Networking in Africa...
David.Charlap at marconi.com
Tue Dec 3 19:05:33 UTC 2002
David Schwartz wrote:
> If you want to do this, your notification has to be explicit. I suggest,
> "You have no privacy here. Everything you are doing is being logged." Notice
> that when you tell people the truth, it starts looking less like what you
> wanted to do in the first place.
Well, that makes it sound like you are a pervert that enjoys reading
everybody else's e-mail.
The language can be a bit better than that. You're right, you should
say that all outgoing web forms are intercepted and recorded. But you
can add additional statements to the extent that you won't be reading
through that information unless it's part of following up on complaints
of abuse, or at the request of law enforcement.
I'm not trying to establish rules carved in stone, and I'm not trying to
play lawyer. I was trying to attempt a possible solution to the problem
of these spams coming from anonymous-access terminals in public places
via web-based mail systems.
Since web-mail doesn't have a fixed protocol to filter/monitor, you have
to take a different approach. You can't block all possible vectors,
since that would essentially block all traffic. One possibility is
monitoring and logging in order to preserving evidence for possible
future investigations. Yes it may be seen as invasive, but what other
choice is there if your network is routinely being abused by felons?
So far, I haven't seen anybody else post even a vague idea of a solution
to this problem. Of course, as a network operator, you don't have to
care - you can just cut off the service of any cafe owner who can't
figure out a solution on his own.
More information about the NANOG