Here's where we have a complete disconnect on proper moral reasoning. You seem to be arguing that people are morally entitled to do anything that is not expressly prohibited by law. That's bullshit. People are legally entitled to do anything not expressly prohibited by law, but ethics carries a higher standard. I mean, the fact that men were once legally entitled to force their wives to have sex (which still holds true in limited forms in some US states) does not make it a morally correct act. Plus, you are advocating a rather notable double-standard: The roommate is implicitly required to respect the owner's moral standards when he uses the owner's computer, while the owner is left free to violate all moral standards by spying shamelessly on the roommate.

I do understand the logic here: It's in the nature of "This belongs to me, and I can do whatever I want with what belongs to me, no matter what effect it has on others." It's the same logic that authoritarian political leaders use ("This country belongs to us and the people in it belong to us and we can do whatever we like with them for the security of what belongs to us"). Somehow I doubt that you'd be entirely comfortable with your government reading all of your personal letters and emails, tapping your phone, hiding cameras in your house, and etc, all because they suspect you might be doing something they don't like in their country, but you seem to think this is appropriate for someone to do to someone else, so long as it's not you.

I mean, I get it, liberal capitalism has its ideological roots in the idea that everyone is king of their own demesne, but being king carries a certain noblesse oblige - one needs to have some courtesy and grace towards one's subjects. The idea that everyone is the despotic totalitarian ruler of their own demesne is just a horror.

And yeah, I know I'm beating a dead horse: Neither you nor the OP will get this point if you don't already see it. Moral reasoning has to grow on you, it doesn't come through sudden inspiration. But I'm sorry, I simply refuse to allow you to equate moral behavior with "anything allowable under law". That's just unspeakably wrong.

Elegantly put, tw. The crash of '08 was caused by folks who didn't understand your point. Their actions were apparently legal, but I think most of us would think they were immoral. Further, suppose a homeowner with a roomer had strict religious views that prohibited masturbation, say. Would he then have the right to spy on the roomer because he suspected illicit behavior? Could he legally install a hidden web cam in his room perhaps? Legally, perhaps, but morally no.

First of all, before you jump to any more conclusions, I was never expressing my opinions, morals, ethics, and so forth. Simply stating facts. The facts are that is has been proven in court you have no right to privacy, you have a right to protect your personal property, and that when you are on or operating someone else's private property, they can regulate what you do with it.

In the case of the OP, as having a situation with roommates using my computers in the past for things I disproved of, I told them not to, told them I was going to search for their files and delete them. I did, with out their permission and it was on technology I purchased with my own money.

Not merely a right, but in some cases a duty. You can be found culpable for allowing illegal activity on/with your property and not using due diligence to prevent it.

For example, your home can be confiscated if it is used to grow, manufacture, or warehouse illegal drugs, even it wasn't you doing the growing, manufacturing, or warehousing, and even if you were unaware of it. It is your duty to police your own property, to be aware of what's happening on it.

Duty. Not right. Not privilege. Duty.

Similar examples can be found with allowing an unlicensed driver to drive your car, or even allowing inebriated guests to drive home from a party. You can be found liable for allowing illegal activity that you could have prevented.

I'm not objecting to the facts, I'm objecting to what you do with the facts. You are rendering a moral opinion whether you know it or not - the opinion that all one needs to pay attention to is the restrictions placed by the legal code in a given region, so that any moral considerations beyond that are of no value - and that is an opinion I find highly disturbing. I mean (if you'll pardon the hyperbole) one has the legal right in the US to kill anyone who enters one's property without permission or official warrant, but this does not make killing such people a moral act. it's simply an immoral act that's excusable under the law. I do not know what people would make of someone who habitually shot and killed everyone who trespassed on their property, but I think it's safe to say that such a person would not be treated as a moral and upright citizen.

As I said, if you suspect someone is using your computer for unsavory purposes, remove their access. If you suspect someone is using your computer for illegal purposes, take the computer to the police and allow them to investigate (that's what the police are for). Both of these are moral acts. Setting up surreptitious surveillance on your own is not a moral act, and might even get in the way. A prosecutor is not likely to want to use any evidence you find because he'd have to put you on the stand to explain just exactly why you had installed hidden software to watch someone else; juries do not respond well to witnesses who engage in creepy immoral acts.

Duty doesn't help here. If in fact you suspect your roommate is engaged in an illegal activity, your duty is to report it to the cops. You have a right to put a stop to the activity by denying the roommate access (though the cops may not want you to do so), but you have neither the duty nor the moral right to spy on your roommate.

Or wait, sorry: are you Batman? Because, you know, we bend moral norms for superheroes in the US; if you've dedicated your nightlife to costumed crime-fighting I might make some allowances.

Thank $DEITY I live in Holland where privacy is a right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...le_8_-_privacy

And more specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_of_correspondence

What ever happened to just talking about things? If the roommate is concerned, he should discuss the matter with his roommate. As the owner of the computer, he can attach requirements to the deal of loaning out his computer, such as all log files and browser histories must be left intact. If the borrower does not like that, he can decline the offer. It's that simple.

It doesn't matter what the second roommate is doing or not doing to make the computer owner nervous. He is nervous and that's that. He has a right to stipulate the conditions in which he will loan out his computer. If the person wanting to borrow it agrees, then great! If not, that's fine too! No one is forcing him to borrow the computer. He can borrow someone else's computer, use a public computer, buy his own computer, or do without.

In an adult world, people discuss these things. There is no need to go behind anyone's back. The guy has a right to his feelings, and if he feels nervous about loaning out his computer for any reason — justified or not — that's how he feels. Since he owns the computer, he should take his own feelings into consideration.

This is no different than loaning out a car. Wouldn't the owner have the right to stipulate things, such as the borrower must replace the gas used, or can only borrow it to go to a predetermined location or for an agreed upon amount of time (i.e. just one day locally, not a week out of town)? Why would a computer be any different? If you don't trust the person, the solution would not be to put GPS tracking on the car. You simply say no. A computer is no different.

I think the guy should simply tell the first guy that he's not comfortable loaning out his computer. That's all there is to it. Otherwise, the two roommates need to come up with a mutual agreement on the stipulations under which the computer can be borrowed. If they are able to agree, then they have a deal. If they can't agree, then no deal.

If two adults can't work out the conditions in which a computer is loaned/borrowed, then there are much bigger problems than what computer spyware will ever resolve.

Oh. I finally found the cases I was looking for.

As I read some of the comments they would have you believe that since it's their equipment they can do whatever they want with it. Including spying on the users of that equipment. This is simply not the case.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-19/j...ls?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/webcamscanda/

The case of the school recording pictures is very different.

That was a public institution that recorded remote images of a student outside of a school context within their home. There was no notice given that such recording was possible or would occur. In several circumstances, the school lied to students about capabilities and evidence that the camera was being used to monitor the students. Further, they attempted to used the images to punish a student for suspected activity that, again, occurred outside of their jurisdiction; an abuse of their power. Following the investigation, it was determined that the tracking software was being used outside the guidelines that had been set on how and when it would be used to locate lost or stolen property.

In this case, it's a personal computer being used in a non-public setting. The owner of that machine is free to use that computer in any way that they see fit. At least in the US, they can legally monitor every communication or interaction that occurs on it. I could see this getting fuzzy if there isn't a notice of monitoring, specifically if a user communicates with another at a remote location who doesn't fall under the same monitoring notice.

Legally there may be a requirement to inform potential users of the possibility of monitoring. In casual usage I don't think such a case has ever been tested in court. It also doesn't seem obvious that you would need to post such a notice on a computer that is shared in such a setting. Would a parent need to inform their child that their usage is monitored (legally, not morally)?

Morally? It seems far better to inform the roommate that you're going to start auditing the machine. It's just good security practice for one (both the auditing and informing).

Further, if you don't trust them, just don't let them use the machine. If you still want to let them use the machine, at least give them their own account, or make them use the guest account. Making comments in person about their usage is going to be far better than springing something like, "I've been monitoring your Internet usage for the past month."

Legally speaking, no. The parent is not legally required to inform their child.

Morally speaking, there are too many variables and circumstances to even begin to give a single, global answer. However, in general, it is usually best to be upfront and discuss concerns and actions being taken to address those concerns with the child whenever possible.

Just to be clear, the main moral issue is a power/empowerment issue. Privacy is a form of empowerment, and the ability to strip privacy from people is a form of power over them. This is a standard sociology riff: you can read Foucault where he talks about using public exposure and ridicule to enforce social norms (as is happening now to rep Wiener), or some of the Feminist authors who decried pornography as disempowering (because it 'normalizes' exposing women fully to the observation of unseen, anonymous men). Parents are expected to exercise a certain amount of power over children for the child's safety, so it's neither illegal nor particularly immoral for parents to 'check up on' their kids activities (within reason - do it excessively and you end up with a neurotic kid, or start veering in to pathological parent-child relationships). This gets progressively more questionable as the child gets older (teen rebellion is all about establishing oneself as an independent - i.e. private - individual), and it's outright dysfunctional for one adult to try to exercise this kind of power over other adults. Not that adults don't love to do it - there are a lot of privacy-pirates in the world, from government to the yellow press to (often) your own beloved mother - but it's still dysfunctional.

Man you should help me get a job in Holland, that would be great!!!! :D;)


As for morals and some other person using my personal property, I am sorry but I disagree when you have to say to respect their right to privacy. If someone is abusing my property I no longer care about their privacy. I am not saying I will wire tap them, but I will definitely investigate and with out their permission. After all, it is my private property.

It is just like a school or work computer. You agree to a policy when using it, and are subjected for it be searched at any time you break rules in the policy.

Well, all that really shows is that you cannot exactly be trusted. I feel sorry for the people who enter into interactions with you on the assumption that you will respect conventional standards of decency, because you obviously reserve the right not to. Depressing, that, but not much to be done about it.

What the? I am talking about my property. Maybe I was raised different but I was taught if you are using something that isn't yours you respect it, don't abuse it.

Also, more specifically I am talking about people (roommates as it was) using my computer.

You don't even know me, yet you think you can figure out how indecent I am over a few posts over an opinion of privacy and roommates versus someone's personal computer? What happens when your roommate totally hoses your system and all of your work/school work is gone? Or they download illegal apps? Don't be absurd.

Regardless though, I am done with this conversation.

Again, no one is denying one's right to protect one's property. The issue at hand is whether one can radically invade the privacy of others in the pursuit of protecting one's property. The fact that you do not see that this is the issue is exactly why there is an issue to argue over. But that's your limitation, not mine.

I would not feel comfortable trusting you because I recognize - by your own implicit admission - that you do not stop to consider the impact of your *rights* on others. You certainly have the right to prevent someone from abusing (or even using) your computer; no one questions that. However, you seem to believe you also have the right to use the full power of your computer to ruthlessly invade the privacy of anyone who uses it (monitoring the websites they visit and their downloads, reading their emails, or whatever else might raise your suspicions). Yes, someone who borrows your computer has an obligation to be respectful, but you also have an obligation to be respectful towards them, and you don't seem to realize that. At the very least, if you are not going to have any regard whatsoever for the rights and feelings of others, you should at least start interactions off with some formal contract so that people know that they have no rights except those you explicitly spell out for them. right?

I suspect that in actual practice you wouldn't do anything like this - you would do the sensible thing, and kick whomever-it-is off your computer the first time your suspicions got raised (which is what I advocated originally - no need for spying, just axe them from the get-go and move on with life). But the way you're presenting yourself here has an invasive edge to it that I find offensive. But you're right, there's no sense going on about it, so let's drop it.

Here's an interesting analogy that occurred to me.

A houseguest acted a bit evasive the last time they left the bathroom as you walked by. Do you have the right to install a hidden camera? It is after all your house and you want to be sure they aren't doing anything illegal in there.

It's an analogy of course, so it's a poor example and isn't directly applicable, but it is an at least somewhat similar situation.

I might check under the sink, look rather closely at the countertop and inside/under the tank and in the vent. Depending on what I find...

Well, I find your judgmental attitude on what very little you know of me personally to be sad. Do you judge people like this so quickly? I never said to what extent I would go to either. You are making a lot of assumptions here. I simply said if they are abusing my computer I will find out what they are doing. I never said I would read their emails you are putting words in my mouth, and twisting what I say to fit your agenda, not mine.

Obviously everything is due to circumstance, there will always be what is legal, and what is moral and they aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes they go together sometimes they don't.

However, go ahead and make your unilateral judgments. It doesn't bother me one bit. Now, I feel sorry for people who interact with you and have to deal with your high horsed morality you project onto everyone and if they disagree in the slightest you judge them.

the end.

No that doesn't even compare. You are talking about filming someone going to the bathroom versus a roommate abusing your computer while you are not home or around. The situation doesn't really apply to anything else, since everything is circumstantial.

This forum is designed to discuss computer help requests, not debate ethics. Ethical debate should be confined to the Coat Room. Please stop this discussion as it relates to ethics, and keep on the subject of computer help, or this thread will be moved to the Coat Room.

And, yes, I am as much to blame as anyone for this thread veering off into ethical debate. My bad.

Trevor

Do what you feel you must, but note that ethics are often an issue here. for example, had the OP asked how to monitor the activities of his wife or girlfriend (because he suspected infidelity), he would have been generally condemned - the fact that he framed it as invading the privacy of some *suspected bad person* (casting himself as a victim rather than as a perpetrator) doesn't change the moral ramifications of the request, it just masks it behind a veneer of self-righteousness.

spying on people is bad, period. there is rarely a need for it, and never an excuse for it.

I'm sorry that you feel judged because I find your willingness to invade the privacy of others offensive. However, I am fairly certain that I have the moral high-ground here, and I am not at all concerned about calling people on questionable moral behavior. If you don't like being judged, I suggest you do one of the following:

• Explain to me in a morally consistent way why you accept the kind of invasion of privacy for others that you would not tolerate if it happened to you.
• Explain to me in a morally consistent way that you believe no one (not even you) has any inherent right or privilege to privacy, and that it's all a matter of power (whomever can exercise this power over others is entitled to, no questions asked).
• Ignore me and ignore the question, and go on thoughtlessly and happily about your life.

This is not a matter on which we can agree to disagree, because it involves how we treat each other. so...