It's a good practice to notify any potential user that the use of the system is limited to authorized users, that the owner of the system can monitor everything, etc. In the case of government-owned systems, in particular, that kind of warning creates a clear expectation on the part of the user that there is no right to privacy in the information that he/she passes over the system.
However, in no case that I have seen was the use of the word "Welcome" even discussed as being relevant. If anyone can point me to a law or a case that said that the use of the word "Welcome" in a logon banner means that anyone is automatically an authorized user, I'd be grateful (not to mention stunned, but courts have decided weirder things). To say that using "Welcome" in your logon banner turns everyone into an authorized user is absurd. The equivalent is saying that a theif who uses a skeleton key (or even a copied or stolen key) to get into your house is not trespassing (or even breaking and entering) just because you put down a "Welcome" mat. The key question in every case that I've seen has been whether the person was an authorized user. The owner of the system gets to decide who is authorized. Period. Saying "Welcome" doesn't cut it, it's just being polite. Odds are that the policies you mention, Robert, were developed as a result of someone citing this urban myth about the use of "Welcome", and so the fiction became policy. John In a message dated Tue, 19 Mar 2002 1:51:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Kinsey, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John, > > I have also seen other systems/networks that were required (by law???) to > meet certain criteria with their login banners. > > They could not use the word "Welcome..." under any circumstance. > > The logon banner had to appear on every allowed telnet or ftp session > __before__ the actual logon. The user HAD to press [return] before the > username prompt would appear. > > The banner had to include that any and all activity could be monitored and > used in evidence by law enforcement officials. > > What I don't know is whether the banners were in place to satisy some > internal requirement (self-imposed) or if it were for legal reasons. > > Regards, > Robert
