Jim isn't saying that if he fails, Linux will fail. He's saying that "The Linux Foundation" will fail. Linux will go on with or without him, and that's what he's saying in the quote.
And he's right. Many organizations fail because of bad leadership. The fish rots from the head down.
I thought that editors were supposed to be steeped in English grammar and should be able to diagram a sentence, thus finding the subject, verb, and object, blindfolded, underwater, with sharks with frikkin laser beams swimming all around.
"If the No Fly List is bad and we scrap it, what then should we do to thwart future hijackings?"
1. Strengthen the cockpit door. 2. Announce at the start of the flight that all hijackers are to be subdued by force. 3. Train the flight attendants in the use of weapons. 4. Arm the flight attendants. 5. 4 may be unnecessary, as these days it is more likely that the passengers themselves will beat the crap out of a hijacker. This is because 9/11 changed the "rules". The rule was that the passengers sat quietly in their seat and the plane would land, demands would be made, and eventually the passengers would be let go, minus one or two. With the threat of the entire plane being flown into a building, the motivation for the passengers to remain docile is eliminated. "Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose"
Do you have a non-draconian fool-proof way of doing this? I'd like to see it, because every "solution" I've ever seen is either ineffective or violates free speech.
Back in the old days, there was no such thing as all of this. We had to get porn the old fashioned way, from magazines.
We still got it, though.
Enter the 'net, where US law only applies to sites in the US. How is US law supposed to do anything about porn torrents from piratebay.se (and various seemingly infinite other places on the 'net) without all out censorship? A "Great Firewall" of the US?
The phrase "tilting at windmills" doesn't even begin to describe the futility of "keeping porn from kids".
"Having access to a computer and having sex are different."
Some can't use a computer without contracting viruses.
*sigh* Dismemberment and brutal violence is okey-dokey but one semi-bare breast during a football game is not? (though I do find Janet Jackson offensive for other reasons)
"Maybe most of you guys are geeks living in your basements,"
Just to let you know, I always stop reading/right/ there. Always.
Obviously at least a couple of people liked your post, since I was browsing at 5 (because I had been away at work and trying to catch up now) and your post showed up.
But since you decided to be a jerk, I never saw whether or not your post was worth reading, even though it "earned" a 5 "insightful".
I saw your message come up in moderation, but I have to comment on this part:
"Cuil's image-with-each-hit idea is cute, but personally, I find it to be fluff. Give me text-only when I want information, images-only when I want images. Forcing a pairing makes it look like USAToday, rather than an information source."
To be fair, Cuil shows up the best in lynx when compared to Live.com, Google, and Yahoo with the least amount of crud. If you want to pillory anyone for being an html arse, that would be Yahoo, because it's as if they've never heard of text-only browser. For text only, Cuil has the least offensive layout.
Trust me. I tried all 4 under lynx. To rate them on text-only ncurses interface, I would put Cuil first, Google second, Live.com a distant third, and I would not bother at all with Yahoo if I needed text-only (it's that bad).
Other than that, the rest of your post is pretty close to what I thought, for now. I'll reserve judgment until they get the bugs worked out.
We didn't find any results for "cuil pronunciation"
Some reasons might be...
* a typo. Please check your spelling.
* your search includes a term that is very rare. Try to find a more common substitute.
* too many search terms. Please try fewer terms.
Finally, try to think of different words to describe your search.
"The OEM system install is the gold standard in the home and SOHO market"
Hahahahahahahahaah!
"Microsoft to ratchet IE8 security another notch in Beta 2"
First off, it's Beta, meaning Alpha in the rest of the known universe outside of 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond. And nobody outside of 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond uses it.
Secondly, How does this mitigate what Active Yecchs has done for the past 12 years? Think for a minute about the wasted time, tears, and money fighting against this goatse sized security hole. And now Microsoft is/slowly/ trying to close the gate 12 years after the horses have bolted?
12 years of hosing customers with the contents of a factory-farm sewage lagoon. Good gawd. How do you put up with that? How?
Thirdly, how is it in this day and age that a bunch of data can be pulled out of the ether and be *automatically* set to "executable" because it has the right 3 letters in the filename? Eh? This outmoded way of handling executability from the CP/M days should be filed away to the great bit-pile in the sky. Paired with Active Yecchs, black-hats everywhere have had boatloads of fun with Windows systems, and Microsoft is dead set against changing either of these in any basic way.
So when Windows 7 comes out, expect at least another 5 years or so of the same bullshit.
Good luck with that.
-- BMO
P.S. At last check, the total number of Windows evil-ware was over 5 million. Has it reached 6 million yet? How many cores do you need to run NAV?
You/do/ know that X11 is/meant/ to be used over a network? I'm not talking about VNC. I'm talking about raw X11 piped over SSH, for deliciously encrypted graphical sessions from one side of the planet to the other. And guess what, it's/efficient/ too.
But not only that, Linux speaks RDP too. Yeah, we get to talk to inferior Windows systems with their own language.
Coming out and implying that VNC is all us Linux users have to work with is such bullshit.
"admin" work you can't do with SSH"
Like what? List something specific.
"anything involving the GUI."
Unlike Windows, configuring a Linux (or unix in general, including OS/X) machine does/not/ require access to the GUI. A GUI is nice sometimes, but if you want to do/real/ work, a command line is so much nicer. Oh yeah, and one of the latest/greatest things about Windows is Power Shell. Funny how Microsoft had to "reinvent" a command line interpreter/shell. So much for the GUI being the be-all/end-all of interfaces.
"And how is X11 tunneled over SSH any better than Remote Assistance in Windows?"
Nothing, really, since it's just an implementation of X11 networking ideas.
Seriously though, it took a long time for Microsoft to just catch up to the functionality of X11 over a network. (btw, don't even mention RA over XP Home Edition unless you want to be seriously laughed at)
1. It presupposes that most/all elderly are stupid.
2. It's easier to install the major Linux distributions than it is to install Windows of any flavor.
3. The need for restore disks isn't as vital as for Windows.
A. Windows users think it's normal to wipe and reinstall every quarter.
B. Linux doesn't have a half-life/slowdown rate. See 4.
4. The cause of needing restore disks is usually infection. While technically Linux is vulnerable to security problems, the number of "in the wild" Linux viruses is currently 0. Most, if not all, Linux trojans need some sort of user interaction to work. One needs to deliberately shoot one's self in the foot for them to work. Microsoft would do everyone a lot of favors in this department by abandoning Active Yecchs and abandoning the use of 3 magic letters at the end of a filename to determine executability.
5. It's easier to remotely admin through ssh Great Aunt Midlred's Linux machine than it is to go over to her house. While that's more convenient, I guess the drawback is the lack of cookies. (case in point, I went over to a friend's house the other weekend because he screwed up flash and java. I could have done it from my house, but I wanted to hang out and have beer and chourico sandwiches).
Yeah, but you're exaggerating more. If anything, there would be a gram or two of metal in the coolant tube to cool a CPU. Not a whole heck of a lot. We're not talking about throwing 20 pounds of the stuff off the bridge near MIT. And besides, if water is in contact with your motherboard, you've got other problems.
Here's a video of cutting slices off a brick of sodium. As you can see, it doesn't ignite on contact with air. All the fun happens when you put it in water.
" During his early years at McCook Field the ever-ingenious Sam Heron had observed the characteristics of various sodium compounds which are normally used in heat-treating operations. These materials are solid at room temperature and become liquid at engine operating temperatures. He observed that since these compounds wet the surface of steel alloys readily and transfer heat very well, their use should be effective in extending the life of exhaust valves. The ancestor of our present-day sodium-cooled valves had arrived, thanks to Mr. Heron, and almost ninety years later we are still enjoying the benefits of his ingenuity though even today such valves are not completely fault free."
Also, it's not terribly expensive. Just don't go hacking into the reservoir or any of the tubes with a saw, mmmkay?
You've seized on this "snoop on the boss" idea and you can't just let it go, can you? An administrator is going to see your mail sooner or later and it's not even going to be because he's snooping. If you're that paranoid, encrypt your mail, because if it's in plain text, it can *also* be snarfed from *any* mail hop *not* under your "control" because mail is flung far and wide across the 'net in whatever form it was composed in.
So stop burying your head in the sand assuming that "the law" protects you. Often "the law" is too late.
"in violation of organizational policy."
That's not a crime. It's a tort. The FBI isn't interested in torts. It's not even a tort if it's not in the contract. Learn the difference and then get back to me.
The executive summary of what I've been talking about and what you've been talking out your ass about:
"Reading e-mail that is stored on a computer is not an "interception" under 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq., because an interception must be contemporaneous with the transmission of the message between different locations. Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service, 816 F.Supp. 432, 442 (W.D.Tex. 1993), aff'd, 36 F.3d 457, 460 (5thCir. 1994). This holding has been accepted in several subsequent cases, including Wesley College v. Pitts, 974 F.Supp. 375, 384-390 (D.Del. 1997); U.S. v. Moriarty, 962 F.Supp. 217, 221 (D.Mass. 1997); Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F.Supp. 1232, 1235-36 (D.Nev. 1996)."
-- BMO - Not a lawyer, but dammit I can read for myself.
"There is a big difference between "in the performance of their duty" and "because are able to do so, they felt like doing so and so they went ahead and did so.""
The thing is you have to prove it that an admin did it for BOFH style "shits and giggles" or some other motivation other than official use - beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty big hurdle for a prosecution. Some would call it an impossible hurdle.
That's for when the email is in-flight. Once it hits storage, an admin basically has free reign. As email gets older and older, it gets less protected. Beyond 180 days it's unprotected - the gubmint can even do a search without a warrant.
Email isn't as protected as paper documents, as the last time this came up before the 6'th circuit, it was refused review on procedural grounds.
Don't ask me, go read the law yourself. ECPA of 1986.
If you think that the legal privacy of email is pretty weak because of the ECPA, this was an *improvement* on privacy back in 1986 because prior to that, email was basically equivalent to shouting out the window (and sometimes still is). Once the ECPA passed, BBS operators like myself became paranoid so we decided to put up disclaimers announcing that users should not expect privacy. Such disclaimers during login and registration notified the users and thus shielded the admin from privacy lawsuits and such. Some people think that this gets rid of plausible deniability, because once you say your users have no privacy, the guys in the FBI PartyVan parked in your driveway might suspect that you know what your users are doing, or so the theory goes. But a section of the CDA of 1996 supposedly shields the admins from the actions of a service's users. It gets really complicated if you research even a little bit of this stuff.
>>How can you possibly argue otherwise? Sure, he's the network admin, but does that authorize him to read people's email without authorization?
>Not at all. But then charge him with that, not some pseudo-terrorist computer tampering charge.
The Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 protects administrators if "in the performance of their duty" they read email. Please note the date. If you are unfamiliar with it, you should be even if you're "just a user", no excuses.
He's an administrator. He's shielded.
Y'all should know that by now.
You should also know that if you store your email on company servers/isp servers, they get/less/ protected as time goes on, with most protection going to those "in flight" and least to those being stored for over a year.
If you have anything confidential, encrypt it and remove it from your provider's machines and store elsewhere. If you don't ever want the admin to see the email in flight, then end-to-end encryption. These days it's easier than the mid 1980's.
OB On Topic: I can see where he's coming from. A network administrator, if he's doing his job, gains a bit of paranoia. Sometimes that can become unhealthy, and it appears that he's crossed the line into "unhealthy". Criminal? I don't think so. It appears that he's been severely mismanaged by those who never understood "Mack Truck Syndrome". One guy for an entire city? I'm not sure who's crazier, the management or him.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, isn't the summary contradicting itself?
Jim isn't saying that if he fails, Linux will fail. He's saying that "The Linux Foundation" will fail. Linux will go on with or without him, and that's what he's saying in the quote.
And he's right. Many organizations fail because of bad leadership. The fish rots from the head down.
I thought that editors were supposed to be steeped in English grammar and should be able to diagram a sentence, thus finding the subject, verb, and object, blindfolded, underwater, with sharks with frikkin laser beams swimming all around.
Gott im himmel.
--
BMO
"If the No Fly List is bad and we scrap it, what then should we do to thwart future hijackings?"
1. Strengthen the cockpit door.
2. Announce at the start of the flight that all hijackers are to be subdued by force.
3. Train the flight attendants in the use of weapons.
4. Arm the flight attendants.
5. 4 may be unnecessary, as these days it is more likely that the passengers themselves will beat the crap out of a hijacker. This is because 9/11 changed the "rules". The rule was that the passengers sat quietly in their seat and the plane would land, demands would be made, and eventually the passengers would be let go, minus one or two. With the threat of the entire plane being flown into a building, the motivation for the passengers to remain docile is eliminated. "Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose"
--
BMO
"This is about keeping porn from kids."
Do you have a non-draconian fool-proof way of doing this? I'd like to see it, because every "solution" I've ever seen is either ineffective or violates free speech.
Back in the old days, there was no such thing as all of this. We had to get porn the old fashioned way, from magazines.
We still got it, though.
Enter the 'net, where US law only applies to sites in the US. How is US law supposed to do anything about porn torrents from piratebay.se (and various seemingly infinite other places on the 'net) without all out censorship? A "Great Firewall" of the US?
The phrase "tilting at windmills" doesn't even begin to describe the futility of "keeping porn from kids".
"Having access to a computer and having sex are different."
Some can't use a computer without contracting viruses.
*sigh* Dismemberment and brutal violence is okey-dokey but one semi-bare breast during a football game is not? (though I do find Janet Jackson offensive for other reasons)
--
BMO
Ya know, I just don't know what to say. Not much surprises me online anymore, but this +5 informative *did*.
--
BMO
I went to labia.com and labia.org and I was disappointed both times.
Both are parked domains.
I do this difficult task so you don't have to.
--
BMO
THIS is why 4chan is down, right?
--
BMO
"Maybe most of you guys are geeks living in your basements,"
Just to let you know, I always stop reading /right/ there. Always.
Obviously at least a couple of people liked your post, since I was browsing at 5 (because I had been away at work and trying to catch up now) and your post showed up.
But since you decided to be a jerk, I never saw whether or not your post was worth reading, even though it "earned" a 5 "insightful".
Seeya.
--
BMO
I saw your message come up in moderation, but I have to comment on this part:
"Cuil's image-with-each-hit idea is cute, but personally, I find it to be fluff. Give me text-only when I want information, images-only when I want images. Forcing a pairing makes it look like USAToday, rather than an information source."
To be fair, Cuil shows up the best in lynx when compared to Live.com, Google, and Yahoo with the least amount of crud. If you want to pillory anyone for being an html arse, that would be Yahoo, because it's as if they've never heard of text-only browser. For text only, Cuil has the least offensive layout.
Trust me. I tried all 4 under lynx. To rate them on text-only ncurses interface, I would put Cuil first, Google second, Live.com a distant third, and I would not bother at all with Yahoo if I needed text-only (it's that bad).
Other than that, the rest of your post is pretty close to what I thought, for now. I'll reserve judgment until they get the bugs worked out.
--
BMO
We need to start tagging stories like this with "paul is dead"
--
BMO
We didn't find any results for "cuil pronunciation"
Some reasons might be...
* a typo. Please check your spelling.
* your search includes a term that is very rare. Try to find a more common substitute.
* too many search terms. Please try fewer terms.
Finally, try to think of different words to describe your search.
About Cuil | Your Privacy | Add Cuil to Firefox
---------------------
Well, that sucks...
--
BMO
"The OEM system install is the gold standard in the home and SOHO market"
Hahahahahahahahaah!
"Microsoft to ratchet IE8 security another notch in Beta 2"
First off, it's Beta, meaning Alpha in the rest of the known universe outside of 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond. And nobody outside of 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond uses it.
Secondly, How does this mitigate what Active Yecchs has done for the past 12 years? Think for a minute about the wasted time, tears, and money fighting against this goatse sized security hole. And now Microsoft is /slowly/ trying to close the gate 12 years after the horses have bolted?
12 years of hosing customers with the contents of a factory-farm sewage lagoon. Good gawd. How do you put up with that? How?
Thirdly, how is it in this day and age that a bunch of data can be pulled out of the ether and be *automatically* set to "executable" because it has the right 3 letters in the filename? Eh? This outmoded way of handling executability from the CP/M days should be filed away to the great bit-pile in the sky. Paired with Active Yecchs, black-hats everywhere have had boatloads of fun with Windows systems, and Microsoft is dead set against changing either of these in any basic way.
So when Windows 7 comes out, expect at least another 5 years or so of the same bullshit.
Good luck with that.
--
BMO
P.S. At last check, the total number of Windows evil-ware was over 5 million. Has it reached 6 million yet? How many cores do you need to run NAV?
I know I have been trolled, but what the hell:
"And lackluster protocols like VNC don't cut it."
You /do/ know that X11 is /meant/ to be used over a network? I'm not talking about VNC. I'm talking about raw X11 piped over SSH, for deliciously encrypted graphical sessions from one side of the planet to the other. And guess what, it's /efficient/ too.
But not only that, Linux speaks RDP too. Yeah, we get to talk to inferior Windows systems with their own language.
http://www.rdesktop.org/
Coming out and implying that VNC is all us Linux users have to work with is such bullshit.
"admin" work you can't do with SSH"
Like what? List something specific.
"anything involving the GUI."
Unlike Windows, configuring a Linux (or unix in general, including OS/X) machine does /not/ require access to the GUI. A GUI is nice sometimes, but if you want to do /real/ work, a command line is so much nicer. Oh yeah, and one of the latest/greatest things about Windows is Power Shell. Funny how Microsoft had to "reinvent" a command line interpreter/shell. So much for the GUI being the be-all/end-all of interfaces.
--
BMO
"And how is X11 tunneled over SSH any better than Remote Assistance in Windows?"
Nothing, really, since it's just an implementation of X11 networking ideas.
Seriously though, it took a long time for Microsoft to just catch up to the functionality of X11 over a network. (btw, don't even mention RA over XP Home Edition unless you want to be seriously laughed at)
Besides, /can/ you pipe RA over ssh?
--
BMO
And I can't count.
Jeez..
--
BMO
Your argument fails on 3 fronts:
1. It presupposes that most/all elderly are stupid.
2. It's easier to install the major Linux distributions than it is to install Windows of any flavor.
3. The need for restore disks isn't as vital as for Windows.
A. Windows users think it's normal to wipe and reinstall every quarter.
B. Linux doesn't have a half-life/slowdown rate. See 4.
4. The cause of needing restore disks is usually infection. While technically Linux is vulnerable to security problems, the number of "in the wild" Linux viruses is currently 0. Most, if not all, Linux trojans need some sort of user interaction to work. One needs to deliberately shoot one's self in the foot for them to work. Microsoft would do everyone a lot of favors in this department by abandoning Active Yecchs and abandoning the use of 3 magic letters at the end of a filename to determine executability.
5. It's easier to remotely admin through ssh Great Aunt Midlred's Linux machine than it is to go over to her house. While that's more convenient, I guess the drawback is the lack of cookies. (case in point, I went over to a friend's house the other weekend because he screwed up flash and java. I could have done it from my house, but I wanted to hang out and have beer and chourico sandwiches).
--
BMO - We do what we must because we can
"A little reactive? It would burn pretty violently if simply exposed to air"
You're exaggerating. You're thinking of cesium.
It all depends on how far down the periodic table you go and how much.
This is sodium and potassium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9z5-mJ8NZk&feature=related
"EXPLODE"
Yeah, but you're exaggerating more. If anything, there would be a gram or two of metal in the coolant tube to cool a CPU. Not a whole heck of a lot. We're not talking about throwing 20 pounds of the stuff off the bridge near MIT. And besides, if water is in contact with your motherboard, you've got other problems.
Here's a video of cutting slices off a brick of sodium. As you can see, it doesn't ignite on contact with air. All the fun happens when you put it in water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD85OUkEKKw
"remember the time you stole some sulfuric acid from school?" Ahahaha
BTW, a video of cesium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNdijknRxfU "ooooohhh"
--
BMO
" Awesome technology, if it actually works and is affordable."
It works. It's worked for decades under the sea cooling nuclear reactors and in piston aircraft engines.
http://www.enginehistory.org/air-cooled_cylinders_3.htm
" During his early years at McCook Field the ever-ingenious Sam Heron had observed the characteristics of various sodium compounds which are normally used in heat-treating operations. These materials are solid at room temperature and become liquid at engine operating temperatures. He observed that since these compounds wet the surface of steel alloys readily and transfer heat very well, their use should be effective in extending the life of exhaust valves. The ancestor of our present-day sodium-cooled valves had arrived, thanks to Mr. Heron, and almost ninety years later we are still enjoying the benefits of his ingenuity though even today such valves are not completely fault free."
Also, it's not terribly expensive. Just don't go hacking into the reservoir or any of the tubes with a saw, mmmkay?
--
BMO
You're right, I forgot about that.
--
BMO
This is late but...
You've seized on this "snoop on the boss" idea and you can't just let it go, can you? An administrator is going to see your mail sooner or later and it's not even going to be because he's snooping. If you're that paranoid, encrypt your mail, because if it's in plain text, it can *also* be snarfed from *any* mail hop *not* under your "control" because mail is flung far and wide across the 'net in whatever form it was composed in.
So stop burying your head in the sand assuming that "the law" protects you. Often "the law" is too late.
"in violation of organizational policy."
That's not a crime. It's a tort. The FBI isn't interested in torts. It's not even a tort if it's not in the contract. Learn the difference and then get back to me.
--
BMO
"The burden of proof is on you to back up your bullshit, and I'm a calling you on it. Quote some laws here, if you can."
I'll do you one better:
I'll point you at a book on the matter:
http://www.amazon.com/Netlaw-Your-Rights-Online-World/dp/0078820774
And I'll quote from here:
http://www.rbs2.com/email.htm
The executive summary of what I've been talking about and what you've been talking out your ass about:
"Reading e-mail that is stored on a computer is not an "interception" under 18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq., because an interception must be contemporaneous with the transmission of the message between different locations. Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service, 816 F.Supp. 432, 442 (W.D.Tex. 1993), aff'd, 36 F.3d 457, 460 (5thCir. 1994). This holding has been accepted in several subsequent cases, including Wesley College v. Pitts, 974 F.Supp. 375, 384-390 (D.Del. 1997); U.S. v. Moriarty, 962 F.Supp. 217, 221 (D.Mass. 1997); Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F.Supp. 1232, 1235-36 (D.Nev. 1996)."
--
BMO - Not a lawyer, but dammit I can read for myself.
That's the /wiretapping/ statute.
Email is not the same as wiretapping, except when it's in-flight. At that point it's similar to oral communications. :-P
Once it hits magnetic media or other storage, it's no longer on the "wire" and is no longer subject to the wiretap statute.
Thank you for playing. Please insert coin.
--
BMO
"There is a big difference between "in the performance of their duty" and "because are able to do so, they felt like doing so and so they went ahead and did so.""
The thing is you have to prove it that an admin did it for BOFH style "shits and giggles" or some other motivation other than official use - beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty big hurdle for a prosecution. Some would call it an impossible hurdle.
That's for when the email is in-flight. Once it hits storage, an admin basically has free reign. As email gets older and older, it gets less protected. Beyond 180 days it's unprotected - the gubmint can even do a search without a warrant.
Email isn't as protected as paper documents, as the last time this came up before the 6'th circuit, it was refused review on procedural grounds.
Don't ask me, go read the law yourself. ECPA of 1986.
If you think that the legal privacy of email is pretty weak because of the ECPA, this was an *improvement* on privacy back in 1986 because prior to that, email was basically equivalent to shouting out the window (and sometimes still is). Once the ECPA passed, BBS operators like myself became paranoid so we decided to put up disclaimers announcing that users should not expect privacy. Such disclaimers during login and registration notified the users and thus shielded the admin from privacy lawsuits and such. Some people think that this gets rid of plausible deniability, because once you say your users have no privacy, the guys in the FBI PartyVan parked in your driveway might suspect that you know what your users are doing, or so the theory goes. But a section of the CDA of 1996 supposedly shields the admins from the actions of a service's users. It gets really complicated if you research even a little bit of this stuff.
--
BMO
>>How can you possibly argue otherwise? Sure, he's the network admin, but does that authorize him to read people's email without authorization?
>Not at all. But then charge him with that, not some pseudo-terrorist computer tampering charge.
The Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 protects administrators if "in the performance of their duty" they read email. Please note the date. If you are unfamiliar with it, you should be even if you're "just a user", no excuses.
He's an administrator. He's shielded.
Y'all should know that by now.
You should also know that if you store your email on company servers/isp servers, they get /less/ protected as time goes on, with most protection going to those "in flight" and least to those being stored for over a year.
If you have anything confidential, encrypt it and remove it from your provider's machines and store elsewhere. If you don't ever want the admin to see the email in flight, then end-to-end encryption. These days it's easier than the mid 1980's.
OB On Topic: I can see where he's coming from. A network administrator, if he's doing his job, gains a bit of paranoia. Sometimes that can become unhealthy, and it appears that he's crossed the line into "unhealthy". Criminal? I don't think so. It appears that he's been severely mismanaged by those who never understood "Mack Truck Syndrome". One guy for an entire city? I'm not sure who's crazier, the management or him.
--
BMO
"Not very many Giant Squid have taken enough schooling to become biologists or zoologists."
What would be really impressive is a giant squid that passed ABCRS and became proctologist.
--
BMO
"Just imagined if an omnipotent supernatural being flooded the planet with stupidity... "
There was never any need for an omnipotent supernatural being to do that.
Man creates enough stupidity on his own.
--
BMO