On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Crumrine, Gary L wrote:
[Apologies to non-US readers, this is topical to firewalls, but not
globally applicible]
> There are also legal issues, for example, a company can be held liable if an
> employee uses his company computer to pass pornography, or sexually harasses
> another employee via email. It doesn't matter if that employee was
> following the "Rules" or claims to have not received proper training etc.
Every case I've seen to date has successfully employed the "bad apple"
defense, could you please cite some examples of this? References to
case law would make a lot of my arguments much easier. Also, I'm
tangentally familiar with a case or two of this nature, and in neither
case was the company implicated in the individual's illegal behaviour.
This is especially true of criminal cases.
> Recent court cases have shown the only way to demonstrate due diligence, is
> to employ some type of formal review process in place. Not a once in a
It would seem to me that this is central to a "bad apple" defense, but
I'm not sure I've seen any requirements for strict formal documentation,
once again, citations would be welcome. I've always been told that a
policy and enforcement of that policy is sufficient.
I recall a landmark "hostile work environment" case involving nude calendars
and a shipyard where repeated exposure to offensive material had the company
found liable, but there were similar cases where other companies won
against similar suits by having a policy in place. (the citation is on
my Palm Pilot, and it's not handy right now, I'll try to dig for it)
I have been told that the Trade Secrets Act allows the immediate siezure
of all computing equipment (including routers) used to transfer the
ill-gotten trade secrets. I've also been told that a single policy
statement will uphold the "bad apple" defense for the company's
protection and that every case tried under it has to be personally
approved by the AG. This is conference-fodder, so I don't have any citations
or references. Our lawgeeks claimed that our ethics policy met the standard
even though it didn't specificly mention trade secrets.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
