Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > what is good software to log keystrokes on my computer?

Reply
Thread Tools

what is good software to log keystrokes on my computer?

 
 
Rick Merrill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Rick Merrill wrote:
>
>
>>In the US the term is called "joyriding" and is equivalent to stealing.

>
>
> False!
>
> First of all joyriding is a State defined term, there is no US code that
> addresses it as far as I'm aware. Not all States have a criminal code
> definition of the term either.
>
> That fact aside, the states that do define the term or define a crime
> as "joyriding", I've not found any that don't differentiate between
> joyriding and theft. Here's a cite from an Illinois case for example,
> an appeal to the US Supreme Court...
>
> ILLINOIS v. VITALE, 447 U.S. 410 (1980)
>
> "The Illinois court relied upon our holding in Brown v. Ohio, supra,
> that a conviction for a lesser-included offense precludes later
> prosecution for the greater offense. There, Brown was first convicted
> of joyriding in violation of an Ohio statute under which it was a crime
> to "take, operate, or keep any motor vehicle without the consent of its
> owner." He was then convicted under another statute of stealing the
> same motor vehicle. The Ohio courts had held that every element of the
> joyriding "is also an element of the crime of auto theft," and that to
> prove auto theft one need prove in addition to joyriding only the
> intent permanently to deprive the owner of possession. "
>
> Please not the use of the word "permanently".
>
> Utah defines joyriding as "unlawful control over motor vehicles,
> trailers, or semitrailers" in § 41-1a-1311 of ity's criminal statutes.
> Completely different from the definition of theft.
>
> Here's another section of criminal code from the Yavapai Indian
> Reservation in Arizona, to demonstrate the localization of joyriding laws
> as well as point out its criminal status.
>
> Sec. 6-104.01. JOYRIDING.
> A person commits joyriding if, without intent to permanently deprive,
> such person intentionally or knowingly takes control of another's means
> of transportation.
>
> Any person convicted of joyriding shall be sentenced to imprisonment
> for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) days or to a fine
> not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), or to both such
> imprisonment and fine, with costs.
>
> A clear distinction between theft and joyriding, and an appropriate,
> lesser penalty to support that.
>
> I could cite literally hundreds of examples that prove joyriding and
> theft are completely separate crimes if you'd like, almost without
> exception the difference being the intent to permanently deprive
> someone of their property or not. And almost without exception showing
> that joyriding is a misdemeanor, while auto theft is a felony. Unless
> of course there's property damage or bodily harm involved while
> joyriding.
>


Well, sounds like YOU have tried it. Just don't try it in my state
young man.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David H. Lipman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
From: "Sebastian Gottschalk" <(E-Mail Removed)>


|
| My fault, but the facts remains. An employer shouldn't have administrative
| privileges as well, only the admin should have. And it's his responsibility
| to have the authority to refuse unlawful requests from his employer.

Admins. are agents of the employer and thus is an extension of the employer and the action
is lawful. Admins. want to be employed/remain employed.


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nemo_outis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:eq5Jg.8391$Xl5.4528@trnddc06:

> From: "Sebastian Gottschalk" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
>
>|
>| My fault, but the facts remains. An employer shouldn't have
>| administrative privileges as well, only the admin should have. And
>| it's his responsibility to have the authority to refuse unlawful
>| requests from his employer.
>
> Admins. are agents of the employer and thus is an extension of the
> employer and the action is lawful. Admins. want to be employed/remain
> employed.



An admin may be a "servant" (employee) under master/servant (nowadays,
employer/employee) law, an agent, an independent contractor, or have some
other relationship. Moreover, some professionals have overriding
obligations to those with whom they work or to the public, or professional
obligations, and there may be statutory obligations as well (e.g., under
privacy laws). The whole world does not follow the USian model of
employers as all-powerful lords and employees as serfs

Regards,


 
Reply With Quote
 
Sebastian Gottschalk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
nemo_outis wrote:

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
> news:eq5Jg.8391$Xl5.4528@trnddc06:
>
>> From: "Sebastian Gottschalk" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>
>>|
>>| My fault, but the facts remains. An employer shouldn't have
>>| administrative privileges as well, only the admin should have. And
>>| it's his responsibility to have the authority to refuse unlawful
>>| requests from his employer.
>>
>> Admins. are agents of the employer and thus is an extension of the
>> employer and the action is lawful. Admins. want to be employed/remain
>> employed.

>
> An admin may be a "servant" (employee) under master/servant (nowadays,
> employer/employee) law, an agent, an independent contractor, or have some
> other relationship. Moreover, some professionals have overriding
> obligations to those with whom they work or to the public, or professional
> obligations, and there may be statutory obligations as well (e.g., under
> privacy laws). The whole world does not follow the USian model of
> employers as all-powerful lords and employees as serfs


Even further, it should be the admin's interest to protect himself against
any requests that violate his job's purpose. If the employer demands a
violation of security policies, and some incident happens, the admin will
be fired and will never find any other admin job for the next 10 to 15
years. If he refused, he'll just be fired and find a serious job somewhere
else.
 
Reply With Quote
 
TwistyCreek
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
Rick Merrill wrote:

> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> > Rick Merrill wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In the US the term is called "joyriding" and is equivalent to stealing.

> >
> >
> > False!
> >
> > First of all joyriding is a State defined term, there is no US code that
> > addresses it as far as I'm aware. Not all States have a criminal code
> > definition of the term either.
> >
> > That fact aside, the states that do define the term or define a crime
> > as "joyriding", I've not found any that don't differentiate between
> > joyriding and theft. Here's a cite from an Illinois case for example,
> > an appeal to the US Supreme Court...
> >
> > ILLINOIS v. VITALE, 447 U.S. 410 (1980)
> >
> > "The Illinois court relied upon our holding in Brown v. Ohio, supra,
> > that a conviction for a lesser-included offense precludes later
> > prosecution for the greater offense. There, Brown was first convicted
> > of joyriding in violation of an Ohio statute under which it was a crime
> > to "take, operate, or keep any motor vehicle without the consent of its
> > owner." He was then convicted under another statute of stealing the
> > same motor vehicle. The Ohio courts had held that every element of the
> > joyriding "is also an element of the crime of auto theft," and that to
> > prove auto theft one need prove in addition to joyriding only the
> > intent permanently to deprive the owner of possession. "
> >
> > Please not the use of the word "permanently".
> >
> > Utah defines joyriding as "unlawful control over motor vehicles,
> > trailers, or semitrailers" in § 41-1a-1311 of ity's criminal statutes.
> > Completely different from the definition of theft.
> >
> > Here's another section of criminal code from the Yavapai Indian
> > Reservation in Arizona, to demonstrate the localization of joyriding laws
> > as well as point out its criminal status.
> >
> > Sec. 6-104.01. JOYRIDING.
> > A person commits joyriding if, without intent to permanently deprive,
> > such person intentionally or knowingly takes control of another's means
> > of transportation.
> >
> > Any person convicted of joyriding shall be sentenced to imprisonment
> > for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) days or to a fine
> > not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), or to both such
> > imprisonment and fine, with costs.
> >
> > A clear distinction between theft and joyriding, and an appropriate,
> > lesser penalty to support that.
> >
> > I could cite literally hundreds of examples that prove joyriding and
> > theft are completely separate crimes if you'd like, almost without
> > exception the difference being the intent to permanently deprive
> > someone of their property or not. And almost without exception showing
> > that joyriding is a misdemeanor, while auto theft is a felony. Unless
> > of course there's property damage or bodily harm involved while
> > joyriding.
> >

>
> Well, sounds like YOU have tried it. Just don't try it in my state
> young man.


Awwwwwwwww.... did diddums get his widdle feewings hurt? Does diddums
have problems just admitting diddums is full of ****?

LOL!

Get over yourself.
























































 
Reply With Quote
 
Anonyma
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
Rick Merrill wrote:

> Let's assume the OP is the employer and believes an employee is using
> company computer for non-company or nefarious purposes. Would said
> employer have the right to put a key-logger on a company owned machine?


No.

What the employer suspects is meaningless. Employees have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, and unless they willingly abdicate that right
anything that breaches it is criminal. Employers can't surreptitiously
install key loggers for the same reasons they can't install cameras in
bathrooms even if they suspect an employee is sneaking into a stall to
do drugs.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick Merrill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
Anonyma wrote:
> Rick Merrill wrote:
>
>
>>Let's assume the OP is the employer and believes an employee is using
>>company computer for non-company or nefarious purposes. Would said
>>employer have the right to put a key-logger on a company owned machine?

>
>
> No.
>
> What the employer suspects is meaningless. Employees have a reasonable
> expectation of privacy, and unless they willingly abdicate that right
> anything that breaches it is criminal. Employers can't surreptitiously
> install key loggers for the same reasons they can't install cameras in
> bathrooms even if they suspect an employee is sneaking into a stall to
> do drugs.
>


Bingo!
 
Reply With Quote
 
ArtDent
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006

On 30-Aug-2006, Anonyma <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Rick Merrill wrote:
>
> > Let's assume the OP is the employer and believes an employee is using
> > company computer for non-company or nefarious purposes. Would said
> > employer have the right to put a key-logger on a company owned
> > machine?

>
> No.
>
> What the employer suspects is meaningless. Employees have a reasonable
> expectation of privacy, and unless they willingly abdicate that right
> anything that breaches it is criminal. Employers can't surreptitiously
> install key loggers for the same reasons they can't install cameras in
> bathrooms even if they suspect an employee is sneaking into a stall to
> do drugs.


Key words in the paragraph above:
'willingly abdicate' (are told ahead of time, and still show up for work)
surreptitiously install (are not told)
I think that so far, courts in the USA have ruled both ways, so it is a
very gray area. But, it certainly is immoral and unethical, if not
exactly illegal in some areas. These are ongoing cases, so we are not
allowed to comment - bah!
--
We apologize for the inconvenience
 
Reply With Quote
 
Borked Pseudo Mailed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
ArtDent wrote:

>
> On 26-Aug-2006, Notan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > It's an invasion of privacy.
> > It's no different than renting a room to someone, then spying on them.

>
> True, if the OP was renting his comp out, but if it is for when a child is
> using it, then a parent has every right to keep 'tabs' on what they do.
> Whether they tell them ahead of time or not. Which is almost the _only_
> time a keylogger is alright in my personal opinion.


It may or may not be legal, I think that even in this scenario it's
debatable. It's morally reprehensible in any case, and does little or
nothing to prevent undesirable activity either on the part of your
child, or the bad guys out there. It's reactive, not proactive, and
**** poor parenting. A real parent knows what's going on because they
have a honest, open relationship with their children and they've
instilled in them a sense of right and wrong.

I dunno when society took a wrong turn here, but playing spy games with
your kids isn't any way to build a proper relationship, or teach them
anything. Quite to the contrary, it teaches them all the wrong lessons,
and any parent who uses those tactics is borderline abusive in my
opinion.

Before anyone starts flinging crap, I'm almost 50 and have raised three
kids. Working on helping out with grand kids now.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nomen Nescio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-30-2006
Notan wrote:

> ArtDent wrote:
> >
> > On 26-Aug-2006, Notan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > It's an invasion of privacy.
> > > It's no different than renting a room to someone, then spying on them.

> >
> > True, if the OP was renting his comp out, but if it is for when a child is
> > using it, then a parent has every right to keep 'tabs' on what they do.
> > Whether they tell them ahead of time or not. Which is almost the _only_
> > time a keylogger is alright in my personal opinion.

>
> Did you read the OP's latest?
>
> "You cannot steal something from someone if you are not also depriving them
> of that thing, and as the person will not lose their password by me knowing
> it too I have not stolen it!"


Incorrect assumption. If you create something, say a literary work, you
own it and all copies of it. If someone makes an unauthorized copy of
it and retains possession, they are depriving you what's rightfully
yours... the copy of your work.

The same holds true for any literary work, even something as short as
a password.







 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rommon mode won't respond to keystrokes bw0507@gmail.com Cisco 4 02-05-2006 02:57 PM
where do the keystrokes go? Martijn Mulder Java 2 12-18-2005 07:54 PM
Send Keystrokes to Client Side Application Lucas Tam ASP .Net 5 12-02-2004 07:19 PM
how to handle specific keystrokes user@domain.invalid Java 3 06-28-2004 10:14 AM
Capturing Keystrokes Rob T ASP .Net 1 05-14-2004 11:52 AM



Advertisments