What’s on Your Computer: Materiality and Fair Use of Employer Owned PC’s In 2002

Question

What’s on Your Computer: Materiality and Fair Use of Employer Owned PC’s

In 2002, a New York University Law School professor was arrested for possession of child pornography on his work-issued computer. Computer technicians who were employed as subcontractors to a firm in a contract for computer repair by the University inadvertently found child pornography on Professor Edward Samuels personal computer while working on the machine. Later investigations found cruel images of abuse and rape of children at the Professor’s home. The professor’s child pornography collection of photographs exceeded 100,000 images, considered to be a significantly large amount by all accounts. The contract workers who reported the findings to their firm, the subcontractor firm called Collegis, were fired by their employers, who seemed to have had an “at will” employment arrangement with the technicians. The two employees subsequently filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against their firm. After the two employees were fired, Collegis (now SunGard) signed a significant reengagement of services contract with NYU. The Professor resigned from New York University and was sentenced to six months in jail and ten years of probation, and his once well regarded career was in tatters.

Despite excellent employment records, the two technicians who found the files lost their appeal to have their jobs reinstated and also lost their whistleblower case against the subcontractor. Was it right that the subcontractor fired the employees? Why do you think that the subcontractor fired their employees? Was this legal when the employees were “at will” subcontractors?

What kind of security policy would you recommend be included in an organization’s policies about personal use of organizationally-issued personal computers? Do your organization’s policies address the issue of how supervision should proceed when confronted with such a situation?

Think about these questions, and respond to the class dialog based on the situation. Does your firm have an obligation to prevent employees from accidentally viewing cyberporn? Does your firm have a legal requirement to prevent employees from accidentally viewing cyberporn? Does your firm have a policy on cyberporn in the workplace that you are aware of, either explicit or vaguely worded?

Explanation / Answer

This is an example of disciplinary action taken against the misuse of Internet. Personal use of the official computers is not a crime but crossing the limits is. This kind of misconduct effects both the employees and the employers.

Yes it is, the unethical users should realize the revelation. He should be set as an example on warning the environment before more damage could be done. As mentioned in the case, this might lead to legal complication on the company as well

When any individual or a group in the organization is trying to/had stepped over the legal and ethical lines the negative ripple will flow around and across the organization. It has to be kept to a stop.

The following are the points that company needs to be explored in the security policies:

Warning sign of the computer maltreatment are to be implemented in any company:

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.