At 06:38 24/03/00 -0500, you wrote:
>There is a danger, however, in people saying "duties" when they mean
>adherance to the rules that apply for public bodies - i.e. vires rules.
>
>There is the full range of monitoring within public bodies of e-mail and
>Internet activities, from "none" to "all." In my view they should monitor
>compliance with their own policies which should ensure that tax/rate payers
>money is not being misused, a problem that the private sector can ignore.
>
>So although there may not be a "possession" or "production" offence per se,
>there might be a problem where publicly-owned computers are used for the
>purpose.
Thanks, that makes sense. But what I'm trying to work out is whether there
is any legitimate cause for concern that *some* filtering is worse than
none at all. There seems to be an urban myth around which is stopping
people from doing any checking, lest they fail to stop everything. I know
there were problems with some ISPs which offered a "family" service and
were sued for non-family material which got through, but I'd hope that in
the self-defence situation which most universities are in then there would
be no liability incurred by at least trying to do things properly? Or is
there some quirk of the law which I've missed?
Andrew
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Cormack
Head of CERT
UKERNA, Atlas Centre, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon. OX11 0QS
Phone: 01235 822 302 E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 01235 822 398
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|