sulli
RTFJ.
The judges did not use their smarts to get around the IT department. They used their influence to get the IT department to disable the monitoring software. I have no doubt that the ultimate reason for doing this is that they want to download porn. However, they do make a stand against privacy-invading monitoring software, and they do question whether this kind of software is legal and/or ethical.
The bottom line is that this might be a good thing for the average Joe.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Being monitored in the workplace isn't so bad..Just ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.
Bowie J. Poag
Note that in the article, Judge Kozinski is reported to state in a memorandum that he believes monitoring for content is a violation of anti-wiretap statute. This is independent of whether the judges themselves or the judiciary employees want to avoid monitoring for idealistic and legalistic reasons or simply as an end-run around being caught downloading MP3s, AVIs, inappropriate content for the workplace, or simply stealing the bandwidth provided to them as a matter of course for their use in their employment. Don't forget that the judges are employed by us (the taxpayers) via the government to administer and adjudicate the laws that are created by the legislative and executive branches that we choose to elect.
I didn't elect them to use workplace time and equipment for personal use. Now I agree with Kozinski that if this policy was not well-articulated, then it is wrong for monitoring to be allowed to occur. But I also feel that it is not appropriate to suck bandwidth or waste time on the company dime. Especially when that company dime came from my pocket via taxes.
I also feel that if the company or gov't office allows people to use telephones to make personal calls, they ought to allow some leeway in using internet bandwidth for personal use.
But since it would be inappropriate to use the office telephone system to call Mabel in Australia every day from the AOC office in the U.S.A., it would be just as inappropriate to waste huge amounts of bandwidth for MP3's (unless you are Judge Marilyn Patel, working on the Napster case), porn (unless you are working on a porn-related case), or even voice-over-IP phone calls (unless you are going to work on that case that ATT, MCI, et al, all WANT to file!).
I posted this story at fucking 8:30 am this morning. It gets denied then michael posts it at 9? You fucker, you stole my story!
Monitoring downloads >10MB... Speak for yourself. In the oil industry, at least, downloads in the GB range happen hundreds of times a day in research...er, technology centers. On the other hand, I suppose at this end of the spectrum porn is unlikely as well. Or if it is likely, then I need a new source for my director's cuts.
Are companies/organizations in the US really allowed to monitor and track employee communications in combination with employees identities, that is, are they allowed to not only track that *someone* from inside the company downloaded http://some.hardcore.porn but also that this was done at 02:23 PM by John Doe from the marketing dept? If this is allowed you guys have a serious "1984" problem over there...
Login schmogin; try replacing the "www" in the URL with "archive" and you'll go straight to the page, no messing. This always works just fine for me.
Ah but you are using THEIR bandwidth and THEIR time (THEY are PAYING you to be there to do whatever it is you do - NOT to download ISOs and not to listen to music. If your boss says okay - then its okay. If you did not ask or especially if he or 'someone in corporate' said no - then youre not suposed to do it - EVEN IF *YOU* THINK IT IS OKAY Im starting to see a weird patern in /.'s that just do what they think is right - IE writing an anti code red worm that nukes the partition 'because if they didnt patch it - they deserve it'.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
now if only I had gotten my html correct =)
Now Judges need their porn too just as much as the rest of us!
Bandwidth management and spy-ware are not the damn same. It is a relatively simple matter to properly limit the amount of bandwith an individual machine may consume. I have set up many edge network which managed bandwidth based on IP address / network (even super- and sub-nets) and this is not the matter. This stems from ignorance at best, corporate heavy-handedness at worst. Bandwidth is clearly a red herring aimed to block the simple, and I feel correct, conclusion that we are being softened up for mass monitoring the likes of which Orwell counldn't even dream of.
Sorry Judges, the owner of a computer system that is used in the workplace by employees has the right to monitor anything on their system. If I actually owend the system you disabled IDS on I would have had you up on charges for makeing unauthorized changes to MY computer system. If you don't like the law then change it via your elected legislators, not because you are Federal Judges who think they are somehow privleged.
zenray
They should be made to take lie detector tests and piss in a cup.
Quite often judges are put in the possistion where 'morally' or 'justifiably' they want to rule with the downtrodden, the little guy, the underdog, the just one - etc. However, what they want to do is not always the lawful thing to do. Justice is not always lawful. How fucked up is that?
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Awww....poor federal judges. They are upset because their computers are being monitored at work. Guess what, fellas? Private sector folks have been dealing with this for years, and considering you are being payed with tax dollars.....fair is fair. So, deal with it. Hopefully someone will make an example out of a couple of these judges and fire them if they get out of line and continue to try to block the use of the software.
One thing I noticed half-way through the article was a reference to employees being disciplined despite not being made aware of the policy. This is illegal.
.mov or .rm file, but unless the site has sexually explicit content we don't bother investigating.
Is a company monitoring your actions while at work illegal? Well, if they notify you upon receipt of employment they will not tolerate certain acts (sexual harrassment, firearms, smoking, downloading streaming video) then you have a choice. Take that job and follow the rules... or don't. It's that simple. Since the equipment you are using belongs to the employers and the bandwidth you are using belongs to the employers, they have the right to state any policy they want.
Monitoring isn't bad. As a security guy, we have to monitor people daily. For instance, we watch any downloads >10MB and do content filtering... sometimes we need to investigate exactly what a user has been downloading. We watch files over 10MB because there isn't much that is downloaded over 10MB, and we only have maybe 25-30 legit downloads per day that are that size. Sometimes we see someone downloading a
It IS in our company policy that using company computers for downloading pornography is illegal and all employees are made aware of this through a signed statement they return to H.R. upon being hired and through a mention of it at orientation at their first day of work.
It isn't illegal to do this, unless the company doesn't tell you they are doing it. If they use a "full disclosure" policy regarding things like this, then this is and should be completely legal.
you mean www.stand.org.uk.. www.stand.org is a US based charity, nothing to do with the UK one.
I do not understand what my employees do so I can't help them do things which are productive.
... so far
I can stop them doing things which are unproductive.
Now we have open plan offices, e-mail and web monitoring. We cannot relax and get on with our jobs in peace and quiet - but at least we're not wasting time.
Dunno about you, but I find it quite hard to design and code in the middle of a fscking zoo.
Mind you, I'm getting away with this
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
Not to single you out (ok, so I am), but you and several others appear to be missing the point. Yes, I believe that such uses of employer's computers are just wrong. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is instead the methods by which they were being monitored. If I walked up to my boss and made some side comment about how I was using my computer to watch videos during the day, then he'd have the right to fire me. On the other hand, if my employer uses stealthy monitoring tools to "spy" on me while I work, this is an invasion of my privacy, and in my mind no different that tapping my phone without a warrant. Just wait till somebody monitors you and cans you for some pornography popover that came up while you were reading an article on *news source X* about a new deal between your company and another.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
"the days before the software was disabled, there were hundreds of attempts at intrusion into the judiciary's network from places like China and Iran. "
How does Monitoring Software == firewall software all of a sudden? Please don't tell me that their monitoring software is also a "personal firewall" package. If they're relying on firewalling at the workstation level then all of my faith in the judicial system is lost. "We didn't have the staff to support a redundant SOHO system so we ordered up a few copies of Norton's Personal Firewall". Oh, the humanity!
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
You can thank all the lawyers in the nation for starting this censoring craze. A woman for example might be fired for being incompetent but knows the boss goes to penthouse.com. She can sue her boss for sexual discrimination. A sleazy lawyer can say "hey he looks at porn all day long. Does he look at all women like sex objects and not as competent employees?"
On the other side someone could sue on constitutional grounds of freedom of speech for things such as email monitoring and blocking. But now the New York state supreme court itself questioned the legality and it opened the door to hundreds of potential lawsuits. After all in the lawyers eyes a state supreme court itself questioned the legality. If I were a HR manager, I would be pretty pissed. On hand you can risk being sued if you don't monitor through sexual discrimination and on the other hand through abusive searches and preventing freedom of speech. So what is a workplace suppose to do?
I suppose the real question is with the privacy laws. I am in favor of corporation monitoring only under the condition that they do it under their own office with their own equipment during work hours. I believe we have no right to privacy other then the government cannot prosecute you with evidence taken without a search warrant. A private enterprise is not a government so it has a right to search its own computers. We never did have freedom of speech at work. Can a cuss in front of my boss or bosses boss or have any opinion or believe I want while on the job? I didn't think so and it's ok because a corporation is not a government. Think not about the costs of bandwidth and productivity but the costs of potential lawsuits.
http://saveie6.com/
Cool. Our best defense against this stuff is when it starts to affect judges, prosecutors and Conress-critters.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Judge not lest ye be judged... or something like that.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
...'cos ya need a New York Times login to view it, and we don't need more spam.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Don't try to make this out to be more than it really is. This is just a bunch of co-workers using their own smarts to get around the IT department.
Now I can resume downloading pr0n at work unhindered!
That was the point, wasn't it?
Dancin Santa
Any appeals in Dmitry Sklyarov's case will go to the 9th Circuit, which is just one rung below the Supreme Court (and in fact, is the final say in most cases; only about 2% of cases appealed from Circuit Courts of Appeal are ever accepted for review by the Supreme Court.) It's cool that we have judges so high up the ladder who have a sense of individual liberties and enough tech know-how to work around The System to achieve it.
IANAL
I agree... I'm also the guy at our company who has to routinely check my logs on where our people are surfing and when. I only look at the times they're surfing when their supevisor has commented on the employee's dropped productivity and was curious if they were surfing during work time. Most of the time I go through my logs and look for the typical pr0n sight URL and note the IP and notify the supervisor. I think the company is in the right for doing this especially for blocking pr0n. Not only does it prevent the waste of the company's resources (employee time, equipment, bandwidth) but it also prevents other lawsuits from employee's. An employee may see pr0n displayed on a computer screen and may be sensative enough to get offended and call it a "hostile work environment" and sue the company. I've seen it happen. So it literally damned if ya do and damed if ya don't.
What I'm curious about -- and I've even asked our company's counsel about this -- is what's the difference between monitoring web activity and monitoring, say, the lunchroom for suspicious "non-work" activity?
Or monitoring the content of our telephone calls for "non-work" communication?
Or monitoring the bathrooms for "non-work" activity?
If there were microphones in the lunchroom -- or, even worse -- in the bathroom -- employees would be furious.
But what's the fundamental difference -- since we're talking "content" here -- between "non-work" jibber-jabber (which surely wastes huge amounts of time) in the hall and "non-work" jibber-jabber surfing from, say, MarthStewart.Com or Kmart.com or Walmart.com?
Our company's counsel said, well, you have a good point. But he couldn't explain the difference.
Why is form of communication more "privileged" than the other? And why do employees sit by and allow their computer clicks to be monitored yet would raise holy hell if they found their "non-work" bathroom conversations were being taped, logged, and then catalogged for a manager's later perusal.
I suspect all this monitoring stuff boils down to two things: (1) liability and (2) bad managers. The liability I can understand -- sexual harrassment due to pornoography, etc. etc. Okay, I understand that.
But (2) is more complex. This isn't a newsflash to anyone on Slashdot, of course, but why is it that more and more managers are farming out their "managerial duties" to the IT department? "Hey, I can't monitor my employees all the time, but I can damn sure monitor what web pages he/she views. Ergo, I retain control."
So, what exactly is the difference between a boss looking over your shoulder and using a tool to do it over the network? Same thing, different way of doing it.
I'd love to see the rule that says your employer is required to allow you to surf the web and use their network while you are on break. If anything, for health reasons it should be discouraged. Use the time to rest your wrists, I think thats what breaks are for.
At least come up with some real arguments.
Understanding that the browser was NOT an intrinsic part of the operating system and did not consititute a threat to consumer choice, for example would have taken all of 60 seconds.
just paraphrasing what you wrote, but any non-biased judges would see that browsers mean SQUAT when it comes to operating systems, so their inclusion or not is irrelevant.
Ms was guilty of monopolistic ideals only through their marktet and forced licensing deals with OEMS. What they integrated into the OS should be of ZERO concern.
Why? Because it comes down to, who decides what is and is not allowed to be integrated?
What if MS started to include compilers for C++ and such in their OS? How about source code so that making windows apps using their compilers was many times easier?
So, yes, technically capable judges are nice.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Read his comment again. His reference to technical savvy was their ability to recognize what the software was doing, not what the implications were, and even more than that their ability to disable that software.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
If Clinton wants our porn URL's he can do it through the proper channel's, Instant Messenger!
Understanding that the browser was NOT an intrinsic part of the operating system, for example would have taken all of 60 seconds.
Curious George
***General Consultant to the Human Race*** My opinions are free. You get what you pay for.
If stupid laws and practices affected judges more often, I think we'd get better outcomes of cases.
It's obvious a lot of this monitoring goes over the line.
Too bad "judge" Kaplan didn't have a kid who downloaded Metallica and was one of the 300,000 kicked off, etc, or liked to buy out of region DVD's.
The more pissed off judges get the better.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
9th Circuit, eh? Bunch of weirdos anyway..
Hey, if they lose, who will they appeal to?
What or who is the AOC?
Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
uid: nytimessucks19 pw: fuckyou
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/national/08C OUR.html
Control your enthusiasm. While they may have shut off the software, this will almost certainly be a "Do as I say not as I do." result. Consider that most judges who break the speed limit getting into court are probably not revoking their own licenses.
Workplace monitoring is here to stay and has been upheld too often for it to be easily overturned. Any case brought to challenge would have to be in the legislature and the infamous "What do you have to hide" mentality will hold most representatives at bay.
Sad but true...
Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt
First you dont read the linked articles, now you dont read the article summation on Slashdot itself, people please!
Good: You can use systems that anonymously monitor the use of the Internet in a department. This is interesting, as it would allow detecting possible "problems". If the survey showed that X % downloaded porn when they worked, the department would be able to raise the issue and start setting focus on the problem (if it is considered a problem).
Bad: On the other hand, monitoring personal information would target everyone, and would force any worker in the department to become paranoid. This would lead the way to do personal manhunts, and would be a very bad thing.
-:) Oh no - not again.
www.rednebula.com
We keep talking about monitoring at the workplace -- I am all for *if* it is aimed at:
a) making sure that nothing "outside the law" is taking place
b) making sure that its not being over done by utilizing company and work bandwidth.
HOWEVER, what I don't see being studied and reported on is, if letting employee surf at work is adding value to their productivity and therefore to the company. For example, it is a fact that listening to music (via radio, et. al.) is a way to improve ones productivity. Doesn't surfing improve productivity as a way of taking break, et. al.?
Can we for once get some study done on this "monitoring" stuff from a positive angle please?
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
is that the higher-ups only begin to question the legality/ethics of software monitoring when it happens to them directly.
Although I'm not a big fan of workplace monitoring, this instance smacks of that guy whose neighbor told him about the how p2p likes to find kids, give them pr0n and take their bikes.
In a perfect world, the folks in D.C. would listen to the concerns of those of us who are bugged by privacy intrusions when they first start. I guess I'm not really one to complain, since I've never written a letter to my congressdude.
Maybe we should start writing. That way we'll be justified in complaining when congressmen/judges only care about things affecting them directly, or when they hear it from their neighbor's kid's cat.
While it's interesting to think that federal judges wanting their privacy might have an effect on how the workplace monitors people, how will it actually affect the private business sector? It may be a case where they could (eventually...) decide that the government has no right to monitor, but private businesses might remain unaffected...
I'm not as concerned about employers monitoring what their employees do while at work as I am about the government monitoring what citizens do while at home. Has anyone here heard anything recent about Carnivore, the FBI's E-mail monitoring software? I remember there being a luke-warm rash of arguments against it, then it just kind of faded away in to the "Oh well, we tried." train of thought. What about RIAA monitoring file-sharing? Employers have at least a decent argument on monitoring internet usage, after all they are paying people for their time but the government of RIAA have no right at all to monitor what we do in our homes.
"
2nd, what about if someone is looking up something during say, a lunch break. Or during mandatory paid break time. (in Oregon, the law requires something like 1 15-min paid break for every 4 hours working)
There are, of course, things that should and should not be done. If your entire office is on one DSL link, don't be downloading ISOs etc. It's called common sense, and everyone should use it.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
You don't even need a live email addy: fake@email.com will do just fine. Stop being so fu*kin paranoid and start living your life, dude.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
August 8, 2001
Rebels in Black Robes Recoil at Surveillance of Computers
By NEIL A. LEWIS
ASHINGTON, Aug. 7 -- A group of federal employees who believed that the monitoring of their office computers was a major violation of their privacy recently staged an insurrection, disabling the software used to check on them and suggesting that the monitoring was illegal and unethical.
This was not just a random bunch of bureaucrats but a group of federal judges who are still engaged in a dispute with the office in Washington that administers the judicial branch and that had installed the software to detect downloading of music, streaming video and pornography.
It is a conflict that reflects the anxiety of workers at all levels at a time when technology allows any employer to examine each keystroke made on an office computer. In this case, the concern over the loss of privacy comes from the very individuals, federal judges, who will shape the rules of the new information era.
The insurrection took root this spring in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco and the largest of the nation's 12 regional circuits, covering 9 Western states and two territories. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the ultimate governing body of the courts, is to meet on Sept. 11 to resolve the matter.
The conflict between the circuit judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts, a small bureaucracy in Washington, deteriorated to a point that a council of the circuit's appeals and district judges ordered their technology staff to disconnect the monitoring program on May 24 for a week until a temporary compromise was reached. Because the Ninth Circuit's was also linked to the Eighth and Tenth Circuits, the shutdown affected about a third of the country and about 10,000 court employees, including more than 700 active and semiretired judges.
Leonidas Ralph Mecham, who runs the Administrative Office of the Courts, and who ordered the monitoring of all federal court workers, said in a March 5 memorandum that the software was to enhance security and reduce computer use that was not related to judicial work and that was clogging the system. A survey by his office, he wrote, "has revealed that as much as 3 to 7 percent of the judiciary browser's traffic consists of streaming media such as radio and video broadcasts, which are unlikely to relate to official business."
Officials in the judicial branch on both sides of the issue provided several internal memorandums written as the dispute continued over the weeks.
After the shutdown, Mr. Mecham complained in a memorandum that disconnecting the software was irresponsible and might have resulted in security breaches, allowing unauthorized outsiders access to the judiciary's internal confidential computer network. "The weeklong shutdown put the entire judiciary's data communication network at risk," he wrote on June 15.
Mr. Mecham warned in that memorandum that on the days before the software was disabled, there were hundreds of attempts at intrusion into the judiciary's network from places like China and Iran.
But Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit responded that the concerns were overblown and that the circuit's technical people carefully monitored computer activity during the week that the software was disabled.
In a June 29 memorandum, she said that there was no evidence that the electronic firewall used to block hacking had been breached and suggested that Mr. Mecham had exaggerated the potential of a security breach because having hundreds of attempted breaches per day was routine and routinely blocked.
The Ninth Circuit disconnected the software, she wrote, because the monitoring policy was not driven by concern over overloading the system but Mr. Mecham's concern over "content detection." Many employees had been disciplined, she noted, because the software turned up evidence of such things as viewing pornography, although they had not been given any clear notice of the court's computer use policy.
Moreover, she wrote, the judiciary may have violated the law.
"We are concerned about the propriety and even the legality of monitoring Internet usage," she wrote. Her memorandum said that the judiciary could be liable to lawsuits and damages because the software might have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which imposes civil and criminal liability on any person who intentionally intercepts "any wire, oral or electronic communication."
She noted that the Ninth Circuit had ruled just this year that the law was violated when an employer accessed an employee Web site. In fact, the issues of what is permissible by employers have produced a patchwork of legal rulings and the matter has never been addressed directly by the Supreme Court.
Judge Alex Kozinski, a member of the Ninth Circuit appeals court, drafted and distributed an 18-page legal memorandum arguing that the monitoring was a violation of anti- wiretap statute.
Judge Kozinski, widely known for his libertarian views, said the court employees who were disciplined, an estimated three dozen, could be entitled to monetary damages if they brought a lawsuit.
A spokesman for Mr. Mecham said that the software could not identify specific employees but workstations. When unauthorized use was detected, Mr. Mecham's deputy, Clarence Lee Jr., wrote to the chief judge of the district, urging that the employee who used the workstation be identified and disciplined. One such letter includes an appendix listing the Web sites that employee had visited, some of them pornographic. There is no evidence that any alleged abuse of the system involved judges.
Judge Kozinski said: "Aside from my view that this may be a felony, it is something that we as federal judges have jurisdiction to consider. We have to pass on this very kind of conduct in the private sphere."
Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of the George Washington University Law School, author of a recent book on privacy, "The Unwanted Gaze" (Vintage 2001), said, "It's fascinating that the courts have to grapple with these issues so close to home." The law is evolving, he said, adding: "This drama with the judges reminds us of how thin the privacy protections are. There's a real choice right now whether e-mail and Web browsing should be regarded like the telephone or a postcard."
Judge Edwin L. Nelson, who is chairman of a judges' committee that deals with computer issues, said in an interview that his group met last week and drafted proposals to deal with monitoring. Judge Nelson would not discuss the proposals but they are almost certain to resemble policies used in the rest of the federal government, in which clear notice is given to computer users that they may be monitored.
Jim Flyzik, vice chairman of an interagency group that considers computer privacy issues in the federal government, said that each department had its own policy but that clear and unambiguous notification of monitoring was usually an element.
In the private sector, a survey by the American Management Association this year found that 63 percent of companies monitored employees' computer use.
Oops - apologies to all. That'll teach me to check my URLs properly. Sorry about that one.
It belongs to the company and these silly people who expect to be able to do as they please on the companies time and equipment need to grow up. Your company provides your computer to you as a tool, just like your stapler. If you abuse that tool it should be taken away from you. What gives you the right to use the companies' property to do personal things on the companies' time with the companies' resources? Stop your whining and get back to work. P. S. I'm not trolling, I'm a manager.
What a bunch of a-holes. It's fine when it happens to everybody else, but when it happens to them that's the only time something has to be done. I have lost so much respect for the judicial branch lately. (Starting with Bush V Gore.)
The issue here is a matter of trust and respect. Employment is a bargain struck between the employer and the employee. It is usually in the interest of the employer for the employee to continue to work for him and vice-versa.
It seems to be increasingly the case that some employers believe they can train all the surveilance equiment money can buy on the employee. The problem here is that the employer is demonstrating no trust what so ever in his employees - whcich means they have a fundamental HR problem if they can't trust anybody they hire.
Where an employee finds that his employer doesn't trust him to do his job he loses respect for his employer and the whole thing degenerates in to a vicious cycle of distrust and disrespect.
In most cases if employees are treated like real humans and not machines they will do better work and have a better attitude towards the employer.
It is not the threat of monitoring that stops me spending the day surfing the net but the fact that I am being paid to do a job - if the job didn't get done questions would be asked - what I was doing with my time wouldn't make any difference the point would be that I wasn't doing what I'm being paid for.
If it is neccessary for an employer to monitor it's staff continuously then the employer has much bigger problems than what people are looking at on the internet.
This story shows that the best way to get legal action going is to piss off someone who can make it happen. Rip off a lawyer, invade the privacy of a judge.... They don't care about my ability to access porn at work, but take away theirs and it's the biggest courtroom issue since OJ and the bloody glove.
Maybe there's a judge somewhere who misses Napster and can bring legal action against the RIAA for shutting that service down. That might be why the DOJ is investigating the music industry: the lawyers want their free music back.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
Curious George
***General Consultant to the Human Race*** My opinions are free. You get what you pay for.
It is all fun and games till a judge loses his p0rn.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
If I disabled monitoring software, my boss would have every right to fire me. It's not my computer, bandwidth, electricity, etc. A poster says they simply told their sysadmin to disable it for them. If I nagged and whined at my boss to please turn off the antiporn filters, he'd fire me for that. It's not my choice, because I'm not the boss. Who the hell do these judges think they are. They are employees of the government. They have to follow all the same stupid rules that every other employee has to put up with.
I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
If you are using my phone with my consent, yes it should give me the right to record your conversation. It's my phone. What I should do before you use is say, "Jake, sure you can use my phone but I'll be on the receiver in the other room because last time I think you said some nasty things about me." You can then spit in my face and/or use a payphone.
In regards to the cop, there are guidelines for him to follow. Even a technician monitoring the traffic has to follow rules. He can't mock up a top ten list of porn sites visited by Fred on the intranet. If his boss who wants to know who's canine fornicating and wasting bandwidth, and needs to monitor the network 24/7, then that's what he has to do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in love with any of the policies at work. I rather download MP3s on a T3 at work than at home on 56k. But my boss pays for it, so if he says I can't, I better not. I can get a warning, not get that raise, or just get fired. I have to be a corporate whore to pay the mortgage and pay for my kid's puffer.
In another posting they mentioned the whole thing about NY Times going through everyone's computer. Of course everyone would be pissed and offended. But how is that different from a virus scanner going overnight through your files and deleting infected ones? They scan their workstations whenever they want especially when they a justifiable cause (most times in their eyes not ours).
They own it and we work for them. If we don't like we can use our (digital) cells for personal calls, surf at home (or use safeweb), find another job, or become a consultant.
Anyways, as a citizen I'm entitled to certain rights but also have to follow the law. As an employee I get a paycheque but I also have to follow the rules. Since I'm a corporate whore and need to pay the mortgage and my kid's puffer, it's downside of my job that I can't download warez.
I do think my boss is reasonable and in turn they should be able to expect a sensible use of their computer systems. No one is going to get fired for visiting ESPN to get soccer scores (hell, I do). They most likely won't even get a warning. But they will get fired if they download crazy-as pr0n.
I do see your point. It's pretty crappy having the feeling that big brother is watching you. But frankly this is nothing compared to what the mess the bank's pigs make of your credit rating. Or what the FBI is doing with carnivore. And I don't even work or even owe them anything.
POKE 53281,1 POKE 53280,0
So, let me get this straight. Everytime a new way to waste time is introduced, your employee has to renegotiate a contract with you stating that you should be working, not goofing off. Does it say anywhere that you can not chill out at the water cooler all day? Generally, if you do that then you will be reprimanded.
What has happened to common sense and work ethics? Besides, by this point I think just about any major company would have an internet usage policy that has been distributed.
It's their computer equipment, their buildings, their officespaces... let them do with their property what they want. Let them monitor all they want.
I don't want anyone telling me what I can do with my computer, so if I want to monitor my computer I will. Same with the employers: if they want to
monitor their computers they should be able to.
I consider it a huge inconsistancy in nerd viewpoints that they want freedom for themselves (let me put whatever OS I want on my computer!) but not for some other groups (don't you DARE monitor what goes on on your computer while your employee is using it!).
If you don't want to be monitored, don't work there. It's that simple.
And then there's the solution that the employees can always insist that the executives of the company are monitored too and everyones' records are made available to both employees and stockholders. After all, I'm sure the stockholders will go for any proposal that would increase productivity from the executives too.
The key is to leave the decision to monitor or not to the company itself, and not the government.
What's the difference? :-)
(Incidentally, I have mod points and I didn't mod you down, just in case your sense of humour is broken)
It's nota my planet, monkey-boy - Dr Lizardo.
As for numbers of attempts. Literally thousands in a week.
What is not clearly stated is that the AO installed IDS equipment both outside and inside the 9th Circuit gateway. The equipment disabled was the inside equipment. So there was never any security risk.
A bunch of judges decide take a stand against some bureaucrats who wanted to monitor their computer usage. Like I said: Oo-o-oh! What bravery. If you and I were to do that in our workplaces, we'd soon find that we'd be providing our professional services elsewhere. I'm not sure about New York but a lot of the judges here in Illinois are elected and it's pretty hard to get rid of them. Pretty easy to take such a stand when there are, essentially, no consequences. I wouldn't count on seeing these guys written about if Profiles in Courage II ever comes out.
Try siding with employees the next time a case involving workplace monitoring is brought to trial in your courtrooms. Then maybe this'll mean something.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
And I am not required to leave the building during breaks. So it liiks like I am given time AT WORK to do non work related things, yes?
The cop/gun is a good analogy. The cop doesn't have carte blanche to use his gun (point it, fire it, etc.) and is generally prepared for public and departmental review if the gun's discharged. Spyware is like a cop with a gun pointed at you all the time you're online, and if the cop (spyware) thinks you've made a false move, BANG! your job is dead, no story in the paper, no review by internal affairs. Why someone's ownership of something should compromise my rights is beyond me. If I'm using your phone with your consent, does that give you the right to record my conversation? If I'm using your computer and internet connection with your consent, does that give you the right to my passwords and files in the course of using your computer? And if my employer supplies a computer for me to use with his consent, how is that any different? Are you so agreeable to your employer listening in on all your conversations on your work phone? To my thinking, interactions between employee and employer should be the same as between any other humans, and if a friend of yours asked you to piss in a cup so he could check for drugs or to let him videotape you for 8 hours a day you'd tell him to get bent. A right to privacy shouldn't have ifs, ands or buts, and it shouldn't apply only when somebody isn't signing your paycheck or part of the gubbernmint.
AC's cheerfully ignored
Who are the workers who have the luxury of privacy at work anyway? Mostly the bosses who are shielded from everyone else with their separate offices, secretaries, closed doors, etc. And the furtive sort of privacy you can imagine you might have in a cubicle, or if you stay at your desk during lunch. So if there is a right to privacy in the workplace, wouldn't it logically go way beyond net traffic? If it's a "right" it would have to be democratically allowed. Would being made to sit in an open, cubicle-less room then be a violation of "privacy"? Aren't these judges likely to catch a tiger by the tail if they "win"? Remember, the definition of "employee" centers on the existence of employer "control" over exactly how the employee conducts him/herself while on the job. We go to great lengths to euphemise the basic indentured servant status of the modern workplace, but it is what it is - organized control of people by other people for the profit of the owners. Deal with it. - M Peasley -
What we need is for the courts to interpret this to include employers, corporations, etc.
Well... He's only parroting what what they told him in MCSE class!
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
For years, it is these same judges/lawyers that have consistently stripped away our privacy rights. Let them get a taste of what they have brought forth. These judges should not be above the law. If I am monitored at work, then they should also be. The law of the land states guarantees that all laws apply to everyone equally. In fact, more stringent controls should be placed on them due to the fact that they are using taxpayer equipment. The web sites that they visit should be publicly available (on a govt webs site?) so that all Americans can see what this "esteem" body of lawyers are doing. The taxpayers own this equipment. Therefore, the taxpayers have the right to monitor how this equipment is being used. Plain and simple.
I have to disagree with the majority here on this one. Since I am in charge of this sort of thing as my day to day job this concerns me quiet a bit. Why should I be at work and have to wait over 3 hours for a 10 meg file to download? Isn't there an expectation of productivity that must be maintained? The only way to effectivly keep the internet usage open to the people who need it is to shut of the people who don't. And, as an unfortunate side affect that user may not get to there P0rn site and might, horrors, get back to work! It's not like we're talking monitoring internet usage in a library or a kiosk. This is your job. It's like saying that having a dress code is a violation of your personal image. Businesses must maintain a certain level of professionalism and quality. The way to do this is with policies that say, "wear certain clothes" or "your internet usage is monitored".
Before you start cheering the move as proof that the American legal system is still primarily concerned with Justice, read this.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/cocakarma/
--
Dmitry will go to prison. The corporate sponsors of the DMCA have already paid for that and they won't accept a refund.
In the article, Mr Mecham, who is the it person, stated:
'After the shutdown, Mr. Mecham complained in a memorandum that disconnecting the software was irresponsible and might have resulted in security breaches, allowing unauthorized outsiders access to the judiciary's internal confidential computer network. "The weeklong shutdown put the entire judiciary's data communication network at risk," he wrote on June 15.'
This it total FUD! How can a monitoring program on a judges workstation have ANY effect on the integrity of the firewall. I don't know of any firewall that requires client programs on end users workstations to be active in order to maintain protection.
it doesn't matter what the submitter says, the editor must approve it , geez
I'm sure they'll eventually give the OK to monitor net usage...it's just a matter of time. Maybe they'll give us something like the tax-refund checks they're giving out. Something like a coupon for a free day or downloading MP3's and porn. If you are married you get two days....
---------------------- Women love me, fish fear me ----------------------
I've got a couple of questions about the article though. Firstly, it says:
Anyone got any idea how many such attempts a network like this typically gets? I'm guessing it'd be a similar number regardless of the filters, but there's plenty of people here who've got more experience than me.Secondly, how do these monitors work? I ask, because I'm amazed that disabling content monitors would constitute a security risk of the sort they're talking about. Surely they just log what each user is downloading, rather than actively blocking content or attempts to connect to the network. They're not even filters, just logs!
If you'd bothered to read the fascinating article, you'd have seen that the NYT explicitly says: "There is no evidence that any alleged abuse involves judges." Just so you know.
And in fact, the issues they are worried about are :
- Judge Alex Kozinski, a member of the Ninth Circuit appeals court, [argues] that the monitoring was a violation of anti- wiretap statute.
- "Aside from my view that this may be a felony, it is something that we as federal judges have jurisdiction to consider. We have to pass on this very kind of conduct in the private sphere."
- "In fact, the issues of what is permissible by employers have produced a patchwork of legal rulings and the matter has never been addressed directly by the Supreme Court."
That's what they are worried about. And as for using their tech smarts: they just ordered their sysadmin to disable monitoring software. Try reading the article, mmmkay?"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
Here is a link the the article that does not require a login.m l
/.ers
archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/08/national/08COUR.ht
Lets teach everybody a trick here...
If you have a link to the NY Times, replace the "www" with "archive" and it suddenly does not require a login.
Please be kind to your fellow
It's like a law-enforcement officer. Here in Canada (and probably in some states) it's illegal to walk around with a gun, yet the cops do so. It's the "tool" with which they require to do their job. In order to investigate if someone has broken a company policy of course the technician has to open the file or visit the site to verify. But he/she is not breaking the company policy since that's what they were hired to do and have the authority. So they use the "tool" that employee is not allowed to use. If they don't like it, they can find a more liberal workplace. Like the first poster stated, they signed the document and could end up fired or reprimanded.
They are always abuses with people in positions of power. The technician could surf questionable sites all day and no one would be the wiser. Until the boss checks her monthly bandwidth bill and brings in a consultant to see where the traffic comes from.
Regarding the strip searching and searching someone's car, obviously your employer can't do that. But they can look through everything that they own. Your computer, the URLs of sites visited, the numbers that you dial, what's stored in your file cabinet. They own it, they paid for it, and they can do what they want with it.
The line starts getting blurry when people ask for blood tests, genetic evaluation, etc when there's no point. Exception would be jobs where certain attributes are necessary to do a job properly, say a vision test for a pilot, a daily sobriety test for a bus driver, or certain a physical stamina for a fireman.
Most places I've worked at common sense prevails. If I'm hired to do a job I shouldn't spend all my day surfing. If my boss is paranoid to check on me, let him. If they are paying me they have the right to expect a certain code of conduct.
POKE 53281,1 POKE 53280,0
After reading this I was reminded of the computer forensics "How-To" article in Computer World 7/9/01, http://www.computerworld.com/community/security/se curity_manager/0,,NAV65-663_STO61959,00.html . In which a company visits the desktop machine late at night and copies the hard drive for later study. Thinking about it even more it seems like you could just backup the client hard drives each night then scan the "data" for interesting items. To completely automate the system you could just e-mail HR the violation information for appropriate action. "Please fire so-and-so, they visited web site such-and-such from a company machine, twice today!"
I've found over the years that there is often a correlation between an employee's time spent inappropriately browsing the WWW and job performance. My personal policy has always been to trust employees and reward good job performance.
In the rare case that an employee breaks the laws of the land we've been able to retroactively piece together the evidence needed by the police from logs and backup tapes. May not be as proactive as real time monitoring but it seems to be just as effective.
As for security threats. There are lots of ways to prevent viruses and system compromises that don't involve monitoring what client users are browsing on the internet.
I think if management came to me and asked that we monitor computer usage by employees I'd suggest that we find new supervisors who are more in touch with the day to day activities of their charges.
Which reminds me, do you monitor your children's internet activities? I personally just put the computer in a public place in the house (like the kitchen) and make a point of walking by it every once and a while.
If their requests go through a cacheing proxy server then the files that were requested and the ip address of the requesting machines may be in a log file.
Ask me about my vow of silence!
Is it just me that see's the irony in this.
Here we have a bunch of judges, who, instead of taking their employer to _court_ for what they see as possibly illegal monitoring, and get it stopped...
...just block it.
That helps the rest of us out, how?
Sheesh.
-- Why should I question authority?!
Ever heard the term "Mexican crab"? It comes from a story about what happens if a number of crabs are captured and put into a bucket. If one clambers over its fellows and tries to escape, the others pull it back down.
That's you.
Good luck to these judges. Let them escape and pull the rest of us out behind them.
Darryl.
Fair is fair, right Mr. manager?
:)
My job monitors "everything". Lately, with the slowing economy, and crappy IT job market, they've taken to distributing the firewall reports to the boys upstairs. So, basically out of fear for our jobs we can't use the internet for personal stuff anymore.... even if out projects are delivered on time or early.
That's OK though, becuse except for essential production support, I now refuse to work at home, on my own time. Why should I use MY hardware and MY bandwith for them? I usually spend about 15-20 hours a week writing code at home... trying to get stuff projects done early... try out different things etc. But no more.
In order to practice and to keep my skills sharp, I'm looking for an open source project to contribute to. I haven't found a project that I like yet, but I'm looking... Now that I have all this free personal coding time.
Anyway, when the job market picks up again, my company and all the suits upstairs can kiss my ass. I'm going to find another job. Hell, I should start looking now. And I will be missed... nobody... and I mean nobody in my group can hit the ground running with my code. The API's are easy to use, but the implementations are quite complicated... and I wrote them all.
Getting back to my interest in open source, Does anyone have any suggestions for an up and coming project that needs help? I'm a solid C/C++ programmer with a financial background. I can probably offer about 15 hours a week to a project.
pressure/grep
Microsoft Fucking Sucks!! Up The Penguins!!
Looking at the timestamp on your post(Wednesday August 08, @10:21AM EDT ), I think that it's likely that you're posting from work. So you think it's OK to tell the guys in the trencehs that they can't surf on company time.. but you can post to /. .
Typical manager mentality.
pressure/grep
Microsoft Fucking Sucks!! Up The Penguins!!
Looking at the timestamp on your post(Wednesday August 08, @10:21AM EDT ), I think that it's likely that you're posting from work.
/. .
So you think it's OK to tell the guys in the trenches that they can't surf on company time.. but you can post to
Typical manager mentality.
pressure/grep
Microsoft Fucking Sucks!! Up The Penguins!!