Internet history

Simple don't Post if you think he is trying to do somethig unethical or underhanded or doing something he is not supposed to be doing.

I wouldn't.

Everybody should be treated fairly in a non-judgemental manor. If we don't we create a board for the elite who never go into any gray areas..who all ways do what the management says, even if it means hurting a coworker or a friend. Who are we to judge peoples motives for doing things, they are the final judge. If they are doing something they are not supposed to do and they get caught, then they deserve everything they get. Bet who are we to withhold help just because we don't know the whole story, really its not are business. It's their business, if they screw-up.....they pay the price...not us. We are here to help everyone who asks for help if we can.

 

Hello Carver,

Fair to whom? How about the person that owns the Computer?

Its you that's judging motivation, not me.

On the facts, not on your suppostions, someone wants to delete history off a computer that they don't own and wants to hide that action. Its you that's (emotionally at that) reading all sorts of things into this.

 

The person who posts.

I see.

Has TheModernAge made a third post, or did we scare him off.

 

I see you're fond of making suppositions.

 

Strictly speaking, you're inferring a lot here. Read again the explicitly stated facts. The inferences you make might be reasonable, but you really shouldn't confuse those inferences with explicitly stated facts.

Blue

 

Naa, just asked a question.

 

HI Blue,

Ok, we're going around and around on this and don't thnk we'll come to an agreement here.

The judgement that counts is yours, you could have shut this down and chose not to.

 

Why should it be shut down

The thread starter posed questions and received answers related to those questions. Some of the other responses....tho not off topic per say....are nothing more than personal opinions related to personal perceptions based soley on the contents of one post by the thread starter.

As long as members personal opinions are respected and the participation remains at a appropriate discussion level everything will be fine.

Bubba

 

Hi Bubba,

Should have written: removed the original post.

 

zcv,

You stated that there were specific facts in front of everyone. According to your post, those facts were:

• A user wishes to delete the Internet history from a computer
• A computer which the user did not own
• The user wished to hide the fact that the history was deleted

In fact, only the first of those facts is explicitly stated. The second and third are inferred.

Regards,

Blue

 

Yes, ownership is inferred, or I should say, lack of it.

Well, I read that as hiding - more to the point, altering data.

This is the heart of the matter and our difference.

Regards

 

In other words, not a fact.

Again, inferred.

I have absolutely no problem with your position. It differs from mine and that's absolutely fine. I am strident when clear inferences are explicitly sold as fact and happen to believe the distinction is rather important to maintain when operating with incomplete information.

I'm done.

Regards,

Blue

 

I would go for the LiveCD route also, though one may have some trouble if it has a PCI wireless card - depends on the chip used. But a cabled Ethernet connection would be fine.

Incidentally all this can be found out on a search engine, so not really much point worrying about the inferred or actual facts of who this person may/may not be - they got their info now so the old water has passed under the bridge.

 

Apart from the original question about how to go around in place security, this thread reveals something about the values and the capacity for discernment of the respondents, not just technical knowledge. It also raises the larger question of what responsibilities members have towards others when offering advice, with some arguing for more responsibility (using "judgment") and others for less (by being more "nonjudgmental").

We seem to have little problem when deciding whether or not someone is a troll in these forums and react accordingly, but in this case have invoked all sorts of reasons to avoid using the same kind of judgement for a matter that is almost certainly as important, if not more so.

 

tayres,

Points taken, and they are valid ones to raise.

Part of the question being discussed towards the end of this thread is being precise and objective regarding what one infers about information offered. If one wishes to make assumptions and proceed on that basis, that is absolutely fine, just realize that there is a difference between assumptions and objective fact and try not to relabel one as the other.

As for forum trolls and other matters, I always strive to objectively assess the information at hand and provide the benefit of doubt to all when working with incomplete information. At times that benefit is appropriate, at times it's not, and at times we'll never know.

Cheers,

Blue

 

I like the way you articulate and restate the questions raised in this thread. In my opinion, you have stated the questions in a very clear and concise way. For what it's worth, I feel you have chosen your words well.

 

Theres always going to be some tinge of possible overreaction when presented with details as been suggested at the start of this, but thats no reason alone to discount spy1 and other's bringing to the surface those concern's. The more dialogue either way the closer to drawing a better more concise conclusion wouldn't you think?

 

EASTER.2010,

I didn't dismiss them. If one has a concern regarding facts not explicitly in evidence, posing a simple question can serve two functions:

1. Alert others to issues that they may not have considered
2. Allow people to render informed decisions and not jump to conclusions.

However, questions were not explicitly asked and judgement was rendered. Some may not be able to, as spy1 put it, "presume good intention". So be it. Yet, in the absence of firm and explicit evidence, I choose not to presume bad intention.

Cheers,

Blue

 

All well and good, but has TheModernAge posted back to answer any concerns at this time?

 

No, he was scared off

 

By What?

 

Don't you mean by whom.

 

A two page discussion about whether he/she had any right to ask the question, or expect an answer??

 

I did mean what - certainly not from board policy.

Quoting Blue, that's an inference.

 

Touché..., and quite correct I might add

Blue