what is good software to log keystrokes on my computer?

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by admyc@hotmail.com, Aug 26, 2006.

  1. Nomen Nescio Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:35:49 -0600, Notan
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >So, this is incorrect?
    > >
    > >http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/stealing

    >
    > In English law, its incorrect.


    I wouldn't say incorrect as much as incomplete or even irrelevant. The
    problem here is we're not talking about illegally transferring
    possession of an automobile, only "misusing" it for a time. the
    definition is brief but more or less accurate as far as far as it goes.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Aug 29, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Rick Merrill Guest

    Nomen Nescio wrote:

    > Jim Watt wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:35:49 -0600, Notan
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>So, this is incorrect?
    >>>
    >>>http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/stealing

    >>
    >>In English law, its incorrect.

    >
    >
    > I wouldn't say incorrect as much as incomplete or even irrelevant. The
    > problem here is we're not talking about illegally transferring
    > possession of an automobile, only "misusing" it for a time. the
    > definition is brief but more or less accurate as far as far as it goes.
    >


    In the US the term is called "joyriding" and is equivalent to stealing.
     
    Rick Merrill, Aug 29, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Rick Merrill Guest

    ArtDent wrote:

    > On 28-Aug-2006, Sebastian Gottschalk <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> 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.

    >>
    >>What about intrusion detection? What about security research?

    >
    >
    > I did say 'almost'. These are obvious legitimate uses also. Although I
    > am somewhat confused how a keylogger is supposed to help in intrusion
    > detection. Intrusion = coming in from 'outside'.
    >
    >
    >>I have a daemon that logs all key-strokes and writes it to a file that
    >>is
    >>only readable as an admin. I read it from time to time. I draw
    >>conclusion
    >>about my very own behaviour, and alos about those who use my computer.

    >
    >
    > The question here would be, do those (others) that use your computer know
    > that this logging is going on?
    > If yes, where you (or your employer) have a specific _written_ policy,
    > that each user is at least 'supposed' to read and know, then no problem.
    > If no, where you (or your employer) have implemented this and not told the
    > users, well... now you are getting into a very gray area indeed, this
    > exact type of situation is working its way thru several court systems in
    > the world right now.


    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?
     
    Rick Merrill, Aug 29, 2006
    #43
  4. 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?


    An employer shouldn't have any administrative privileges. He thus might
    install a keylogger, but it would only work under his very own user
    account.

    Beside that, users shouldn't be able to run any executeable but whitelisted
    ones.

    And if he has administrative privileges, there's much more to worry about
    than just keylogging.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 29, 2006
    #44
  5. Notan wrote:

    > > > Just so we're clear, if someone takes my car during the night, while
    > > > I'm sleeping, and returns it before I awake, it's not stealing?

    > >
    > > Ironically enough it's not. At least not in most US jurisdictions, and
    > > probably many others including the US military UCMJ. If the thieves
    > > are caught before they return the vehicle they might be charged with
    > > theft, but even if they're able to prove they were on their way to
    > > return your car the official charges will likely read something like
    > > "Wrongful Appropriation of a Motor Vehicle".
    > >
    > > A completely different offense from stealing. :)

    >
    > So, this is incorrect?
    >
    > http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/stealing


    No. It's incomplete and/or you're misreading it or inferring something
    that's not explicitly stated.

    Your scenario falls outside the scope of your cited definition because
    the intent was not to retain possession or "take" your property, only
    to "borrow" it. There's a very real legal distinction between the two
    irrespective of what your, or even my opinion is. Truth be known if
    someone "borrowed" my car as you've described I'd feel as though it had
    been stolen too. Unfortunately for both of us the law in our (assumed)
    jurisdictions doesn't see things that way. Our "feelings" are
    irrelevant to the task of defining the crime. Sentencing may be a
    different story.

    Note that this is US law, and even that can vary from locality to
    locality. Autos stolen and not taken across state lines are State
    Felonies I believe, so your state might have different guidelines than
    another state. Federal law might diverge from state even further. Not to
    mention the fact that "borrowing" a car in some turd world jurisdiction
    might be an offense punishable by death. ;)
     
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Aug 29, 2006
    #45
  6. ArtDent Guest

    On 29-Aug-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?


    I believe that the courts - so far at least - have said that the answer to
    that question is a definite yes.
    A big part of the question tho, whether they have to tell the employee
    about it, I think is still in 'limbo'.
    Personally, I think that the employer should tell the employee if/that
    they do - perhaps even if they didn't (keep 'em paranoid, eh?).
    ;)
    --
    We apologize for the inconvenience
     
    ArtDent, Aug 29, 2006
    #46
  7. David H. Lipman, Aug 29, 2006
    #47
  8. ArtDent Guest

    On 29-Aug-2006, Sebastian Gottschalk <> wrote:

    > An employer shouldn't have any administrative privileges. He thus might
    > install a keylogger, but it would only work under his very own user
    > account.


    Erm... Sebastian, the employer is the one that pays the employee, I think
    you may have gotten the two confused here.
    The employeR is usually the one that owns the machines.
    --
    We apologize for the inconvenience
     
    ArtDent, Aug 29, 2006
    #48
  9. 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.
     
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Aug 30, 2006
    #49
  10. ArtDent wrote:

    > On 29-Aug-2006, Sebastian Gottschalk <> wrote:
    >
    >> An employer shouldn't have any administrative privileges. He thus might
    >> install a keylogger, but it would only work under his very own user
    >> account.

    >
    > Erm... Sebastian, the employer is the one that pays the employee, I think
    > you may have gotten the two confused here.
    > The employeR is usually the one that owns the machines.


    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.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 30, 2006
    #50
  11. Rick Merrill Guest

    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.
     
    Rick Merrill, Aug 30, 2006
    #51
  12. From: "Sebastian Gottschalk" <>


    |
    | 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
     
    David H. Lipman, Aug 30, 2006
    #52
  13. nemo_outis Guest

    "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
    news:eq5Jg.8391$Xl5.4528@trnddc06:

    > From: "Sebastian Gottschalk" <>
    >
    >
    >|
    >| 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,
     
    nemo_outis, Aug 30, 2006
    #53
  14. nemo_outis wrote:

    > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
    > news:eq5Jg.8391$Xl5.4528@trnddc06:
    >
    >> From: "Sebastian Gottschalk" <>
    >>
    >>|
    >>| 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.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 30, 2006
    #54
  15. TwistyCreek Guest

    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 shit?

    LOL!

    Get over yourself.
     
    TwistyCreek, Aug 30, 2006
    #55
  16. Anonyma Guest

    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.
     
    Anonyma, Aug 30, 2006
    #56
  17. Rick Merrill Guest

    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!
     
    Rick Merrill, Aug 30, 2006
    #57
  18. ArtDent Guest

    On 30-Aug-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.


    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
     
    ArtDent, Aug 30, 2006
    #58
  19. ArtDent wrote:

    >
    > On 26-Aug-2006, Notan <> 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
    piss 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.
     
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Aug 30, 2006
    #59
  20. Nomen Nescio Guest

    Notan wrote:

    > ArtDent wrote:
    > >
    > > On 26-Aug-2006, Notan <> 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.
     
    Nomen Nescio, Aug 30, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,832
  2. Theo
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    6,612
    Scophie
    Dec 6, 2012
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    556
    Stephen Howard
    Oct 27, 2005
  4. Martik

    Removing 'enter' keystrokes from document

    Martik, Nov 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    761
    Blinky the Shark
    Nov 10, 2005
  5. DU
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    598
Loading...

Share This Page