Remote access

[Dave Ihnat]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:05:49PM +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> Yes, it appears to be a problem for some people in this thread.

And, if you'll pardon my mentioning it, you...

> Let me phrase in like this --- when some rules in some legal system seize to 
> make actual sense, it is legitimate to challenge them.

We've already seen the correction from "seize" to "cease".

> Think political revolutions, ...
> ...
> Think factory workers' strikes, ...
> ...
> Think software patents, ...

With all due respect, you're comparing apples to oranges.

All of your examples are of inequities, protests against injustice, etc.

In this case, we're talking about the right of an individual, or a company,
to define the acceptable use of their owned material assets.

Their rules may be misguided, uninformed, assinine, or obsolete.  But they
*are* their rules, and thoroughly legal.

Your use of their equipment, services, and resources as an employee are
totally governed by them.  You, as an enlightened employee, may use any
means acceptable at your organization to direct, inform, and educate them
in more appropriate rules and guidelines.

You categorically do not have the right to unilaterally decide to change or
circumvent those rules and guidelines.

You have two choices if they refuse to recognize your view--submit to their
direction, or quit.

If you decide on a third choice--circumvention of their rules and
guidelines--you may get away with it for some amount of time, even
indefinitely.  But make no mistake about it.

You Are Wrong, and anything from summary termination to legal action should
not be unexpected.

This is not a matter of civil rights, or correcting a social wrong.  It's a
matter of you wanting to use their equipment and services in a way they've
seen fit to deny you.  Violate that decision unilaterally at your peril.

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	dihnat at dminet.com