[committee] Fwd: Your account has been locked

[Jeremy Cole]

I'm not saying it wasn't a stupid thing to do, but these kind of things are
childish and are perhaps best left with members to deal with it between one
another. If a complaint is made then sure, committee should do something.

As for leaving your account unattended, it is asking for lines to be drawn:

Am I allowed to leave my account unattended whilst I collect something form
the coke machine?

Am I allowed to leave my account unattended whilst I go get something from
my bag?

Am I allowed to leave my account unattended whilst I go talk to someone on
the other side of the room?

Most things in UCC are left up to the 'prosecuting' members common sense.
However, something like this has to have an obvious line drawn as otherwise
people wont know what is and is not ok to do.

I think much needs to be done to clarify UCC's policy on these kind of
things as I know of many people before this incident who have left their
account unattended for a while but nothing was done before. It is (in my
eyes) the committee's job to ensure that any breach of our policy (within
obvious reason) should be obvious to those in breach of said policy. I
myself am guilty of leaving my account unattended (hell I'm pretty sure I
have left the club room overnight and have left my account logged in
accidentally) occasionally, but I would never have thought of it as being a
punishable matter.

I think my issue here is that we seem to have this one punishment for all
forms of breach. We treat someone who mistakenly leaves their account logged
in the same way we would someone who (for example) torrents on our ResNet
connection or the same as someone who . Furthermore the punishment is a
random amount of time set until the next committee meeting (unless committee
decided to leave it locked until the next committee meeting).

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Rufus Garton Smith <
rvvs89 at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

> Jeremy,
>
> If someone changes the desktop background of another user's account to
> shock imagery and then logs out, and allows a member of committee and wheel
> to see him/her doing all this, I think that committee member is obliged to
> act. This is not something that anyone needs ANY warning for, it's obviouly
> something that one should not do.
>
> As for locking the accounts of the people who left themselves logged in, as
> you mentioned in your email, this is a security risk. While this is not a
> major breach of our policy, it certainly is a breach. Therefore it would be
> unfair of me to lock Ashley's account (spook) and not lock Adrian's account
> (adrian). Particularly seeing as adrian is a wheel member and anyone could
> have used the machine to access locally cached private data, and a
> considerable amount of private data remotely.
>
> Having just locked spook and adrian, I saw Sam (theodore) log off, which
> gave me yet another nice view of goatse as the desktop background. I asked
> him if that was his account, and he told me it was Scott's account (tinman),
> that they had been playing Team Fortress 2 on the same machine, and that he
> had done exactly the same thing as Ashley after Scott had left. Having only
> moments ago established the procedure for what to do in this situation, I
> was obliged to lock both their accounts.
>
> By locking spook I was also obliged to lock adrian, theodore and tinman. I
> hope that clears everything up for you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rufus
>
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Jeremy Cole wrote:
>
>  So we are punishing people being trusting now? I can understand the
>> security measures here, but seriously, locking peoples accounts for leaving
>> themselves logged in? I thought that people in the room could be trusted to
>> not create
>> do really stupid things (Shocking someones background is not really stupid
>> as by this logic rick rolling should carry the death penalty in UCC) This is
>> setting a dangerous precedent for anyone who leaves the room even to go to
>> the
>> snack machine.
>> I think locking of someones account needs to take more into account when
>> the next committee meeting will be. For all we know over this break we may
>> not have another meeting for two or three weeks, thus these people suffer
>> lacking
>> a UCC account for that amount of time. Yes if this was a serious issue
>> then locking and handing it to committee would have been smart, but not in
>> this case as (though i cant be completely sure) there was no warning for
>> this and
>> this is a pretty mundane issue where someone could have been told not to
>> do it again first (and then a few more times)
>>
>> my 2c
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Rufus Garton Smith <
>> rvvs89 at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>      Adrian,
>>
>>      Your account has been locked for leaving your account logged in at
>> UCC without locking it. I would not normally lock someone's account for
>> this, but since I am also locking spook's account for abusing the account
>> you
>>      left logged in, it is only fair.
>>
>>      Regards,
>>
>>      Rufus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/committee/attachments/20091114/aa7f2b5d/attachment.htm>