On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 02:25:56PM +0200, Henning Bitsch wrote:

> > my immediate idea is that if the CEO can't trust the admin, the
> > company should get rid of the admin and/or the CEO.
>
> No, this is not an option. It is not acceptable that a technician is
> allowed to get informed about everything the company concerns.

Indeed, it isn't acceptable. That's why the CEO should not use
email for sensitive stuff at all. Think about it, is only
*your*own* admin involved or could there be more ? Do you trust
the other admins better than you trust the one working for you?

> >From your point of view, every cashier working for a bank should have the
> key for the safe, because if you do not trust him, dont employ him.

No. This works the other way around. I need to trust all of them but
only one or two receive the key. And even then I use a system where
no single person can access the safe by himself.

A leads to B doesn't mean B leads to A.

> OK, there is no 100% safety and if a skilled admin wants to read emails
> there are many ways. But I suppose most of the times an admin reads and an
> email because it is easy (joe /var/spool/mail/ceo) and possible. To sniff
> the network or break in physically you need criminal energy. Most of the
> time it is a privacy and not a crim issue.

This is why you need to trust people to not abuse the powers given
to them. Privacy needs to be protected, sure. That's why only root
can access the files (apart from the legitimite user).

Some issues shouldn't be solved with computers.
Respect cannot be automated.

Alex
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]