Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc )
bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Tue Jul 19 15:20:27 UTC 2011
> From owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org Tue Jul 19 08:55:07 2011
> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:54:32 +0200
> From: Damien Fleuriot <ml at my.gd>
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music etc )
> On 7/19/11 1:57 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >> From owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org Tue Jul 19 05:54:52 2011
> >> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:54:38 +0200 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml at my.gd>
> >> To: "C. P. Ghost" <cpghost at cordula.ws> Cc: Frank Bonnet
> >> <f.bonnet at esiee.fr>,
> >> "freebsd-questions at freebsd.org"
> >> Subject: Re: Tools to find "unlegal" files ( videos , music
> >> etc )
> >> On 7/19/11 11:06 AM, C. P. Ghost wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Damien Fleuriot <ml at my.gd> wrote:
> >>>> On 19 Jul 2011, at 08:15, Frank Bonnet <f.bonnet at esiee.fr> wrote:
> >>>>> In France it's illegal and I have my boss's instruction :
> >>>>> - find and delete the files that's all.
> >>>> Bon courage then...
> >>>> A file can not be illegal per se, so you won't be able to detect
> >>>> these by looking up names or contents.
> >>>> Even then, if a file is labeled as personal, privacy protection
> >>>> applies and it is *unlawful* for you to process it.
> >>>> (That is in the same way that your employer is strictly forbidden
> >>>> from peeking inside your email messages clearly labeled as personal,
> >>>> even if they were received on your work mailbox.)
> >>> Exactly!
> >>> Speaking with my university sysadmin hat on: you're NOT allowed to
> >>> peek inside personal files of your users, UNLESS the user has waived
> >>> his/her rights to privacy by explicitly agreeing to the TOS and
> >>> there's legal language in the TOS that allows staff to inspect files
> >>> (and then staff needs to abide by those rules in a very strict and
> >>> cautious manner). So unless the TOS are very explicit, a sysadmin or
> >>> an IT head can get in deep trouble w.r.t. privacy laws.
> >> The poorly written IT TOS of a company can never bypass the law,
> >> regardless of anything you agreed to in your company's TOS.
> > "male bovine excrement" applies.
> > For example, if it is part of the _terms_of_emplyment_ -- which one
> > *agreed* to, by going to work there --that you (the employeee) give
> > permission for the company, or it's agents, to examine any file you
> > store on the system.
> >> It *is* unlawful for them to even open your files as long as they are
> >> clearly labeled as private.
> > Oh my. making back-ups is unlawful. Replacing a failed drive in a
> > RAID array is unlawful. Re-arranging storage allocation is unlawful.
> > *SNORT*
> You're playing dumb. On purpose.
False to Fact.
Using satire to make a point, yes.
Obviously, it is _not_ unlawful to 'even open' a file that is 'labelled as
Herr Ghost subsequently clarified that he meant 'opened by a person' -- which,
if _that_ is an accurate description of the law in question, means that a
purely mechanical process, such as a loop running file(1) on all files, and
logging a filtered subset of that output would _not_ qualify as 'opening'
under the law, either.
> That's called trolling. That's frowned
> upon, both by the community and by the list's charter.
Irrelevant, and immaterial.
> Just because you sign a bit of paper doesn't make everything it contains
> I do not have to remind anyone of the number of cases where, for example,
> ISPs got condemned for abusive terms in their contracts, and said terms
No, but you _do_ have to specify the jurisdiction in which it happened.
The rules _are_ different in different jurisdicitons.
> > Under the laws of _what_ jurisdiction?
> Files are considered to be work related UNLESS they're clearly
> labeled/named as private.
AH. _those_ rules *don't* apply to me.
> In which case the employer may not open said files in the absence of the
> Just because you do it doesn't make it legal.
But, you see, It _is_ entirely legal where *I* live.
> >> To open them, they would require a judge's injunction, for example in
> >> cases of pedo pornography or the like.
> > I guarantee you that _I_, as a system administrator, don't need a court
> > order to do such things. And, if you claim otherwise, you better be
> > prepared to cite the statues that prohibit it.
> Again just because you do it doesn't make it legal.
Repeating, What I do *is* entirely legal.
> Regarding statutes that prohibit it, see above, plus:
> European Fondamental Rights:
> Code du travail:
*NONE* of the above are applilcable to me.
> > This is a corporate environment, it is in the terms of employment that
> > company computers are for "business use only", that anything on the
> > machines is 'work done for hire', and thus property of the company.
> I hope we'll agree to disagree here.
"you don't know what you don't know" applies. I don't mean that offensively,
but you have made an unwarranted, unjustified, assumption as to what laws
govern _my_ actions.
> Jurisprudence allows reasonable use of work computers, given that the
> employee respects L120-4 of Code du Travail.
> This one here clearly acknowledges an employee's right to a reasonable
> personal use of his employer's internet connection:
Again, none of that applies to my situation.
> >>>> You may want to look for files that are unusually large. They could
> >>>> possibly be ISOs, dvdrips, HD movie dumps...
> >>> Not to forget encrypted RAR files (which btw. could contain anything,
> >>> including legitimate content, so be careful here).
> >> It would be unlawful to try to brute force the files' password ;)
> > The last I knew (admittedly a number of years ago), encryption was
> > illegal in France, EXCEPT where the encryption key is on file with the
> > Government. Many multi-national corporations made sure to route their
> > 'secure' traffic
> > _around_ France for that specific reason.
> > Find an encrypted file, and demand that the user show that the key is
> > on file with the gov't. *EVIL*GRIN*
> You are not entitled to such a demand.
*IF* it is illegal to have encrypted materials without the key on file with
the gov't,, then it would seem reasonable, on discovering such, to demand
proof that the file -- being that it is _on_my_property_ -- in question
is _not_ illegal.
> The same way I just can't barge in to your house and demand to see your
> permit to build there.
Under some circumstances, I _can_.
To wit: If you're building on _my_ property, I _do_ have the right to demand
proof that you are doing it 'legally'.
> The same way I just can't demand your driver's license unless I'm law
Under some circumstances, I _can_.
To wit: If you want to drive _my_ car, I most certainly can demand proof
that you have a license.
> By the way, you're wrong again. Encryption is perfectly legal in France
> up to a specific key length, above which you are supposed to register it
> with the government.
As I said, "a number of years ago", that _was_ the situation -- I'm glad
to see that France has relaxed their stance on the matter.
*LOTS* of countries had lots of 'stupid' rules about ecnryption and
encryption technology. the USA used to require an 'international arms
dealer' certification to export any encryption technology
BTW, the reason I can *legally* do those things you say are unlawful is
that I am _not_ in France, Nor even anywhere in the EU. The rules _I_
have to play by _are_ different.
More information about the freebsd-questions