`Plea for Privacy' Misguided

To the editors:

I feel I must respond to Simon J. DeDeo's "plea for privacy" (Opinion, Jan. 11). He feels that certain UNIX commands on the Harvard system can be used for stalking and therefore should be removed.

I disagree that these commands should be removed. By disabling commands, one reduces the ability of the network to function as intended. In addition, one can introduce a security hole in the system. For example, a hacker figures out my password and logs in to my account to run amok in the network. I use the "last" command to see when I last logged in, and I notice a location or time that I know I did not login. (One caveat--"last" only works on the current machine, for example, login4, so to be thorough, one must log in to all 10 of the general login machines and all 33 of the workstations.) I immediately change my password and notify Harvard security of the intrusion. Without the "last" command, this breach could carry on for much longer.

I won't even get into a discussion about the legitimate uses of various commands, including "finger." It is sufficient to say that once HASCS begins haphazardly removing commands from the system, users, generally the more advanced ones, will suffer. More commands could be next. Where would it stop?

There is a simple way to get around being stalked, if you feel that is indeed a problem. Use a POP client such as Eudora Pro or Outlook that collects your e-mail and brings it directly to your machine. That way, you can still read your e-mail without logging in and giving fuel to stalkers. But please don't set a precedent of disabling useful commands systemwide and placing undue burden on legitimate users. DEBORAH J. ABEL '00 Jan. 11, 1999