At 12:14 PM 1/14/99 -0500, Sean Semone wrote:
>Indeed as with many technology issues, this one still comes down to the
>trusting end users. If a company can't trust it's employees (or can't
>survive a breach of that trust) then it has more problems than content
>filtering can solve, or perhaps just needs to be educated as to the
>limitations of filtering mail.
>
>I would insist on following the "same procedures" your company uses for
>snail mail, which, as I remember were none.
I am either a bit more sensitive today, or today there are more things that
seem to be dogma, and yet have false premises. The two statements above, I
believe, represent false dogma.
1. If a company can't trust it's employees, it has more problems than XYZ.
Statistics from CSI and the FBI and others would indicte that we should
assume that among our trusted employees there are those who we should not
trust. When we add the rule "never attribute to malice what you can blame
on incompetence," the risk increases.
2. Use the same mechanisms for X than you do for Y. Another way of stating
this is, well you can get around the system by doing Y, so why protect X.
The above assumes that email and pmail are the same. They are not. They are
similar. As someone else posted, there are many more steps to go through to
send postal mail to someone than to electronically mail the same thing.
Surely, more "not to leave the company" items get out via e-mail than via
p-mail. The vulerabilities to misuse are different, so the risks are
different, and so they can require different measures.
Fred
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
