Conference 7.286::digital

You are right...it must be really new...my manager still does not know
this...

It is a dream! I tryed to explain to my manager, that I would like to have
a terminal home, to do notes, wich took me to much time during working
hours, and he said, that I have 8 hours work a day, and that I do not need
to work at home, that I have better things to do.

It is not because Ken Olsen once said, that if somebody asks something, then
give because he needs it, that European managers are going to do so!
They are much too much concerned about their cost centers, and think that it
is a great result, if they finish the quarter, staying much under the limit
of theri budget. We are swiss, well known, not to do uncosiderate things.

To have a LA50 on your desk, instead of walking up 3 floors, and opening
4 doors inbetween, this is unconsiderate!

So what do you want me to ask for? Subject "Cost-Center" is "TABU" in 
our plant. Do with what you have, and if you don't have it, do something else!

Norbert

Hang on!

I give my opinion about a fact and you bring up a personal problem.
This file has not been created to solve individual problems, it is
to discuss about ideas, ok?

So, if you need an LA50, go and see your manager and tell him that you
need an LA50. If the cost aspect is important for some reasons that are
not your problem, so try to explain him that he will save money with the
printer instead of having people going up and down the stairs every ten
minutes, making noise, disturbing the others, etc...

The fact is here. We must think in terms of PROFITABILITY. If your 
solution is good, defend it. If it is not, drop it.

Didier

Why do I bring up a personal problem? because this problem shows exactely
what I try to explain. We cannot just talk about ideas...we have to talk
about practical issues, wich show exactely what is going on...My LA50
has nothing to do with the whole...It is just an instrument, to show,
that everything does not work as nice as you describe it in .0 ...

Norbert

Re:-2....

Dider.. do you work in a place that must charge off all its cost to 
something other than overhead? I do not, so that when we ask for something, 
it is given without usually a second thought, but I know of colleagues
that must justify having to order another chair for their office, as their 
boss says... you can only sit in one chair.!!!

Gale

not understood.

Okay.... let me see if I can explain it.....


	Some DIS functions are considered service organizations. This means 
that they have a "zero" budget. Meaning they can had no negative or 
positive variences. Someone must be charged for everything. Overhead 
charging is the catch-all charge, but even that must balance out. So, if 
one neds something, one must justify it, and its cost to something that can 
show its charge.

	I think that is what Judy said anyway. We do not do it that way in 
my office, so I had to go to the source, and make sure that is what she 
meant.

Gale

who is Judy?

A colleague of mine in the same program that I am in. She works in 
communications, in the MIS department there.

No Didier you have not met her. (You probably would not like her views 
anyway..... she could give you a fight in the 'box under equality)

Gale

	We are trusted for the most part. When it comes to equipment
	different groups and managers have different priorities. I know
	of groups (mostly in engineering) that will get what ever their
	people say they need. I know of one group that sends what ever
	equipment a person needs home with them. This is so if they cannot
	make it in (baby sick, car died, bad hang over) they can work at
	home.

	Other groups have much more limited resources (especially sales
	offices. See MARKETING.NOT) and are very tight with equipment. In
	many of these cases when you say "I need" the manager hears "I want".
	In his mind he may agree you need but he has other things he thinks
	he has to pay first. Usually your salary. If you do need something
	then it is his job to get it for you. This often means he has to
	convince his manager that he needs the money. Some managers are 
	afraid to take this step. They think their manager will think he
	doesn't know how to budget. I this case you may have to explain
	why it is a need and not a want. Most managers really do want to
	give you what you need and will if they can. If they don't want to
	give you what you do need then they will soon find themselves the
	manager of a group with no people in it.

Alfred

another way to present the issue is that our managers believe that we have
a valid reason to ask for something, so they don't ask for it as they suppose8c
it is valid. If they ask, they get the valid explanation and nothing is changed.

So that's why they trust us.

Didier

RE: .9

I can confirm that for those of us in the field, equipment (for use either
in the office or at home) can be difficult to get.  I work for SWS, when
I first came on board (a bit over a year ago) there was only one terminal
for all the specialists to share!  Later, they scrounged up an old VT52
or two for our use.  (We did finally get some VT-100's.)

I managed to get a PRO-350 to use at home by using it for some after-hours
work.  It died, I'm typing this on a Commodore 64 running a VT52 emulator
through a 300 baud acoustic coupler (well, it's *almost* a VT52, there's
no keypad emulation).

Also, I am expected to support Ultrix, and we cannot get a machine to
run Ultrix on (my office serves all of New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine,
and part of Western Mass.).  It's very embarrassing when trying to
answer customers' questions since none of us (even the Unix people)
have had the opportunity to use Ultrix!   (Using NANOOK:: has been
discarded as infeasible).

			Bob Alpert

Listen Bob.

If you need some tools for your job and your manager doesn't agree with you,
go and see the Personal rep, then your manager's manager, and climb up to
KO if you REALLY think that you neet it.

But PLEASE do so, don't tell yourself that I'm irrealistic!... it IS our way
of working: PEOPLE FIRST !

Keep your shirt on, DTL.  The Pro is going to be fixed and we are
attempting to get some kind of Ultrix machine.  Was just trying
to show that getting decent equipment out here in the field can be 
something of a problem.  We are working on it however, not just
sitting back and accepting the situation.

ok, sorry Bob, I didn't intend to say that you were "sitting back and accepting
the situation"

Didier_thinking_that_his_manager_was_right_when_he_told_him_to_control_his_emo-
tions :-)

The attitude depends on where you are.   In Engineering, you get what you
ask for eg I know of a group doing software development which has a cluster
of 8 * 11/780 for 70 people.

I once heard a story about a group (years ago) that couldn't get much needed
PDP 11/70.  They were apparently in short supply for one reason or another.
The manager decided that one of our OEM's had lots, so he ordered one.
Several people signed off on the purchase order and then someone actually
read it, said "Gee this is silly.  Buying a piece of our own equipment
from an OEM" and proceeded to have one re-routed to the group needing the
equipment.

It seems that every policy around here has an exception process.  Maybe
the trick to getting what you need to is find the appropriate way. 
Sometimes ODP might be it.  After all, KO believes in your value and
the work you do. 

	KC

I have never encountered in management the attitude that Didier cites in
.0 and .4 (management just trusts us and gives us whatever we ask for without
asking why we think we need it).

Even here in Engineering, which has very liberal capital spending habits,
one must justify each item requested.  If I say that I need a VT220 for my
project, my management will ALWAYS ask me why, what I plan on using it for,
do we have to buy one or would it be possible to borrow one from another
group for a while, etc.

I think this is the way that it should be.

--PSW

so, I must be either lucky or very useful.

    New readers might be curious to see the three year old discussion
    here.  I wonder WHAT IS TRUST?
    
    Is the absence of security guards?
    Is it unrestricted telephones?
    
    How do I know when I'm trusted?

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 491.28                   thoughts on DECulture                     28 of 41
RAWFSH::MAHLER "New and Improved..."                 28 lines  29-MAR-1988 12:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	During class a few weeks ago at Bedford, everyday I left
    left the security guard asked to see the inside of my backpack
    which had/has my badge dangling off of it which he noticed each
    time.

	At first  I  said  no.  That  it  was an invasion of my privacy,
    especially  since  I'm  obviously  an  employee,  why  should  I  be
    mistrusted?  He said he has to check since he checks everyone's bags
    since there was a recent theft in the area.  I let him look
    inside my bag and told him I think this "isn't very nice". He agreed
    and said he had to check.

	"This company doesn't trust it's employees" is the message I 
    received while furthering my training at the companies expense.
    Not only was I insulted, but it's stupid to assume that I would go
    to Bedford to steal anything when I have access to any DIGITAL
    facility [of course, I'd never steal which is the point of this
    entry anyway, right]?

	Is this  the  New  DEC,  er,  DIGITAL?  One  that  insults  it's
    employee's  by  not  trusting  them?  Or,  worse  yet,  what did the
    customers think when they were asked to have their bags checked?  If
    I were one, I'd be MIGHTY p'd off!  Heck, I am anyway!
    
    Come on DEC Security!  You can do better than that!

    
================================================================================
Note 491.29                   thoughts on DECulture                     29 of 41
RUTLND::MCMAHON "Reality is a future enhancement"    32 lines  29-MAR-1988 12:36
                -< Have you worked the other side of the desk? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .28
    
    So, how long have you/did you work in Security? Don't criticize
    a person until you've walked a mile in their steel-toed shoes.
    First of all, I worked in Security for 7 years, 2 of which were
    at Bedford. Did you happen to notice the sign that said all packages
    were subject to inspection? I can't even begin to tell you how many
    times we got reports on equipment, boards, etc. missing from the
    different machines inside BUO. How happy would you be if you were
    signed up for a class and found that the machine you were supposed
    to be working on didn't work because someone walked away with the
    memory board?  And this was on the DEC-employees-only side. As with
    any large group of people, such as the Digital population, there
    will be theft. Unfortunately, this impacts all of us with such things
    as having our backpacks checked when we're leaving. There were many
    more such incidents as the one above, including copying proprietary
    information down to tape and trying to walk out of the building.
    We would randomly hold a tape overnight and have operations give
    us a listing of what was on the tape. We found a lot of interesting
    things heading out the door, so much that we got to the point that
    if the tape wasn't signed off by an authorized signature, we kept
    the tape for checking. Again, this was brought about by repeated
    and potentially dangerous abuse of trust. I would love to live in
    a world where I didn't have to lock my doors and I could let my
    sons just go to the store without fear, but reality is a tough and
    unforgiving teacher.
    
    In ending, give the Security Officer a break. He didn't make the
    rules, he might not even know why the rule was created in the first
    place. Also, if you have a better way of protecting Digital's assets,
    let Security know, they'd be glad to hear from you!
    
================================================================================
Note 491.30                   thoughts on DECulture                     30 of 41
GENRAL::BANKS "David Banks -- N0ION"                 10 lines  29-MAR-1988 12:39
                            -< A better solution? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: .28
    
    Perhaps you have a *constructive* suggestion as to how to better handle
    the theft situation?
    
    I guess it's a fact of life that theft does occur, but criticism of
    current procedures does no good unless you can offer a better
    solution. 
    
    -  David
================================================================================
Note 491.31                   thoughts on DECulture                     31 of 41
BPOV09::MIOLA "Phantom"                              23 lines  29-MAR-1988 13:05
                 -< blame the people that made it a necessity >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    For the people who resent their bags being searched..........
    
    Unfortunately, this is becoming a necessity. I don't like it when
    it is done to me, however, we the employees have brought it on
    ourselves.
    
    The offices in the building where I work are constantly being hit
    by light fingered individuals. We continually lose items as small
    as staplers to terminals, modems, and for the trusting souls that
    leave excess cash in their desk........(change for vending machines),
    this also disappears.
    
    Security here, will check whenever some personal belonings
    disappear as well as Dec property.
    
    The company and security is doing their job, as unpleasant as it
    may be. As far as I know Dec has always had the policy stated that
    they had the right to search employee's belongings (bags, boxes,
    briefcases, even cars I believe), if the need arises.
           
    my own humble opinion
================================================================================
Note 491.32                   thoughts on DECulture                     32 of 41
CADSE::RALTO "Be incorrect, occasionally."           28 lines  29-MAR-1988 13:18
                -< What to do?  Search me...(for the answer!) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .28 to .30
    
    Is a backpack bigger than a briefcase?  Were they checking
    briefcases too?  Can you fit a tape with proprietary info
    into a briefcase?  Or a memory board?  Were the guards
    checking briefcase-carrying customers wearing suits and ties,
    or just backpack-carrying DEC employees wearing jeans?
    
    I've got no problem with Security, it's a tough job, I'm sure.
    But procedures that invade privacy or search one type of person
    and/or container in preference to another cannot be justified
    on the grounds of company security.
    
    As a comment on the culture of the new Digital, it seems that
    increasingly outrageous policies covering increasingly wide
    domains ("keep your desk clean", e.g.) are being embraced
    under the security umbrella.  There were several times where
    I couldn't get into my own office area in the Mill because
    some fanatic kept changing the combinations and not telling
    the employees.
    
    Does this really sound like "Do the Right Thing"?
    
    Chris
    
    P.S.  It was my understanding that employees can take magtapes
          and listings out of a facility.  Oh well, there you go again.
    
================================================================================
Note 491.33                   thoughts on DECulture                     33 of 41
RAWFSH::MAHLER "It's the bomb that will bring us to" 29 lines  29-MAR-1988 15:53
                                  -< RE:.29 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	        
    	
    	First off, I was NOT criticizing the Security OFFICER who
    	had asked to inspect my bag, in fact, if you go back and 
    	read my reply you'll see that I didn't blame him.  So why
    	don't you hold off on your slams about being on the other
    	side of the fence [one that I HAVE been on by the way]!
    	How many levels of authority in DEC will be "just following
    	orders" before this place becomes full of policy spouting
    	droids?
    
    	If there was a better effort to see that memory boards,
    	tapes, etc were not left out in the open by instructors
    	then this wouldn't have to be a problem in the first place 	
    	now would it?
    
    	Now I'm sure I'll get someone who USED to be an instructor
    	jumping down my throat.  Well, hold on to it.  
    	
    	If someone robs a bank, does the bank institute
    	a policy that every bank customer will be frisked when leaving?
    	Of course not, they TIGHTEN SECURITY and institute new measures
    	that will ensure that people do not have to be frisked which
    	would be an admission that they do not trust their own security
    	measures.   
    	
    	PS:	Actually a few people went by when I was being
    		"checked" that had briefcases and suits.
  
================================================================================
Note 491.34                   thoughts on DECulture                     34 of 41
RAWFSH::MAHLER "It's the bomb that will bring us to" 10 lines  29-MAR-1988 15:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    	How about setting up metal detectors since anything WORTH
    	stealing in BEDFORD is probably made out of metal?  Unless
    	someone thinks these manuals are worth something...?
    
    	That way the security guard could search under VALID
    	suspicion instead of picking people to check over...
    
    
================================================================================
Note 491.35                   thoughts on DECulture                     35 of 41
SEAPEN::PHIPPS "Mike @DTN 225-4959"                  16 lines  29-MAR-1988 18:07
                      -< Depends on your frame of mind. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I used to think I would resent being told to open my "parcel"
        when entering or leaving the premises but it doesn't bother me
        any more. Not that I'm getting soft, only here and there, but
        the need for tighter security is increasing.

        The theft of items is only one aspect. The loss of the company
        jewels could be disastrous.

        And GUIDO; I visited a customer site that required me to open
        my brief case for inspection on entering AND leaving. Not only
        that, all the guards carried 38 specials!

        From someone that does not like the personal encroachment of
        authority.

        whadhesay? :^)
================================================================================
Note 491.36                   thoughts on DECulture                     36 of 41
NETMAN::SEGER "this space intentionally left blank"   7 lines  29-MAR-1988 20:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today I attended an LRP meeting at the Westford Regency.  During a break I had a
chat with someone from security who was asked to sit outside the room and check
people's badges since a lot of confidential information was being discussed. He
told me that earlier someone didn't want to show him his badge and accused him
of invading his privacy!  Can you believe that one? 

-mark
================================================================================
Note 491.37                   thoughts on DECulture                     37 of 41
BPOV09::MIOLA "Phantom"                              15 lines  29-MAR-1988 22:44
                             -< sorry about that >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re .33
    
    Didn't think I was slamming anybody. I thought I stated I was
    expressing my humble opinion.
    
    Obviously, you don't feel anybody can, if he doesn't agree with
    you.
    
    
    I state again, due to the unfortunate case of LOCKED desks and cabinets
    being broken into, and DIGITAL property, as well as personal property
    being stolen, we are forced to put up with this inconvenience.
    
    Sorry if my humble opinion hurt your feelings.
                                                  
================================================================================
Note 491.38                   thoughts on DECulture                     38 of 41
BISTRO::WLODEK "W.Stankiewicz, Comms support, VBO"   37 lines  30-MAR-1988 06:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	This note seems to have degenerated already, I'll not restrain
	myself anymore. 

re: security
	
	I see security officers as working on the same side of the fence,
	protecting company I work for and me personally ( ever had a bomb	
	alert ?). Asking to show a badge or a suitcase is probably an unpleasant
	duty, one should help them to make it as smooth as possible, just as I 
	have sometimes very unpleasant duty to refuse somebody access via X.25 
	on our test system or account or a document.

re: 0.

	What is the original context of this letter ?

	I found it amusing , and no problems if this was the purpose.
	[ "peer-to-peer communications " in this context made my day !]

	Otherwise the conclusions ( too much said already, there isn't any
	particular reasoning) contradict my every day experiences of the
	Mother DEC.

	Because of the Easynet, DEC is smaller company today then 10 years
	ago. The "newer DEC" is more open, direct, accessible, democratic,
	international, homogeneous, fascinating, friendly, interactive,
	lateral, multidimensional, competent.

	But as any other company, etc, there problems here and there, 
	that's life ! We didn't know a tenth of it before, so, let's 
	have right perspective.
	
			most humble servant ,

					wlodek	
    
================================================================================
Note 491.39                   thoughts on DECulture                     39 of 41
JUNIOR::JOUBERT                                      16 lines  30-MAR-1988 08:52
                             -< Bomb drill?? Sure >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     re .38   Yes, I have been through a bombing situation at Parker
    Street many years ago where the Bomb squad from Ft. Devens came
    down and denotated what appeared to be a bomb placed on the loading
    dock at PKO1.  All employees were evacuated and kept far away from
    the building by a very competent Security staff.  NO FUN.
    
    re .0   As has been pointed out by many already, Digital has a stated
    policy that they (the Company) retain the option to inspect any
    package entering or leaving the building at any time.  I for one,
    even though I wouldn't like the inconvenience, wish that Security
    would do MORE spot checking at all facilities on a regular basis.
     I know for a fact, repeat FACT, that a lot of stuff goes out our
    doors that shouldn't and no one ever catches or stops it.  Maybe
    spot checking would cut it down.
    
    
================================================================================
Note 491.40                   thoughts on DECulture                     40 of 41
RAWFSH::MAHLER "It's the bomb that will bring us to" 15 lines  30-MAR-1988 10:49
                -< OBVIOUSLY you don't value personal freedom! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    
    	Maybe so, maybe preventing the possibility of someone 
    	exiting a building with sensative materials would preclude
    	the need for spot-checking?
    
    	RE: ::MIOLA
    
    	You're right, my feelings were hurt.  My feelings of having
    	freedom and personal confidentiality that I'm used to.  Maybe
    	you don't value this as much as I?  By the way, I wasn't referring
    	to your note.  At least *I'M* not paranoid.
    
    
================================================================================
Note 491.41                   thoughts on DECulture                     41 of 41
CVG::THOMPSON "Question reality"                     14 lines  30-MAR-1988 11:12
                    -< Let's try and keep things calm ok? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'd like to suggest that the issue of trusting DEC employees
    and security checks might be better taken up in topic 4 and
    allow this topic to stay with the more general picture of DEC
    culture.
    
    I'd also like to suggest that some of the previous replies were
    a little personal for notes and may have been better served by
    some personal mail to clarify peoples intention.
    
    Lastly a reminder that there are DECcie's from a number of cultures
    here and not all of us share the same cultural importance or even
    definition of personal freedom and privacy.
    
    			Alfred - co-moderator
    

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMAN_WRKD:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 491.43                   thoughts on DECulture                     43 of 44
CADSE::RALTO "Be incorrect, occasionally."           32 lines  30-MAR-1988 11:34
                    -< Security is part of the culture now >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My primary concern here is that the existing security policies
    be implemented fairly for all individuals regardless of their
    status, dress, or bag-preference.  It would appear that the
    "Valuing Differences" policy would have some pertinence here.
    If it's justifiable to search a sweatshirt-and-jeans worker
    with a backpack, then it's negligent *not* to search a suit-and-tie
    executive type with a five-inch-thick briefcase (or as it's better
    known among some who carry them, the "Global Property Pass").
    Tapes, memory modules, and bombs can be carried in them, too.
    
    I personally have no problem with searching certain types of
    carrying cases, briefcases, etc., *if enforced fairly*.  I have
    always had good relationships with security guards, and respect
    the work that they do.  I also realize the necessity of providing
    security measures in "today's world" (as if theft were a new thing).
    Of course, I would draw the line at frisks and strip searches myself,
    but who knows what someone in the future will deem justifiable in
    the tomorrow's "brave new world"?  In the future (if not today),
    you could carry the corporate jewels out of the building on a
    chip small enough to fit into any convenient body cavity.
    
    Given the policies that are currently in effect, it is somewhat
    surprising to learn that significant problems continue to exist.
    Perhaps when considering the implementation of additional new
    policies in the future, the effectiveness of the enforcement
    of the current policies should be evaluated.  For example, when
    an "inside job" of some kind is suspected, a common reaction
    by some is to make everyone suffer additional measures rather than
    concentrating the effort on identifying the individuals responsible,
    because the former represents an easier and more measurable task.
    
    Chris

Re 491.36 (4.20):

Here's a little tidbit from the Personnel Policies and Procedures manual I first
spotted a few years ago:

"
       8.00 Security Philosophy Statement                       03-FEB-86

            SECURITY PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT AND PRINCIPLES

SCOPE:  WORLDWIDE
...
SECURITY PRINCIPLES
...
Access Controls - Employees are responsible for displaying the employee photo
identification badge, the polite challenging of unfamiliar individuals within
the workplace, and the escorting of visitors.
"

It takes real nerve to tell a guard that you don't want to show them your badge,
since it is supposed to be visible in the first place (ha!).


Employees should become comfortable with the idea that if they have misgivings
about strangers loitering around their office area (or elsewhere), they have the
right to ask them for identification.  As well as the idea that someone may
challange them some day.

You'll normally just surprise someone from off-site who is visiting for a
meeting, and is reading cartoons on an office wall while on break.  However, it
is nice to see encouragement to do something about suspicious situations.
(Obviously, if you are afraid of being harmed by a stranger, you should contact
security and let them take care of the situation).
				/AHM

    Is the only measure of trust the interaction that employees have with
    security guards?
    
    "Security" is recognition that Digital has a certain level of threat
    posed to it through theft.  Who would welcome the abolition of metal
    detactors at airports? 
    
    If the question is effectiveness of the implemention of certain
    site-specific security policies against the threat posed or imposition
    on employees then that's a good topic.  But it can hardly be equated to
    an overall indication of trust.
    
    Trust has much more to do with the low level of intrusion by managers
    into worked performed by their direct reports.

    I wish I lived in a world where I could be so idealistic as to believe
    that security checks at the door meant a serious infringement of
    my personal "rights".  I don't.  I live in a world where people
    walk off with equipment that I need to do my job; where people threaten
    me with bodily harm because of their misplaced sense of "rights"
    versus "privileges"; where a citizenry votes to repeal a law because
    it infringes on these "rights", and thereby places me in jeopardy
    every time I am on the road with them while they are driving their
    vehicles beyond their level of expertise. I live in the "me
    generation".  I also lived before that, when fundamental precepts
    of law, order and decency precluded the need for getting up in arms
    when wrongs were dealt with in a more straightforward manner.  I
    have also worked in places where security measures were, by necessity,
    considerably more stringent than they are here.  I didn't mind that
    either.  Why?  Because with all these "rights" there is inherent
    a requirement for some responsibility.  I am willing to balance
    the intrusions (perceived or real) against the good derived.  The
    time I will start to worry is the time when I can no longer judge
    where the line should be drawn.  In the meantime, I will continue
    to endure the slight discomforts my fellow citizens have caused
    me to suffer through their lack of good citizenship.  And I will
    continue to work, with individuals and groups, through the system,
    to improve our collective lot.  I will also not take the request
    to search my things at the door personally, or as an affront to
    the employees as a group.  Rather, I will take it for what it is,
    namely an inconvenience of the many to attempt to recover from the
    acts of a few.
    
    Gary          

    Well, *I* for one *AM* trusted here. Too much so. The only members
    of security that "ask for my badge" or check what I'm taking out
    are new hires.
    
    The rest *KNOW* I have a complete living arrangement stuck somewhere
    in the building, complete with bed, kitchenette, etc. I spend a
    *LOT* of time either physically in the building or on the system
    from home.
    
    I'm also *QUITE* sure every security individual would be the second
    to know if I left DIGITAL. Those of us that are well recognized
    and have been here for years have less chance of being "not trusted".
    
    But I would *FULLY* expect (and have experienced) times at other
    facilities when I was asked for my badge, etc.
    
    Trust is something earned, not just given. And even then there should
    always be the healthy measure of doubt. 
    
    							Warren
    

 Warren has a good point in that once security personnel know you, the
chances of being asked to open a parcel is very small. However this seems
to imply that the longer an employee works for DEC or the more outgoing
they are with security personnel, the more they are to be trusted. I don't
think that this is necessarily true.

 I recently visited a friend who worked in a electronics store and noticed a 
light beam across the door which triggered a counter every time someone went 
through the door. I asked about it and he said that their security would 
either ask 'suspicious' people to open their parcels or every 100th person. 

 We do seem to live in the 'me' generation where individuals do not appear
to take responsibility (ex: drink driving, theft, etc). While I do not
like 'spot checks' on the road or on entrance to buildings, I do appreciate
a little more piece of mind knowing that some irresponsible individuals will
be caught who otherwise might not be. I am willing to display my badge on
demand and usually offer to open my parcels if I do not know the security
person. Offering often eases the feeling of distrust and makes a difficult
situation more pleasant.

 Cheers,
-Tom

    
    
    	Security's job encompasses more than just checking badges
    	and parcels I'm sure, but I'd also hope that when they do
    	have to do these things that they are not being selective 
    	with regards to appearances, rather than substantiated 
    	suspicions.  To me, when you go through a metal detector
    	and it "bleeps", then you should be searched.  If it
    	doesn't not [unless someone witnessed you stealing property
    	or hiding a bomb in your backpack] then no one has a basis
    	upon which to search you or your belongings.
    
    	If there's a security problem at Bedford, then let security
    	think of more proactive security measures rather than searching
    	to see if something is missing.  After all, if something IS
    	missing and security doesn't know it until the person who
    	stole it is caught, then there is a lack of security.  I'm
    	not pointing fingers at the DEC security personnel, but in
    	the general secure atmosphere, or lack thereof, of Bedford.
    
	Is there a problem with putting in metal detectors at the
    	doors that I'm not aware of?  I'd like to know more about 
    	it if so.
    
    

    There has always been a security problem in Bedford. There has
    to be one almost by definition given the use of that facility.
    Any time you have a facility that has to have a lot of equipment
    and has to have a lot of people who are there for only a short
    time you get the opportunity for people to sneak in and take things.
    I think that that facility has made improvements over the years.
    The issuing of badges for customers being one. There is still a
    lot that could be done.
    
    I visited there several times during the time I worked for a
    competitor of DECs to see friends of mine who did work for DEC
    and who were in from the field BTW. Most of the time security
    held me at the door until someone came for me. On at least one
    occasion I was let in all by my lonesome. That was not a wise
    thing to do (even though I knew I could be trusted).
    
    On the issue of trusting other DECcies. Here in NIO no one can
    get in unless they have a DEC badge or are escorted at all times.
    Do I assume that the tape player and calculator that were stolen
    from inside a drawer got up an left on their own or that a DEC
    employee took them? IN general I trust DEC employees. But I still
    lock my drawer and I don't keep things I can't afford to lose in
    my desk any more. 
    
    Any DEC employee that wants to see my badge, look in my case/bag as 
    I leave will see it without complaint on my part. We all work for
    the same company and when security asked to see my badge or check
    my bag they are looking out for *my* interests. I respect that.
    
    			Alfred

    Here at BUO, security only seems to be checking briefcases yet everyday
    I see people going in and out with various bags, napsacks, etc.
    and they are not checked. Strange ...
    
    -- B

    
    
    Trust in a fellow employee is a must in order for any company to
    function. It would br difficult if not impossible to feel comfortable
    when working with someone you did not trust. no matter what the reason.
    
    Our security department does as good a job as they are allowed to
    do with the equipment they have and the amount of cooperation they
    get from the employees. 
    
    I have visited one of our service vendors (a Major brown trucking
    company) and before you can get out to your car you must pass through
    a gaurd station and open briefcases and purses and bags, and walk
    through a metal detector. I wear large western style belt buckles
    and it tripped the alarm so I was asked to remove it AND empty my
    pockets. NO ifs, NO ands, NO buts, EVERYONE including managers get 
    the same treatment. The area manager I was with tripped the alarms
    with his cigarette lighter and pocket change he got the same treatment.
    Guess what? Not a single person complained.
    
    Should we do that at all DEC facilities? why not?
    would we get used to it? probably.
    Would it be effective. Maybe not 100% but it sure would help keep
    the crooked employee OR visitor. 

    re: .28 et al
    
    "All that glitters is not gold" (or metal of any kind).
    
    Random sampling (as best they can under the circumstances - considering
    they are humans too).
    
    Gary

        I'm amused by Mr. Mahler's remark that metal detectors will solve
        the "problem".  There are LOTS of extremely valuable things that
        we work with in this company that would NOT trigger a metal
        detector.  Our "intellectual property" is among our most valuable
        possessions as a corporation, and much of it is (or can be)
        embodied on paper, or on small magnetic media, which will NOT
        trigger most metal detectors. 
        
        BTW, if you should happen to see Mr. Mahler in a DEC facility,
        be sure to ask to see his badge; he has left Digital and gone
        to work for one of our competitors.
        
        Tom

    Re: .32
    
>        BTW, if you should happen to see Mr. Mahler in a DEC facility,
>        be sure to ask to see his badge; he has left Digital and gone
>        to work for one of our competitors.

    I thought things had quieted down a bit in this conference   :-)
    
    -  David

>   I thought things had quieted down a bit in this conference   :-)

        So has my MAIL :-) :-)

    
    Personally, I can't see what the big deal is about having a briefcase,
    or backpack or whatever searched by security.  If you aren't doing
    anything illegal with it, then what's the big deal besides a minor
    inconvenience ?  I wish they would be MORE stringent about it as
    I can attest to having had several irreplaceable items stolen from
    my office once.  I don't care if security searches my bags/packages
    since I have nothing to hide.  On the other hand, if I were one
    of the individuals who WOULD attempt such things, then I would
    certainly be upset that security wanted to search my personal property.

    Nothing to hide = no reason to fret

    < Note 4.35 by OCTAVE::VIGNEAULT "The Central Scrutinizer" >
>On the other hand, if I were one
>of the individuals who WOULD attempt such things, then I would
>certainly be upset that security wanted to search my personal property.

    Interesting assumption... that those who are interested in maintaining
    personal freedoms must be potential criminals. Learned the law from
    the Attorney General, huh? "Whoever the police arrest must be guilty, 
    or the police wouldn't arrest them in the first place."
    
    karl moeller sws TUO

    
    I don't believe that being able to bring whatever you want in or
    out of a DEC facility UNCHECKED equates to personal freedom. 
    
    As stated previously, DEC has signs posted that ALL personal 
    property is subject to search.  When you agree to work for a 
    corporation, you also agree to live by THEIR rules. 

    
    

>    When you agree to work for a 
>    corporation, you also agree to live by THEIR rules. 

I mean no personal offense, but that is a very sheep-like thing to say.
Why not look at it that when a company agrees to accept your services
of employment, they agree to abide by your rules, too?

The action is two-way.  The compromise between corporate and individual
rights and privileges is part of the bargain.  

The problem isn't that my briefcase is being searched, the problem is that
it's being searched because the guard thinks I'm a hippie. -- I.e., my
perception is that, either I am being harrassed because of the way I look
(race, etc.) or there is a presumption that "backpack == theft".

By the way, I was also searched by (possibly) the same guard that searched
Mike.  I didn't like it either.  My feeling at the time was that the guard
was looking for drugs, not "company property."

To emphasize -- those are my perceptions: I have no factual basis to 
suspect that this is really the case.

Martin.

    
    There are ways for a guard/anybody to carry out an unpleasant action
    so that the other person involved doesn't feel persecuted.
    
    In cases such as these it's the attitude of the guard that counts
    just as much, if not more so, than the action itself. I've never
    felt that a guard doesn't have the right to search a briefcase/backpack
    but there have been times I've felt like I'm "guilty until proven
    innocent" and I don't like that.
    
    One thing to remember is that the guard works for Digital. If you feel
    the guard has been disrepectfull or persecutes a select group of people
    then talk to his/her manager! But, before you do just try to put
    yourselve on the other side of that desk. They've got a job to do
    as well. 
    
    -Ray
    

    re: .39
    
    A question for you:
    
    Are you and your friend the only ones being searched?  
    Or do you notice everyone walking out having to open up
    briefcases/backpacks/pocketbooks?
    
    I would be quite upset if I were singled out for wearing
    peace buttons and my hair long, but I have a good relationship
    with all the guards in my building.  (helps when you chat with
    them if you ever stay late.  the day people blur together, but 
    those dedicated workers who sign out at 2:00 am stick in their 
    minds.)
    
    jonathan

re: .39

Mike isn't exactly my friend.  We were in the same class together, but
the incidents were quite separate.

I don't recall anyone else having their possesions searched.  I've never
seen a guard go through a woman's purse, for example.

Also, in my 15 years at Dec, this is the first time my personal property
was searched.

Perhaps the guard was just over-zealous or had been given bad instructions.

Martin.

       
       	Hippy? Long hair?
       
       	FWIW, most security guard ARE pretty helpful and nice and are
       looking out for the Corp. best interests (material wise)..
       Thankfully, I haven't had to experience being hassled much.. And
       for a while there I was getting pretty damned scruffy lookin'!!
       
       	I suspect that most of the hassl-ers are either new to DEC
       	("Look at them hippies!" "That "hippy" just made the Corp. a
       	BUNCH of bucks.") or outside contractors.
       
       	If you have a problem then discuss it with their management.
       		
       						mike

    In Charlotte, during a development meeting, I encountered a similar
    situation.  For the ALL-IN-1 development meetings in CEO I would
    dress in faded jeans and a tee shirt.  It seemed approperate since
    many of the CEO developers wore jackets, and some suits.
    
    As I headed out of the building I was stopped by a man dressed in
    a condesending tone, wearing a three piece suit.  "Are YOU a digital
    employee?" he queried,  "Where is your badge?
    
    "In my brief case"
    
    "This is a digital facility, we wear our badges here."  This came in a
    tone that implied that facilities that didn't have everyone in badges
    was NOT a digital facility. 
    
    The tone and query apparently had little to do with my current lack of
    a badge.  He was appalled to see a "digital" employee dressed in such a
    state.  I'd have no problem if he had confronted me as a stranger in a
    DEC facility.  That did not come across as his primary motivation. 
    
    The badge he was wearing, by its rather high number, indicated that his
    ability to distinguish Digital employees by sight may have been a bit
    light. So I asked, "Do you know who I am?!?" 
    
    When he said no, I said good, and continued on.

I have had my purse and briefcase searched that last time I attended a 
course in Bedford (Feb. 88) -- I don't have long hair nor do I wear peace 
buttons - I do wear a suit and short hair.  

I didn't take offense but I must admit I was taken back for a moment -- but
I just chalked it up as his job and went on my way.

    RE: .45
    
    Good for you!  
    
    Finally, we see someone with a decent head on her shoulders who
    takes something like this as the job of security and not a personal
    attack on thier character and then goes off into a tyrade about
    personal liberty  and on and on....
    
    
    At least we have one level-headed person responding to this note
    (well, besides me that is)
    
    -bill

    Finally, we see somebody take this as not a personal attack?
    
    Gee, I didn't know I was attacked personally, I thought I was
    inquiring whether another person was discriminated against.
    
    I know what gaurds put up with, I was one myself for a while.
    
    I was told to do certain things, and that the rules applied to all.
    If somebody is checking one person's handbags, but not another's,
    I'd like to know the reason for it.
    
    I agree with the need for security, a little bit of information
    can do a lot of damage.  I just disagree that those who don't wear
    a tie to work everyday are a greater security risk than those who
    wear a different 3 piece suit each day of the week.
    
    Well, at least there are two level-headed people responding to
    this note, but I'm not one of them.  Put something on my head
    and it is very likely to roll right off.     :-) ;-)
    
    jonathan

Re .47:
    
>    I agree with the need for security, a little bit of information
>    can do a lot of damage.  I just disagree that those who don't wear
>    a tie to work everyday are a greater security risk than those who
>    wear a different 3 piece suit each day of the week.

	In fact, there is more reason to be suspicious of Mr. Three Piece 
	Suit than O'l Scruffy.  Mr. TPS is displaying a larger expenditure of 
	money than OS and there is a good question on where he got it.  

	Obviously he is being paid by someone but is it DEC that is paying?

	Further, Mr. TPS is more likely than not a manager and is likely to 
	have broader access to sensitive information than a non-manager.  The 
	main problem is that the guards may not recognize the sensitive 
	information if they do see it.

About a week ago, the New York Times had an interesting editorial on a topic
closely related to this one.

They started out by recalling the 1962 movie, The Manchurian Candidate.  In
that movie, a brainwashed agent shoots the presidential nominee just as he is
nominated.

Looking at the movie with 1988 eyes, the writer points out, one is struck by
the unreality:  The agent walks onto the convention floor carrying a concealed
rifle.  There is no security; no one stops him, no one makes him walk through
a metal detector.  No guards are visible.  In 1962, that was as everyone would
have expected.

Just 6 years after that - and 20 years ago - the 1968 Democratic convention
required everyone entering to pass through metal detectors.  There was an
outcry over this invasion of personal privacy, but "security" won out.

Today, we've become accustomed to metal detectors and guards.  No only can't
you get onto a plane, you can't get into the waiting area at the airport.
You can't get into many courtrooms.  You can't get into the Congress.

The point of the Times piece was the way we've come to accept as commonplace
what we not so long ago would have considered gross intrusions on our privacy
and freedom.  It happens in a vary stylized way:  In a series of small steps,
each apparently justified by special circumstances.  One absolute characteris-
tic of these kinds of changes - and the thing that makes them dangerous - is
that they only go in one direction:  Once security checks get justified in
response to a particular threat, they are almost never removed, even if the
threat later fades or is seen, in retrospect, never to have been there at all.

In addition, the technology keeps "improving".  Metal detectors are smaller,
much more reliable, much cheaper - so easier to justify.  TV cameras can now
be VERY small, cheap, reliable - so they are showing up all over the place.

DEC is, of course, influenced by its ambient culture - cultures, really; views
of privacy vary from society to society.  Certainly there's a lot more secu-
rity around than there used to be.  These kinds of searches are an example.
My favorite one is the rise of locked areas.  At one time, there were almost
no locked areas in the Mill:  Some computer rooms, maybe some labs, but that
was about it.  Then came the Pro, which started life in a large rebuilt hunk
of building 5.  Part of the rebuilding involved adding locked doors; you
couldn't even get into the area where the cubicles for Pro people were.  This
was all justified as necessary to "maintain security" of this strategic new
product that was to be so important to DEC.

The Pro is long gone, but the locks are still there.  Lots of them.  Newer
areas get locks installed.  Most never seem to be locked, but some are.

Were does this all lead us?  Hard to say.  Some searches are justified; others
are not.  DEC's general approach has been to trust its employees.  Sometimes
that trust has been abused, which has a cost - but the trust also has many
benefits.

"Security" in and of itself, "losses" in and of themselves, are not sufficient
reasons to implement searches or lock of areas.  They are arguments for doing
these things, that need to be traded off carefully, on a case by case basis,
against the costs the "corrective" measures themselves will introduce.

Also, it's important to ensure that temporary measures REMAIN temporary.  It's
all too easy for things to just continue to get done the way they "always"
have been done.

It's all to easy to see this as "Digital" protecting itself from its employ-
ees, as if those employees were, at best, a necessary evil that "Digital"
tolerates.  On the contrary, those employees ARE "Digital", every bit as much
as the stockholders ARE "Digital", or Ken Olsen is "Digital", or any other
group or individual you wish to name.
							-- Jerry

re Note 4.49 by VIDEO::LEICHTERJ:

> One absolute characteris-
> tic of these kinds of changes - and the thing that makes them dangerous - is
> that they only go in one direction:  Once security checks get justified in
> response to a particular threat, they are almost never removed, even if the
> threat later fades or is seen, in retrospect, never to have been there at all.

Sounds like the 55 MPH speed limit.

Bob

	In Puerto Rico the Security persons conduct a 100% visual
    inspection of contents of all packages and brief-cases.  This
    way there is no problem with feelings of descrimination.  All
    are inspected for the benefit of Digital and nobody complains.

	Is it "personal freedoms" that are the problem here or is
    it that if it isn't a large enough sample of examinations it
    seems like harrassment of individuals to those few checked?

    The point taken in point -.1 about the Manchurian Candidate is
    slighltly incorrect.  I saw the re-released movie a few weeks ago
    and it was inconclusive whether the rifle was smuggled in by the
    assasin or not.  I don't want to ruin the movie for those who might
    not have seen it, but the rifle was supplied by an inside agent
    who could have had other means of getting it into the convention
    hall.  Also don't be certain it was the presidential nominee who
    was shot!!!
    
    More to the point, every nation that I know of has a customs office
    to protect its people from various things entering and leaving the
    country.  These checks are designed to protect the country's people
    from those unscrupulous few that will risk a nations well being
    for their own profit.  This sounds quite similar to the policy adopted
    many companies, including Digital, to protect themselves and their
    employees.  These customs agents don't stop at searching knap sacks
    either if they have grounds for suspicion!  Custom-houses are not
    a recent phenominon.

    re: .last
    I had heard that Puerto Rico had been having major security breaches.
    
    Just a rumor, but it would explain the 100% searches.
    
    I personally wouldn't mind 100%, but it seems like such a waste
    of time.  One must consider if there is a problem that justifies
    it, and keep in mind that it would hurt morale.  Right now I consider
    the guards in my building fellow employees protecting the company,
    if I were to be searched daily I would probably feel them to be
    prison guards, no matter how logical the need for the searches may
    be.

    .53 refers to .51
    
    sorry i didn't note the exact number in my note, things get confusing
    when several people reply at the same time.

    Have been following this with interest - let me describe the security
    at a customer site I visited a couple of years ago:
    
    	No- calculators, digital watches, tape recorders, cameras -
    allowed on site.
    
    	Full search of briefcase and anything taken into site.
    
    	Full search of briefcase and anything taken out of site - including
    scan of ALL papers taken out of site - page by page.
    
    	Body scan by various 'sniffing' devices and metal detectors
    - both going in and coming out.

    	Escort at all times on site - including to bathroom.
    
    	Escort carried 'beeper box' with Sonalert to identify that an
    'unclean' person was in the area.
    
    	Sat in isolation area in cafeteria at lunch so as not to overhear
    any possible conversations.
    
    
    This was NOT one of the '3 letter agencies'!
    
    	-Barry-
    

    re: .55
    
    The only time I've seen security taken that seriously was at a military
    base.  Who is this customer?
        John Sauter

    
    	I'm not sure I understand the point of .49.  I hope that the
    	author is not espousing the removal of security features
    	such as metal detectors and other checks into secure areas.
    	I for one feel a little more secure personally when I pass
    	through a metal detector entering the airport for instance.
    
    	Yes, I do believe that we have rights and privacies, but when
    	allowing those rights for an individual jeopardizes the well-
    	being of others, those "rights" and the principles defending
    	them may not necessarily be the best for society or even for
    	that individual.
    
    	We live in an untrustworthy world.  A dangerous view perhaps,
    	but cautious (better safe than sorry) as opposed to what I
    	believe to be an often reckless libertarian view.  Random checks
    	and the potential of being searched keep the dishonest somewhat
    	in line.  Personally I think that it is too easy to "smuggle"
    	things into and out of most Digital facilities.  I think that
    	current DEC security is lax relative to other securities I 
    	have encountered in my career.
    
    	At the same time we have to assess the cost of stepped-up 
    	security in relation to the actual sensitivity and value of
    	material that passes through DEC facility doors.  I believe
    	(and trust) that DEC has done exactly that, and thus we have
    	our current level of security -- in most cases random checks.
    	I wouldn't let a check bother me unless I had something to hide.

    	Joe Oppelt

    re: .55
    
    Just guessing, but it would seem like some of these regulations
    apply mostly to visitors, while some might also apply to the
    regular employees (which ones are which?).
    
    Assuming that many, if not most, of the regulations apply to
    regular employees, then my initial reaction would be that anyone
    who chooses to work there has obviously decided to forfeit some
    of their constitutional rights in exchange for what we can only
    hope would be a substantially large weekly paycheck.
    
    Since no one is holding a gun to their head and making them
    work there (well, not yet anyway), I can only say "good luck"
    to them.  While there are obviously some people who are willing
    to do this, it would be a tragic mistake for other companies
    to conclude that *everyone* is willing to do surrender to such
    Orwellian nightmares, and implement such policies in place of
    existing ones.
    
    It boils down to this, guys.  A company's got something I want
    (money, interesting projects, stable productive working environment,
    etc.), and I've got something the company wants (knowledge, experience,
    talent, etc.).  It's a mutually beneficial relationship.  Upon
    interviewing at a company, if I decide that some of the negatives
    (such as security body frisking or whatever's to come) outweigh
    the positives, I'll choose another company.  If *all* of the
    companies are like this, I'll choose another line of work and
    take my talents elsewhere.  From what I've read in this conference
    and heard from others, lots of people see things this way.
    
    If you don't think that such a mass exodus of talent and experience
    from a given field of work can happen, just look at the teaching
    profession.  No flames please, but it's obvious that in the
    last 20 or so years, teachers learned that they could be happier
    doing other things.
    
    It *could* happen.  Let's not let it happen to Digital, okay?
    Let's consider the proposal of new regulations carefully before
    implementing them, both the pros and cons, and the perceived
    impact on everyone.  Let's think about whether it's really
    effective; do they *really* make things more secure, or are
    we just agreeing to mutually pretend?  For example, many if
    not most employees take a great deal of highly critical and
    sensitive proprietary information out the building every
    single night.  In their heads.  There's more "up there" than
    can be carried in a backpack, or a briefcase, for that matter.
    Do we really believe that searching the backpacks and briefcases
    keeps the corporate jewels in the building?
    
    Let's get real.  Either we employees are a trusted, integral
    part of this corporation (we ARE the corporation), or we're
    not.  Once that simple philosophical question is answered,
    the policy-makers and the policy-followers can make their
    decisions.

Barry probably shouldn't tell us, but the rest of us can speculate:

It could have been any one of

	1. Savannah River Plant (DuPont)
	2. Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Union Carbide)
	3. Navy Nuclear (Babcock & Wilcox)

or who knows what other sorts of places.

It most certainly wasn't General Electric's Nuclear Fuels division in
Wilmington -- they make fuel rods for commercial nuclear reactors and are
not dealing with levels of enrichment that require any sort of security.

/john

    
    Depending on the site, most government contractors will not allow
    calculators, and I can imagine digital watches (but I've never run
    into that).
    
    The concept is that a calculator can be used to store information,
    and indeed some watches can too.
    
    It should be pointed out that the rule is not normally that you
    can't bring them in, just that you can't take them out.
    
    							--- Neal
    

    G'day,
    
    We have come a long way since an engineer told me of one site where
    he was not allowed into the computer room until the card punch chad
    trays had been emptied. It was felt that the texture of each piece
    would indicate which card it had come from so all pieces from a
    card could be placed together, and hence the information punched
    on the card derived.
    
    Derek
    

    Your brain can store lots more information than a calculator
    or a digital watch, but fortunately they haven't come up with
    a way to make you check your brain at the desk when you leave.
    Well, not yet anyway.
    
    Maybe someone can invent a plug-in module containing the sum
    total of your work-related knowledge and experience, that you
    can plug into your head in the morning when you walk in the
    front door, and unplug and hand over on your way out, whereupon
    you'd instantly forget everything you'd ever done regarding
    work.
    
    This would be a miracle device for those of us who like to
    "leave it at the office".  Not to mention a great training
    tool to shorten that costly learning curve!  New job?  New
    responsibilities?  Promotion?  You'll be ready for anything
    fast with the special Speed-Learn modules!
    
    Chris

I once spent a couple of days visiting a "secure" site - accompanied at all
times, etc.  The really odd thing:  They searched your stuff on the way IN,
every day - but not on the way OUT.  You were not allowed to bring IN things
like magnetic tapes - but no one even bothered to ask when you took them
OUT.

You tell me....

(This site also wouldn't allow me to type on a keyboard connected a machine
connected to their secure systems - but they were willing to load a tape with
a couple of meg of software - brought in the first day when they forgot to
ask if I had any tapes with me, and missed it on the search! - onto the same
system and run it.

As the people there explain it, security people are like accountants.  Both
count "beans".  Accountants count "money" beans - as far as the accounting is
concerned, an item is fully described by its dollar value.  The security
people count "securons", arbitrary units set up by SOMEONE which fully describe
the security aspects of any action.)
							-- Jerry

    Re: .57 
    
    There can be no greater harm to the rights of the many than the
    arbitrary removal of a right from one.
    
    
    Re: .66
    
    I guess after almost 20 years, I won't be violating any employee
    agreements or anything so...
    
    In the late 60's, IBM had a nifty little room in a California lab
    which had an 1130 and a doorframe in it.  When you walked through
    the extra doorframe the computer told you (with its selectric) what
    your frame of mind was (i.e. "you are depressed", "you are happy",
    etc).  The technology wasn't all that hard - the door frame was
    a remote electro-encephalogram (sp?) device and thecomputer simplly
    compared your readings with about 40,000 others on file all with
    known factors.  The product had some technical glitches - no-one
    else could be in the room, which had to be shielded from the outside
    and shielded from the computer, and sometimes it took several trips
    through the door.  The goal was good - get the data required from
    people who's heads might be damaged and unable to be attached to
    in the conventional ways, and do automatic diagnosis.  The real
    death of the product came when it was decided that 'the world is
    not ready for it'.  ('It' being a machine which reads minds.)  Those
    of us who saw it wanted to use it for protecting machine rooms from
    hostile users.  Walk up to the /360 in anger and it hammers you
    on the toe or whatever.
    
     

    re: .68
    
    Hey, that is something else!
    
    Maybe the airports of the world are ready for a refined version
    of that, seeing as terrorists can use gasoline just as well as a
    bomb to destroy a cockpit and its occupants.
    
    Of course, you would have to turn the thing off if there were a
    Fantasay Role Playing Game conference in your city.....
    
    ***BEEPBEEPBEEP***YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT WANTON DESTRUCTION / PILLAGING
    / LUSTING FOR BLOOD***BEEPBEEPBEEP***
    "But officer, I can explain everything..."     ;^)
    
    jonathan

  > Of course, you would have to turn the thing off if there were a
  > Fantasay Role Playing Game conference in your city.....
    
  > ***BEEPBEEPBEEP***YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT WANTON DESTRUCTION / PILLAGING
  > / LUSTING FOR BLOOD***BEEPBEEPBEEP***
    
    It would also overload rather frequently, given the frame-of-mind of
    many people in airports, and something like:
    
    "DUE TO A COMPUTER FAILURE, ALL FLIGHTS INTO OR OUT OF CHICAGO HAVE
    BEEN CANCELLED.  PLEASE CONTACT A NEARBY TICKET AGENT FOR REBOOKING."
    
    would probably cause a melt-down in the poor thing's sensors.
                                                                         

    quite an interesting concept - sorry all could be done by when is
    all.

Subject: Digital on the Radio

    Boston radio station WBUR-FM has a new call-in program today 10 a.m. to
    noon, rebroadcast at 8 p.m., hosted by former public TV news anchor
    and quixotic mayoral candidate Christopher Lydon.  The topic for the
    first hour of today's program will be "Hard Times and Tough Choices at
    Digital Equipment Corporation."

WBUR-FM (Boston University Radio) is 90.9 on the FM Dial 

Rick

So, anyone got the program on-line?  A .wav file, perhaps?

 :-)

    Clearly we need a free program to distribute that kind of file.
    
    Gnu-Wave, perhaps?

    What does Internet Talk Radio use?
    
    --- Gavin

    Ho do i get a complete listing of notes files?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Paul

Please see the TURRIS::EASYNET_CONFERENCES conference, especially note 2.

Paul

    
    use this command to get the entire list of notes.:::
    
    copy anchor""::net$library:easynotes.lis
    
    it will ask where do you want to copy to just give your node::name
    
    

    Note that this will not give a complete list of notes files. It merely
    gives a list of those files which someone thought should be listed.
    There are many more notesfiles in existence - many (but not all) of
    which will have restricted access. The list is also sometimes
    inaccurate. Some notes files will have been moved or deleted without
    correcting easynotes.lis.
    
    Andrew

Re: .80

Your instructions aren't quite correct - don't give "your node::name", that
won't do what you think it does.  Paul's advice in .79 is, I think, a better
bet.

				Steve