![](https://csdnimg.cn/release/download_crawler_static/6803223/bg13.jpg)
9
It is impossible for a book like this to provide a definitive answer to the questions such considerations
raise. I can, however, offer four pieces of advice:
•
First, if the information you are collecting can be tied to the activities of an individual, you
should consider the information highly confidential and should collect only the information
that you really need. Be aware that even seemingly innocent information may be sensitive in
some contexts. For example, source/destination address pairs may reveal communications
between individuals that they would prefer not be made public.
•
Second, place your users on notice. Let them know that you collect such information, why it
is necessary, and how you use the information. Remember, however, if you give your users
assurances as to how the information is used, you are then constrained by those assurances. If
your management policies permit, make their prior acceptance of these policies a requirement
for using the system.
•
Third, you must realize that with monitoring comes obligations. In many instances, your legal
culpability may be less if you don't monitor.
•
Finally, don't rely on this book or what your colleagues say. Get legal advice from a lawyer
who specializes in this area. Beware: many lawyers will not like to admit that they don't know
everything about the law, but many aren't current with the new laws relating to technology.
Also, keep in mind that even if what you are doing is strictly legal and you have appropriate
authority, your actions may still not be ethical.
The Peter Principle Revisited
In 1969, Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull published the satirical book, The Peter
Principle. The premise of the book was that people rise to their level of incompetence. For
example, a talented high school teacher might be promoted to principal, a job requiring a
quite different set of skills. Even if ill suited for the job, once she has this job, she will
probably remain with it. She just won't earn any new promotions. However, if she is adept
at the job, she may be promoted to district superintendent, a job requiring yet another set of
skills. The process of promotions will continue until she reaches her level of incompetence.
At that point, she will spend the remainder of her career at that level.
While hardly a rigorous sociological principle, the book was well received because it
contained a strong element of truth. In my humble opinion, the Peter Principle usually fails
miserably when applied to technical areas such as networking and telecommunications. The
problem is the difficulty in recognizing incompetence. If incompetence is not recognized,
then an individual may rise well beyond his level of incompetence. This often happens in
technical areas because there is no one in management who can judge an individual's
technical competence.
Arguably, unrecognized incompetence is usually overengineering. Networking, a field of
engineering, is always concerned with trade-offs between costs and benefits. An
underengineered network that fails will not go unnoticed. But an overengineered network
will rarely be recognizable as such. Such networks may cost many times what they should,
drawing resources from other needs. But to the uninitiated, it appears as a normal,
functioning network.
If a network engineer really wants the latest in new equipment when it isn't needed, who,
outside of the technical personnel, will know? If this is a one-person department, or if all the
members of the de
artment can a
ree on what the
want
no one else ma
ever know. It is