I seldom comment on this list, but this is something I know a little about. We have published security software since 1990 and our most popular product, CYBERsitter, since 1996. With over 2.5m users, we have seen it all. Because it records all browsing activity, there are many cases where we have been called upon to interpret the activity.
I personally know of several dozen cases where divorces were contemplated, employee terminations took place, even people who were sent back to prison for parole violations due directly to our software. Of course that isn't even the tip of the iceberg compared to all the kids who have been grounded for doing nasty things they shouldn't ;) We have had more than our share of controversy. Our policy regarding our responsibility has remained the same throughout and has proven to be the appropriate one I believe. Our software is a tool. The user purchases this tool to perform a specific function. We try to provide as much information as we can about how to use the tool. Once the user installs our software, what they do with the data is up to them. All we can do is to provide the tool by which to gather the data, and to present it in a readable, factual way. It has been my experience, that when a drastic measure is contemplated, a wife divorcing her husband for a porn problem, an employer terminating an employee, or whatever, the software is generally used to confirm and/or validate something they already know. Our policy is to make ourselves available to help people analyze the data we provide, and to give them an honest interpretation of what we feel is taking place. I have personally confirmed peoples suspicions, and also was able to explain suspected activity as accidental or unsolicited. I was contacted one time by a district attorney from Pittsburg. An employee of a company was arrested and in jail for uploading a propriatory customer database to some other location. They faxed me 20 pages of logs, and after analyzing them I discovered that the logs had been altered. It turned out the employer had insured his data for $400,000 and had set the employee up. The employee was released later that day and the employer (our customer) was arrested. Personally, I feel that the ethics question here is whose ethics will we use. Just the fact that this question is being discussed here is proof positive to me that we as a group do care about how the data we provide our users is used. The best we can do is to make it as accurate as possible, and be available to help those who need a professional opinion. Contrast this to companies that provide no rationale whatsoever for their judgements like some RBL providers, or companies that provide spam/porn protection but aren't there to spend the time with you when you have a question. To many companies ethics is spelled ethic$. Hopefully we as a group are not among them. I am willing to bet that the employee in question was not fired solely based on information provided by an anti-spam program. They employer probably had complaints, suspicions, or other reasons that were taken in to account. It is quite possible he just needed the evidence. On 02/26/03 10:14pm you wrote... >> I'd say if they fired him for just receiving porn then they better >> be prepared for a lawsuit. > >> If I had something to do with getting rid of some sorry so and so >> that was doing stuff like that to his employer I'd feel pretty good >> about it. > >My thoughts are completely in line with Terry's. > >There is no question of your complicity in the gentleman's firing if >you are comfortable that the employer *knew* the offending messages to >*not* be spam, and thus out of your purvue completely. If, however, >you feel that, acting as a spam expert, you did not adequately >represent the extremely high likelihood that pornographic e-mail is >unsolicited, or, even worse, gave the reverse impression (i.e., that >your filtering service--impossibly!--only allows through porn that was >desired by the end user, deleting everything else on arrival), you >should try to remedy this misunderstanding immediately. As an >immediate band-aid, you may wish to release an "updated end user >agreement" that highlights this area, without revealing your direct >motivation. > >I would feel horrible knowing I'd inadvertently helped to frame >someone, whether due to ignorance or corruption on the part of their >boss; in fact, I would ready myself to defend the individual in court, >and lose the client. You have to go deeper on this: it's a question of >why/whether this has anything to do with you positively or negatively, >since you provide anti-spam software--not employee monitoring/spyware, >which is in a sense its direct opposite. > >-Sandy > > >------------------------------------ >Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist >Broadleaf Systems, a division of >Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >------------------------------------ > >--- >[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus >(http://www.declude.com)] > >--- >This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To >unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and >type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found >at http://www.mail-archive.com. >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Solid Oak Software] > >ware] > > --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
