It simply amazes me when I hear something like this.  I guess acceptable 
use policies, blocking policy and copyright violators, IDS/IPS and so on 
are also privacy intrusions.  Oh, and of course the fact that each and 
every resident doesn't have at least 6 Mbps dedicated to themselves is a 
direct infraction on their constitutional rights to unlimited bandwidth.

Most residents recognize CCA for what it is; a method to keep their 
network connection up and flowing as best as possible given the 
available resources.  Those resources are not the same as a commercial 
ISP.  Some do complain but they are the minority, and for the most part 
once it is explained the reason for CCA is to *help* them they too 
understand. 

Greg

Hague, Jeff wrote:
> "Privacy intrusions like the ones with the CCA client agent."?????
> Please, just stop.
> Can someone blackball his e-mail address please?
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cisco Clean Access Users and Administrators
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe Feise
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 4:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CLEANACCESS] Possible Agent bypass...
>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:38:43 -0400, Cal Frye <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>   
>> Joe Feise ventured to comment, at 10/19/06 1:58 PM:
>>     
>>>> I'm charged with implementation, not policy.
>>>>         
>>> Well, your users only see you, not the policy makers. So they vent at
>>>       
> you.
>   
>>> And an implementation issue actually is that the CCA client agent
>>> installation can result in other programs not working.
>>> For a graduate student who needs that now non-working program for his
>>> research, with deadlines, etc., that's a bad thing. I have seen this.
>>>       
> The
>   
>>> person turned to me, not to Resnet personnel (Resnet personnel was
>>>       
> not
>   
>>> available due to it being a weekend, anyway.)
>>>
>>>       
>> You haven't spoken with /my/ users, you've no experience with /our/
>>     
> resnet
>   
>> personnel, please stop being insulting.
>>     
>
> >From the context, it should have been pretty clear that I referred to
> the
> Resnet personnel *I* had contact with. I did in no way refer to you or
> your
> resnet personnel.
> If your users don't vent at you or your helpdesk, good for you. Here in
> California some people, including students, actually care about privacy
> intrusions like the ones with the CCA client agent.
>
>
>