Who Is Geobuster?

December 5, 2002

Has anyone else run across Geobuster? Here is a copy of an email he sent me relating to a new cache I placed last week in Yosemite...is this guy/gal a nutcase or what?

User geobuster has contacted you with the following message:

Your Ahwahnee Thanksgiving Bridge Cache has been removed! I am sick of people using public lands for their personal littering grounds and tearing up the environment for their own personal pleasure. Your cache would have become nothing but litter floating down the Merced. Shame on you.

To reply to this user, visit the web page below or use 'geobuster' for the username and email them through your "my cache page." (You'll need to be logged in)

http://www.geocaching.com/email/default.asp?U=geobuster

6.5k · December 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team Humby:
User geobuster has contacted you with the following message:

Your Ahwahnee Thanksgiving Bridge Cache has been removed! I am sick of people using public lands for their personal littering grounds and tearing up the environment for their own personal pleasure. Your cache would have become nothing but litter floating down the Merced. Shame on you.

Never meant this person, but A) they have an account and they dont like geocaches/ers

I have a question for you: Is this "Yosemite" a National Park? And You put a physical cache there?

[This message was edited by welch on December 05, 2002 at 02:42 PM.]

1.5k · December 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team Humby:
a new cache I placed last week in Yosemite...is this guy/gal a nutcase or what?

Sounds like a rude geo-creep.

In no way defending geobuster's actions, I do want to point out that your cache appears to have been located inside Yosemite National Park... which is, as all other national parks, off-limits to geocaching...

Sorry for your loss

6.4k · December 5, 2002

Well, I'm totally against what/how "geobuster" went around things, but looking at the cache it appears that it's located in the middle of a National Park. Shouldn't that be off-limits for a physical cache anyway? (I'm not arguing if caches SHOULD be allowed in NPs, just under the current rules here, they are forbidden)

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

December 5, 2002

If the cache was in Yosemite, then I believe it would need a permit. Assuming there wasn't a permit, I suppose it's fair game to assume it's gonna be removed.

But this "geobuster" by his/her very name seems like a self-righteous "hidden" cache-stalker, ya know? He/she mentions public land - as though any cache placed on public land is "up for grabs." Well, geobuster is in "my" state, and maybe one day I'll have the good fortune to run across him making a decision to "bust" one of my "properly" placed caches.

Ya know, it's not like we're littering, and I don't understand this "bad for the environment" kick. OOoohhh... Close off the hiking trails, get them horses outta here - park those mountain bikes.... and oh, yeah: Even though there's "structures" placed all over this planet, get rid of that non-biodegradable metal box which snaps up endangered species late at night when nobody's looking.

Grandmaster Cache

6.5k · December 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by GRANDMASTER CACHE:
If the cache was in Yosemite, then I believe it would need a permit. Assuming there wasn't a permit, I suppose it's fair game to assume it's gonna be removed.

Maybe im wrong, but aren't physicals banned on NPS land? Meaning they're not going to give you a permit, but WILL remove it!

1.5k · December 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by GRANDMASTER CACHE:
and I don't understand this "bad for the environment" kick.

A lot of damage has been done by cachers cutting across land off established trails, scramling up unstable surfaces, etc.

Understand it or not, it does happen. Its not the geocacher in an individual which causes it, its the disrespect and thoughtlessness.

1.1k · December 5, 2002

Looks like the rest of the group caught the part about the NP but then again, geobusters should have sent an e-mail ahead of time. Or, the could be like the group in the Walla Walla - Tri city area of Washington that just go out and steal caches. Bonehead's on either side of the coin. Now, did you contact them via e-mail about returning your cache container?

December 5, 2002

I've a question: Can a cache be placed in the Eldorado National Forest? There are some, albeit not in a designated, named park.

I'm also not sure on the "getting a permit," issue. I just thought I read that somewhere on the regulations page of this site.

As for the environmental destruction, I'd never go traipsing across a flower bed, but a hill of weeds in the vast mountain expanse? I don't make a dent. Besides, I usually take a trail made by another of God's fine creatures enjoying the environment (we can't all fly!) . It's easy to see that as the world of geocaching grows, environmental concerns will be made of it.

Grandmaster Cache

38.2k · December 5, 2002

I agree that if the cache was in Yosemite, it was illegal and should have been removed. I still can't stand these self-moral, busybodies. The person could have addressed the issue through this website.

What concerns me is that, first, he was concerned about the cache being on public land, period. There was no mention of him having a problem with it being on NPS lands (where its presence would have been taken care of by the appropriate authorities, or through this website).

BTW, how'd a cache in Yosemite get by the admins?

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

38.2k · December 5, 2002

quote:
A lot of damage has been done by cachers cutting across land off established trails

Granted, I don't have the experience you do, but I've only seen one cache out of those that I found, where I had a concern about the impact. Being a volunteer for a local environmental group, I'm pretty tuned into damage caused by human activities. In fact it's part of my job to look out for it. This being said, I've yet to see the supposed damage caused by geocaching. Maybe I just haven't found enough caches.

I'm not saying that there aren't any inappropriately placed caches, but it seems to me that the poorly placed caches are usually addressed. First by contacting the owner, and if that doesn't work, through this forum.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

1.5k · December 5, 2002

It must not have been an obvious national park designation, since the cache was approved by someone... unless the approvers just missed this one when it passed through.

(looking at cache page now)

Oh wait... the map clearly shows it as being smack dab in the middle of a giant area clearly marked "national park" - heheh kinda funny how a cache will not be approved due to the lack of a log book or something, yet a cache that is obviously in the middle of a national park gets right on through.

It'd suck to be an approver. They don't get much slack.

Click to view the ToeCam

December 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by GRANDMASTER CACHE:
I've a question: Can a cache be placed in the Eldorado National Forest? There are some, albeit not in a designated, named _park._

I'm also not sure on the "getting a permit," issue. I just thought I read that somewhere on the regulations page of this site.

Grandmaster Cache

The best way to find out if a cache can be placed in the eldorado National Forest is to call the Manager of the forest and ask him/her. If it is legal you can ask permission to hide a cache at the same time, since i'm sure you were going to ask permission first anyway.

ENJOY THE OUTDOORS

1.1k · December 5, 2002

Apparently the national park service has a Class B subnet, and this Geobuster character is sending messages and using the services of the web site from government computers.

We do have the capability of blocking the entire NPS from viewing our site, but we won't do so based on the unprofessionalism of one employee there.

The idea of the geocaching.com web site is to have a place that would remain an open channel between land managers and geocachers. Through discussions with officials at the NPS we've instituted some policies that have worked well in the past. Occasionally one cache does slip through the cracks, but we are making a concerted effort to keep geocaches off NPS lands.

Unfortunately there are pinheads on both sides of the coin, both geocachers and non-geocachers, so I thank everyone who does their best to put a good face on the sport. This Geobuster thinly hides behind a mask, and as a result belittles himself and his employer.

I have banned the Geobuster account. If I see any more unprofessionalism from this government official, however, I will report him to his superior.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.6k · December 5, 2002

It's kind of hard to side with a guy who claims that:

- GeoContainers are inherently trash. Caches may become trash after a while, but this is a new cache.

- Public lands can't be used for geocaching. Absolutely absurd.

- The cache in question would cause damage to the environment. He had to know how much of an idiot that statement was, it's under a foot bridge!

- As for his last statement, how would he know? He could have easily advised to put it in the supports of the bridge or upgraded the container to something sturdier and that can be secured.

He's a jerk. Pure and simple.

CR

December 5, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
"...Apparently the national park service has a Class B subnet, and this Geobuster character is sending messages and using the services of the web site from government computers..."

"...I have banned the Geobuster account. If I see any more unprofessionalism from this government official, however, I will report him to his superior..."

If I were this 'Geobuster' individual and had just read this, the sudden realization of my lack of anonymity would send a very cold chill down my spine. Every government agency has strict guidelines on the appropriate use of its computers and internet access (usually requiring employees with that kind of access to sign a formal acknowledgement of those guidelines and of the consequences of violations). Needless to say, regardless of the inappropriate nature of the cache, I think it safe to assume that the NPS wouldn't look too kindly upon one of their employees using the taxpayer's equipment (and paid time) in the fashion that 'Geobuster' has done.

December 5, 2002

Seeing as he didn't speak on behalf of the NPS, representing them, he shouldn't have too much to worry about. As far as using the computers "at work" to express a voice or participate in an internet forum, many employers have long since dropped the "you're in big trouble if you use the internet" threat and they just focus on inappropriate use which (as in IBM's policies, for example) is most commonly sexual/employment harassment or sites with explicit sexual content. Maybe the NPS is different, but I'm not so sure they'd go all gangbusters on an employee just for using the internet for something harmless (he didn't threaten anybody, or basically threaten to do anything illegal - in fact, I'm sure if anybody's on the "illegal" side of the coin, it would be the placer of the cache). I'm also willing to bet his "superior" would probably give him a wink and a nod, and tell him "good job!" After all, they don't like stuff like this especially in Yosemite. I don't know how many of you have been there recently, but they are tighter than my belt after a BBQ!

And "banning" them from viewing this website would do precious little to keep any of them from circumventing a simple IP protocol issue. Heck, Mindspring has dynamic IPs through a main router - you get different ones all the time.

We may be irritated by this self-righteous jerk who is pounding his chest like he's gonna "come after our caches," but there's precious little we can do but be irritated by him. It's not like you can get out of a traffic ticket just because the officer says he's gonna keep his eye out for you in the future. You break the law, you break the law - plain and simple. There are some really cool rangers out here, and then there are some really power-hungry little men and women who failed to make it in Police Academy.

I personally don't think we'd be taken seriously if we "reported" a ranger for basically doing his job. I mean, like it or not, a judge could hit the gavel for "littering." Especially in Yosemite.

He is a sneaky little chump, acting 20 feet tall, though. A real professional would have handled it in a much more open and mature fashion. If this guy really is an NPS employee, he is the type that make a person want to sprinkle dog food around the ranger quarters! BEAR!!!!

Grandmaster Cache

1.6k · December 6, 2002

quote:
A real professional would have handled it in a much more open and mature fashion.

Yes, and we've seen how a professional handles it. It's been talked about here recently.

Much prefer a ranger upfront about it, than some jerk hiding behind anonymity.

(Probably shouldn't equate this jerk to a Ranger as he's probably a busboy at the restaurant.)

CR

December 6, 2002

Never underestimate a supervisor's intolerance when his/her day is 'complicated' by having to deal with a formal complaint lodged by a member of the public ...especially when that complaint is the direct result of an employee's conduct while using departmental resources and/or time. Were 'Geobuster' to strike again in a similar fashion and a complaint made about this person's 'poor form' on the taxpayer's dime, I'd be very surprised if he/she didn't find themselves on the receiving end of a one-way 'keep this stuff out of the office' conversation with his/her boss.

1.1k · December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by GRANDMASTER CACHE:
Maybe the NPS is different, but I'm not so sure they'd go all gangbusters on an employee just for using the internet for something harmless...

IBM is one thing. Government agencies run under the public trust and use public funds. Government run agencies should have a higher standard. Do you want your taxpayer dollars paying someone at the NPS to hide behind a thin mask (his email was yahoo.com) surf the Internet and act like a moron?

As a former government employee and Air Force enlisted guy, it's drilled into your head that you represent your country. So don't give me that garbage. Any action deemed subversive will go back and bite an agency in the press, and any external communication from an employee can be considered a "government official."

quote:
I'm also willing to bet his "superior" would probably give him a wink and a nod, and tell him "good job!"

Isn't that the issue? In that case we have two NPS officials with short-term stupidity.

quote:
And "banning" them from viewing this website would do precious little to keep any of them from circumventing a simple IP protocol issue. Heck, Mindspring has dynamic IPs through a main router - you get different ones all the time.

Uh. Yeah. So every NPS ranger would have to get a mindspring account. Class B means that the entire NPS more or less uses the same IPs, so if they hide behind the next IP, yep, it's an NPS IP. Do your research.

Obviously you can't stop people completely from viewing caches but you can make it pretty difficult. And it's more the gesture than a complete shutdown.

quote:
There's precious little we can do but be irritated by him

How about we get fed up with the park rangers that wink at their employees who like to act like idiots online, and go underground? Let's make the game permission-based and hide the coordinates from the public. Let's not mark the caches at all so people don't know what they are and why they are there.

How about having open communication both ways, and punishing government employees who work against open communication. Aren't you missing the point?

quote:
I personally don't think we'd be taken seriously if we "reported" a ranger for basically doing his job. I mean, like it or not, a judge could hit the gavel for "littering." _Especially_ in Yosemite.

Fine. Hit the gavel, fine the geocacher and fire the employee. I'm not asking for a double standard here.

quote:
A real professional would have handled it in a much more open and mature fashion.

At least I can agree with you on this point.

quote:
If this guy really is an NPS employee, he is the type that make a person want to sprinkle dog food around the ranger quarters!

That's something that this Geobuster would say.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

December 6, 2002

...Jeremy!

1.5k · December 6, 2002

Fwiw, most people consider the term "buster" to mean "punk" "wuss" or "poser" or "lamer"

as in... "Man, get rid of that .22 and get yourself a REAL gun... I mean, what are you, some kinda busta?" or something

Toe talks street, y0. WeRd.

Click to view the ToeCam

1.5k · December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
It's kind of hard to side with a guy who claims that:

- GeoContainers are inherently trash. Caches may _become_ trash after a while, but this is a new cache.

I kinda worry about caches that get abandoned being left out in their hiding spot, becoming trash... but the more I think about it, the more I realize there are geocachers who care enough about this sort of thing and they'll scoop up any deceased caches and have them archived if they've turn to crap. I mean, I'm not really that much of a do-gooder, but I drove my butt all the way down to SE Ohio on a pretty cold day - just to gather up some geoslop that had been destroyed by the elements, just because I didn't want it sitting there waiting to become an eyesore.

I figure if I was willing to do that, there's probably always going to be someone willing to go out and scoop up dead caches if they need scooping.

The only concern I have with that, now, is hoping that trashy caches are allowed to remain listed on the site long enough for someone to find it and reclaim the remains. I've seen a few instances where caches have been reported as being in horrible condition, along with a log indicator of "this cache should be archived"

Hope it doesn't get archived from the site before it is actually removed from the location.

Argh - I should have started a new topic for this one, eh? heh

Click to view the ToeCam

December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:
"...Toe talks street, y0. WeRd..."

...I should have brought you along as an interpreter when I went to see '8 Mile'.

1.5k · December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:
Fwiw, most people consider the term "buster" to mean "punk" "wuss" or "poser" or "lamer"

I got in trouble pretty good for calling a kid 'buster brown' in gradeschool. Apparently nobody had heard of those shoes.

Ahh, my trolling was ahead of its time.

9.4k · December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:
Hope it doesn't get archived from the site before it is actually removed from the location.

Argh - I should have started a new topic for this one, eh? heh

Yeah. It's off-topic, but when I see a cache that is reported "needs to be archived" I send a message to the person that posted the message and ask them to retrieve the contents. If I don't get a response (or the response is negative) I add a red note at the top for someone to recover the cache, then email me so I know it can be archived.

In many cases the geocacher retrieves the contents and trashes them anyway if there is nothing of value left.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

5.9k · December 6, 2002

A cache with nothing of value? How could that be?

1.6k · December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:
when I see a cache that is reported "needs to be archived" I send a message to the person that posted the message and ask them to retrieve the contents.

Yeah, I did that. I'm recycling the remaining contents into other caches.

Works out pretty good.

CR

1.5k · December 6, 2002

Ahh good. I was hoping that that was the way that damaged caches were handled when they were getting "this cache needs to be archived" logs... I mean, I assumed that steps would be taken so that cache corpses weren't being left out in the wild, but it is good to hear from J & TPTB on the issue.

Click to view the ToeCam

1.7k · December 6, 2002

I have a question for Jeremy-----

All rhetoric and agruments aside, is their going to be an attempt to notify the NPS that one of their employees is sending out these types of messages???

Yes they were doing their job by removing the cache, but the e-mail could have been a bit more professional. Or at least made an attempt to contact the owner and notify then that they need to remove their cache.

1.5k · December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by magellan315:
I have a question for Jeremy-----

All rhetoric and agruments aside, is their going to be an attempt to notify the NPS that one of their employees is sending out these types of messages???

I'll toss in my two cents and say "let sleeping dogs lie" when it comes to this situation. There will be the ocassional "flea" that jumps off the dog and arrives here to annoy us - but in general, I tend to not stir up a situation when it isn't really necessary.

Contacting the people above that flea's head would just make J&TPTB look like whiners, since J has already said he can (and did) just delete that account. If the same person insists on doing that sort of thing over and over, constantly creating new accounts when J deletes them - then I would think going to the appropriate supervisor might be a good option.

*shrug* but what do I know.

The Toe Pages

5.9k · December 6, 2002

I have to agree w/RT on this. The cache was improperly placed; removal was inevitable. Just because the remover was a jerk about it shouldn't change our way of dealing with the situation. The cache is gone; we won’t have any further dealings with him unless someone tries to put another in the same place. Unless he starts removing caches outside his AOR, let it drop. We’re done - he’s done. Learn and move on.

December 6, 2002

what did the guy do? Use a "taxpayer funded computer" for a personal email that was neither personally threatening, nor sexually harassing? Please, everybody line up to buy my bridge if you think "government employees" don't do personal emails on your dime.

Like it or not (and obviously you don't) it's a fact of life. I'd be a hypocrite to say I've never "broken a rule," which is why I suppose I'm not all that bothered by this. Trust me, if I want to focus on "taxpayer waste," I'm not going to start by spanking naughty government workers for using email. Fact is, Jeremy, if you really wanted to be "law-obedient" you'd realize that pretty much every cache IS littering... Don't you think you're being a bit double standard? I mean, eco-freaks everywhere could say YOU are advocating tremendous environmental damage by littering, and searching for litter, on "taxpayer funded spaces." For that matter, every cache not placed on someone's own private property, or with their consent, is littering. My taxpayer dollars are wasted paying for government employees to pick up litter...

So, if you want to talk legality, and "law-breaking", Jeremy, you would have to your participation in this sport go "underground" and be a geo-criminal. Does any of us want that? Do you really want that? The sport would SO die off (at least, for those people who are so observant of "laws" and never break them). To "push" the issue, Jeremy, by having the audacity to "complain" to this guy's superior because he is threatening to spoil a group of litterers (his offense? reportedly using a "taxpayers computer to do so) is only damaging to us as geocachers, in the long run. That's all I'm saying, and I understand you'd like to have this guy called on the carpet for "using a taxpayer computer," but what's the fine for littering? That's a heck of a lot worse than having your boss say, "Cool it with the emails to these people."

I also have the credentials of being in the "military," and specifically I was in the legal department... The JAG. Travis AFB, 349MAW SAC - Legal Services Specialist. Not only do military personal use "taxpayer funded computers" to write emails, but they do it on "your" time. What, you really think people work their whole 10 hour shift? Is the NPS really more "controlled" than the Air Force?

I'm not fighting YOU, Jeremy, or your dislike that this guy is a party-pooper. But trust me... If you or anybody here were to push the issue, and you ticked off the right people, they could go right to this site and find a bunch of people "guilty of breaking the law" by not only littering, but advertising it. Then you would have to have a private club, because you'd be breaking the law, and you'd have to hide. I'm just saying we're being awfully double-standard if we yack about who's "breaking the law."

This is such a cool sport, Jeremy. Individuals, grownups, kids and families alike all enjoy it. Wouldn't it be a shame to let one little twit cause such a panty-bunch that we endanger the sport so it does have to be "secret?" We're not being bothered much, right now. We will occasionally tick people off. We'll get nasty emails when they find this site. Man, there's a whole sect of eco-freaks up here that would love to have another "cause." Seriously... be honest. How many caches are "off trail" when signs clearly state "Stay On Trail?" We ourselves don't observe the "law" to the letter, Jeremy. What, are we gonna call the kettle black? )

The rangers here, Jeremy, seem to have the opinion that caches placed "in" county parks are totally "illegal." Are WE littering on "taxpayer funded open spaces?" I almost feel like you are expressing your frustration on me personally, and I'm just taking a logical approach to this whole thing. Unless you're squeaky clean yourself, you still have three fingers pointing back at you even as you point yours at the NPS twit who's email ticked ya off so much. Sit back, Jeremy, and just think the whole thing over. I certainly don't want this sport to go "underground" and I don't think most people do. So why would we push an issue especially against a government agency????

Anyway, I would get totally ticked if some twit were out "removing" my caches - especially the one we have ready with nice pins/plaques/patches from all over Europe. (Around the World) But rather than be obnoxious in return to obnoxiousness, why not catch the bees with butter? Trust us, these guys can cause us more grief than we could ever hope to cause them. One broke "policy" (allegedly). We break the LAW (admittedly). I understand the frustration, Jeremy. Let's keep it external and not internal. I'm not the enemy, pal... I'd just like to see this "illegal" sport continue with it's current venue, and we won't achieve that by complaining about a kick in the shins every now and then. We're not doing anything wrong, and most all of us are real conscious about the environment. It's one of those deals where "legally" we're in the wrong, but "logically" we're not bothering anybody - and so hopefully the "law" will not bother us.

quote:
If I see any more unprofessionalism from this government official, however, I will report him to his superior.

I hope nobody "reports" me when I place (litter) my next cache.

My vote is to just forget about this twit, even if he logs in from his home IP. It's not worth the fight, and who's gonna cause who more grief? Really. I'll bet if someone explained the game to him, and stroked his little butt-feathers, he might actually back off from his "my public land" kick. Maybe not. But I'd rather not challenge someone like him even while my $$ cache might be the next he bags and dumps just cause someone here ticked him off. Stealth, Jeremy... Stealth.

Grandmaster Cache

December 6, 2002

I was going to say something here.... But its not my place. Ill let UMC or the Toe do it.

December 6, 2002

Please understand I'm not this guy's "advocate" or anything... So don't attack "me." I can handle ribbing, but I don't want to "defend" this shmuck. I just don't want to see people like him take on an agenda against US.

Grandmaster Cache

3k · December 6, 2002

I'm sure I would Centaur but I can't stay focused long enough to get through all of the text in this thread.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Not so sure, Somewhat new Owner Of a Garmin GPS V Received on 10-03-02

1.1k · December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by GRANDMASTER CACHE:

[... awful lot of text.]

Can you summarize?

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

December 6, 2002

Egads, therein lies my problem... I talk too much!!

In short summary: (I'll try my best) I don't want this jerk to start pulling up our caches in spite, and I think if we "reported" him, he'd get little more than a "don't email this group - they've complained." And then he might go on a mission to REALLY swipe caches... or to "spread the word" that we are an unruly bunch of "lawbreakers who litter." WE know our caches aren't trash, and WE back crap out from the trails, but I'd rather people here about the sport from OUR angle - not HIS.

I don't know if that summary entails everything, but hopefully the jist of it. I know I can ramble!!!

Grandmaster Cache

3k · December 6, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by GRANDMASTER CACHE:
an unruly bunch of "lawbreakers who litter."

Grandmaster Cache

What did you call me?!?!

j/k

Originally posted by J:

Originally posted by GRANDMASTER CACHE:

[... awful lot of text.]

Oh so true, thats why I usually stay out of thread like this and search for those with short meaningless posts.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Not so sure, Somewhat new Owner Of a Garmin GPS V Received on 10-03-02

1.7k · December 6, 2002

Now that Grandmaster has summarized his last statement, it makes more sense and I agree with him. For the moment we should let sleeping dogs lie and hope that Jeremy starts a file for this incident. If it happens again he will have more leverage. It won't be an islotaed incident and Jeremy has made great efforts to work with the NPS.

I agree with Grandmaster, Geobuster may be some low level flunky, but if his management slaps his wrists and puts a note in his file. We run the risk of getting bad mouthed for the wormg reasons.

In Florida we reached an agreement with a land management district that has allowed us to place caches on 500,000 acres of land. Despite some misinformation from another government agncy that we buried all caches. Think what could happen if Geobuster started some sort of internal campaign

December 6, 2002

this is a similar issue a dealt with in this thread(oh wow, my first markwell), the difference lies in the way the individual in question dealt with the situation. while i strongly disagree with the comment that the employee involved would get a wink and a 'dont do that no more' i think complaining at this time is being pi$$y. i like what jeremy has done thus far, and trust that he will monitor, and act accordingly to, the greater situation from now on, that is: we've had two recent incidents where people may have used the information from this site in a manner for which it was not intended, as described in the disclaimer, and therefore broke the law in doing so. in addition to this i think the cache approvers should buckle down and ensure that caches that appear to be of 'questionable status' are infact 'kosher' and this sort of situation doesn't happen again.

i certainly don't intend to alienate anyone but if this sort of situation can happen twice within a couple of weeks a greater problem needs to be addressed. is it time for that a careful, indepth examination of the guidelines applied here is undertaken?

December 11, 2002

quote:
what did the guy do? Use a "taxpayer funded computer" for a personal email that was neither personally threatening, nor sexually harassing? Please, everybody line up to buy my bridge if you think "government employees" don't do personal emails on your dime.

I work as an IT consultant. Almost all of our clients are very strict about inappropriate use of company resources. Some of my clients simply observe all traffic and emails coming from the users. If someone is doing something beside the occasion "hi honey, I'll be home at 6" type of email or MAYBE checking the hockey scores on their lunch, then the person is reprimanded.

On the other end of the scale there are a couple of my clients who only allow access to the internet for specific individuals. If a user thinks they need internet access for their job then they have to go to their manager. In most cases it means paperwork and approval which results in them gaining access to THE ONE site they need and nothing more.

My opinion is simple. When you show up at my office to work for me and I'm paying you I expect you to WORK. If I ran a company I'd be VERY strict about this. Internet usage is becomeing the number one productivity KILLER in North America. Email is almost as much of a time waster as it is a time saver these days and surfing up your holiday plans is just not acceptable. If I ran a company I'd have a computer with unlimited (but monitered) internet access in the the employee lunch room. Only specific work related websites, if any, would be accessible from the users desk.

As for your NPS guys/girl. I want you to look at your pay stub the next time you get paid. I want you to look at the amount of money that has been taken off for tax. I want you to stare at it and imagine that someone just handed that money to you as cash right now. What would you do with it? Would you buy a new TV? Would you drive a better car?

Each and everyone of us is being ROBBED by Government waste! It's as if they were taking that money out of your pocket and burning it in front of you every Friday!!! Don't defend the guy. Wrong is Wrong when it comes to wasting YOUR money out of YOUR pocket that you could have used to purchase a new GPS.

Sure, we all need to put in our fair share but when Governments WASTE BILLIONS of dollars every year, is that fair to you and me?

I say that if this Geobuster has the time to surf around looking for Geocaches at work then he isn't busy enough. If he isn't busy enough then he is a waste of YOUR money out of YOUR pocket!!!!

Am I the only one who gets mad when the government wastes the money that they (some say illegally) take out of my hands and away from my family?!?!?!?!

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

3k · December 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mrcpu:

I work as an IT consultant. Almost all of our clients are very strict about inappropriate use of company resources.

yada yada yada

Am I the only one who gets mad when the government wastes the money that they (some say illegally) take out of my hands and away from my family?!?!?!?!

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

No you are not the only one!

Cache you later,

Planet

Afraid of heights? Not me, I'm afraid of widths!

December 11, 2002

Checking something out... current time is 9:53

Your not first...But you could be next.

December 11, 2002

Hey Mr. CPU, what are you doing posting to the geocaching web site when it’s past 9 AM EST on a working day? Are you stealing time from your current employer who is paying you consultation fees? Or are you robbing time from your family by surfing on the net instead of looking for more work?

Want to know what’s a waste? Employers searching all email and net activity instead of channeling all that energy into generating new business. Yea, I surf, But I also get the job done -- a lot of jobs, as long as that is the case, get off my back. Employers who limit access are just hurting themselves. I want to see someone get canned for going to CNN or Canoe…

If I ran a company, I’d run it simple also, I want you to PRODUCE! I will give you all the tools necessary to make sure you succeed. Those who can produce in a short amount of time stay, those who work long hours and don’t produce get shown the door. That simple, and the net is a tool to help you. And yes that included goofing off on it, sometimes just need to blow off some steam.

As for Geobuster, he has a mandate and interpreted it to include geocache busting. And to do his job effectively he used <<*GASP*>> the internet! The Fool! Why didn’t he just go out a rent a dozen helicopters with IR cameras to search all of Yosemite everyday? He would have been busy, let me tell you, but he would not accomplish much.

Just remember, hold the reigns too tight, the horse will buck.

DirtRunner.

P.S. I am sure you have a good excuse…

Your not first...But you could be next.

[This message was edited by DirtRunner on December 11, 2002 at 08:15 AM.]

December 11, 2002

to me the issue isnt whether he used the 'net, or his employers facilities to 'find' the cache but rather how he found out about the cache. this is similar in theory to most government vehiciles in canada which normally dont carry insurance, these vehiciles are covered by personal bond upto the minimum limits as prescribed by law for liability, as a result when driving government vehciles in canada employees are strictly forbidden to carry passengers of any sort. the similarity in both cases is that the employers property was used in a manner for which it was not intended and therefore the employee broke the law in doing so.

ps

i wonder if the employee got hurt while finding the cache would the employer be obligated to compensate the injured employee when the employee acted illegally in acquiring knowledge about the cache?

December 11, 2002

A happy employee is a productive employee. I couldn't care less what my employees were doing "in their cubicle" as long as their reports were finalized and in my box when needed. How hard is that concept? I don't care if they're smoking, playing solitaire, gossiping - or what, as long as they get the job done. Heck, some people spend more time daydreaming than others do surfing the web. What, I should hire "thought police" to squeeze out the inevitable?

Some places may need babysitters, but these are not usually companies in which employees do have a computer with access to the internet. But I'm not hiring anybody to sit in front of the computer and be productive that can't actually do so. If I've done my job hiring the right person for the job, I don't need to pay someone to constantly remind me "I hired the right person, and they don't goof off." A wasteful employee makes their presence known loud and clear without the need to hire Columbo to stalk them as they progress throughout their work day.

Grandmaster Cache

December 12, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:
Hey Mr. CPU, what are you doing posting to the geocaching web site when it’s past 9 AM EST on a working day? Are you stealing time from your current employer who is paying you consultation fees? Or are you robbing time from your family by surfing on the net instead of looking for more work?

It's called "Having the morning off because you've worked 30 hours in the last 3 days!". As for the family, the 10 year old is at school and everyone else is asleep! Besides, I'm on flex hours most of the time anyways. For example it is 8:00am and I'm just doing some quick emails before I head out the door

quote:
Want to know what’s a waste? Employers searching all email and net activity instead of channeling all that energy into generating new business. Yea, I surf, But I also get the job done -- a lot of jobs, as long as that is the case, get off my back. Employers who limit access are just hurting themselves. I want to see someone get canned for going to CNN or Canoe…

For most employees, Web access is NOT required for their jobs. In additon there are liability issues for employers if employees surf to naughty places. Email IS the property of your employer. Email needs to be backed up daily. These backup tapes cost money, the servers hard drives are way more expensive then home pc hard drives. The bandwidth to the internet costs money and YOU the employee costs money when you're sitting around NOT working. 10 minutes of personal email every day (not on your lunch or break I mean) amounts to ONE FULL WEEK per year. What do you make a week? If your an average office worker then you've wasted $770+ of your employers money. Now there happen to be 1000 people in your company who all do the same thing, $770,000.. round UP because lots of people do more then 10 minutes... $1 million AND I haven't included the physical costs of providing you with that wasted internet access.

Now consider that the 1000 person unit is a government department and voila! A local school doesn't get the books they need because some "George Bush" doesn't see a problem with surfing when he should be working.

quote:
is a tool to help you. And yes that included goofing off on it, sometimes just need to blow off some steam.

Sure. But the stats seem to show that it is more of a huge, mind numbing waste of time then anything else!

quote:
geocache busting. And to do his job effectively he used <<*GASP*>> the internet! The Fool! Why didn’t he just go out a rent a dozen

Actually, it doesn't sound like he had any sort of mandate to patrol the woods. He's probably a deskjocky who's bored. IF he really had a mandate he would have notified the cache owner that the cache was placed improperly and needed to be removed. This seems to be the trend amongst legitimate authorities, not a cowboy like GB.

Just remember, hold the reigns too tight, the horse will buck.

DirtRunner.

quote:
[This message was edited by DirtRunner on December 11, 2002 at 08:15 AM.]

And your not working because....?!?!? :-)

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

December 12, 2002

quoted from mrcpu:

quote:
For most employees... ... internet access.

expenses you didnt mention:

1)costs associated with virus erradication and infection

2)extra wear and tear on company equipment

3)additional internet surfing time and phnoe charges if employee has to dial in

4)additional empoyee and contractor costs to correct the problems caused by 'private' surfing

chri$t, i think we can solve the national debt problem by eliminating non-productive employee waste...

to me this issue is clear cut: the employee stole internet time, he may as well have lifted $20 from the petty cash and not invoiced it.

i like the fact that you mentioned the liability issue, i still wonder what would have happened if GeoBuster had gotten hurt, would his union have defended him in a potential grievance situation if his employer refused sick leave?

December 12, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mrcpu:
And your not working because....?!?!? :-)

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

Maybe I’m wasting my employer’s money and making him go bankrupt one post at a time. Maybe I’m relaxing after one of my all too common 62 hour 5 day runs last week. Maybe my employer sees the need to humor me since I’m one of the top geeks in Ontario. Maybe I’m waiting for a Vendor’s tech support to get back to me and I’m dead in the water until their level 3’s figure out exactly how I know so much about their product. It is to wonder…

Until we know Geobuster’s full story, we cannot make judgments about how he waste’s the taxpayer’s money.

DirtRunner.

Your not first...But you could be next.

Who Is Geobuster?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment