Re: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
I can't believe you guys are agonizing over this "ethical dilema." it redicuolus... have you been so jaded by "popular opinion" of what is right or wrong that you let $$$ signs dictate what is right and wrong? Poronography and all the sick things that go with it ( i don't think i have to elaborate do I?) are PLAIN WRONG! Anyone caught "dealing" with it within our system is removed and banned instantly! no chance of appealIf you don't like the terms & conditions then leave! And you know what... our clients like that .. many signup with us for that very fact they feel safer that we enforce those rules.. Ty it you'll be surprised. - Original Message - From: "Karen Oland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 7:23 PM Subject: RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics > > In a corporate setting a company may or may not have an > > Internet/email/conduct policy. If not, it may be very dificult to fire > > someone for conduct that they didn't agree to abide by and if it came to > > a lawsuit they would probably loose. > > In fact, in TN, a long-haul trucker won a worker's comp lawsuit against his > employer for injuries suffered while having sex in his cab, driving down the > road and he was hit by a train (the female "passenger", having no seat belt > and not being seated in a passenger seat anyway, was thrown from the truck > and killed). The first court ruled against the trucker (holding the belief > that such behavior was outside the bounds of reasonable on-the-job behavior > and as such, not a compensible accident). Higher courts ruled for the > trucker - there was no written policy prohibiting such behavior and this > person was used to doing this on a routine basis while performing his job > (doesn't this make you feel safe, driving the freeway when it is full of > trucks?). > > So, yes, without a written policy prohibiting certain behavior, you will > probably lose in a suit. However, in any case, using porn email as "proof" > of violating a written policy would probably also result in losing such a > suit -- all it would take is having one person on a jury that has an email > account of their own -- eventually, everyone gets porn email, it seems, and > once on the list, the amount seems to keep adding up (we even get it on > email accounts that were set up as a mailing list for internal distribution, > that have never sent any emails out to the world). And much porn email can > look as though it was asked for, substituting first names (gathered using > many techniques) into long messages, using subject lines that look as tho > you asked for the information (lures to get the email opened), etc. A > better use of Declude would be to offer porn filtering (delete on detection) > and spam forwarding (for retrieval of misclassified messages when > necessary). > > Better proof would be simply browsing someones workstation and web surfing > history (few delete such things and one of the worst cases I ever worked on > was an attorney several years back that had installed compression onto his > drives in order to make room for all the pornographic games, pictures, > movies that had been downloaded and stored all over his official company > computer). > > K. Oland > > --- > [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. > --- > [Stealth Anti-Virus scanning] courtesy http://www.oilfielddirectory.com > > --- [Stealth Anti-Virus scanning] courtesy http://www.oilfielddirectory.com --- [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.
RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
> In a corporate setting a company may or may not have an > Internet/email/conduct policy. If not, it may be very dificult to fire > someone for conduct that they didn't agree to abide by and if it came to > a lawsuit they would probably loose. In fact, in TN, a long-haul trucker won a worker's comp lawsuit against his employer for injuries suffered while having sex in his cab, driving down the road and he was hit by a train (the female "passenger", having no seat belt and not being seated in a passenger seat anyway, was thrown from the truck and killed). The first court ruled against the trucker (holding the belief that such behavior was outside the bounds of reasonable on-the-job behavior and as such, not a compensible accident). Higher courts ruled for the trucker - there was no written policy prohibiting such behavior and this person was used to doing this on a routine basis while performing his job (doesn't this make you feel safe, driving the freeway when it is full of trucks?). So, yes, without a written policy prohibiting certain behavior, you will probably lose in a suit. However, in any case, using porn email as "proof" of violating a written policy would probably also result in losing such a suit -- all it would take is having one person on a jury that has an email account of their own -- eventually, everyone gets porn email, it seems, and once on the list, the amount seems to keep adding up (we even get it on email accounts that were set up as a mailing list for internal distribution, that have never sent any emails out to the world). And much porn email can look as though it was asked for, substituting first names (gathered using many techniques) into long messages, using subject lines that look as tho you asked for the information (lures to get the email opened), etc. A better use of Declude would be to offer porn filtering (delete on detection) and spam forwarding (for retrieval of misclassified messages when necessary). Better proof would be simply browsing someones workstation and web surfing history (few delete such things and one of the worst cases I ever worked on was an attorney several years back that had installed compression onto his drives in order to make room for all the pornographic games, pictures, movies that had been downloaded and stored all over his official company computer). K. Oland --- [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.
RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
My feelings are along this same line. It seems that this questions revolves around what the stated company policy is regarding usage of these company resources. As stated in several emails before, email and internet usage and the computers they are used are are company owned assets and should be managed as such. To me they are no different than any other company owned asset; vehicles, equipment, tools, facilites, telephones etc. There is a perceived idea that these tools are "free." The allowed usage and subsequent penalty for misuse should be covered by an enforceable company policy. If an adequate policy is in place, would it be any different to fire an employee for misuse of a company vehicle (personal deliveries and errands on company time for example) than for downloading porn? I think it is time to examine what the stated policy is on this usage. Does anyone have a company policy for email/internet use that they would be willing to share? I believe ours needs some updating. Dan Spangenberg > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Stavert > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of > Ethics > > > In a corporate setting a company may or may not have an > Internet/email/conduct policy. If not, it may be very dificult to fire > someone for conduct that they didn't agree to abide by and if it came to > a lawsuit they would probably loose. In fact the company could loose > twice. Once by someone who was offended by a fellow employees use of > porn at the workplace and second by a wrongful termination suit by the > offender. Many companies just added the Internet and email to the system > without considering the concequences. Time to examine the company > policies. > > David > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Purtell > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:34 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A > > Question of Ethics > > > > > > The term "spyware" refers to software whose sole purpose is > > to surreptitiously gather and transmit information about a > > user. A firewall log is a neutral record of general internet > > activity. Any reasonably informed adult who uses the internet > > should understand their actions may be logged, in the same > > way they understand a policeman might be watching them when > > they drive their car down a road. Certain parts of our daily > > activities are observed; that's a facet of urban life. What > > matters is whether the prior intent of the observation is hostile. > > > > Keith Purtell, Web/Network Administrator > > VantageMed Operations (Kansas City) > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > > unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > > contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of > > the original message. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Darrell L. > > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:33 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of > > > Ethics > > > > > > > > > I suppose you can say that any monitoring tool or piece of software > > > could be spyware. I know in several instances where > > employee's were > > > let go or suspended due to inappropriate activity were > > based solely on > > > the analysis of firewall logs that record all internet > > activity. In > > > our Computer Security Policy we do not specifically say that the > > > firewall is > > > logging everyone's internet surfing activities. However in > > > the computer > > > security document it is spelled out that they are using company > > > equipment and the company reserves the right to monitor any and all > > > activity. > > > > > > Would you say in this instance that the tools (firewall > > logging) used > > > would be classified as "spyware"? > > > > > > Darrell > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > [This E-
RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
In a corporate setting a company may or may not have an Internet/email/conduct policy. If not, it may be very dificult to fire someone for conduct that they didn't agree to abide by and if it came to a lawsuit they would probably loose. In fact the company could loose twice. Once by someone who was offended by a fellow employees use of porn at the workplace and second by a wrongful termination suit by the offender. Many companies just added the Internet and email to the system without considering the concequences. Time to examine the company policies. David > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Purtell > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:34 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A > Question of Ethics > > > The term "spyware" refers to software whose sole purpose is > to surreptitiously gather and transmit information about a > user. A firewall log is a neutral record of general internet > activity. Any reasonably informed adult who uses the internet > should understand their actions may be logged, in the same > way they understand a policeman might be watching them when > they drive their car down a road. Certain parts of our daily > activities are observed; that's a facet of urban life. What > matters is whether the prior intent of the observation is hostile. > > Keith Purtell, Web/Network Administrator > VantageMed Operations (Kansas City) > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of > the original message. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Darrell L. > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:33 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of > > Ethics > > > > > > I suppose you can say that any monitoring tool or piece of software > > could be spyware. I know in several instances where > employee's were > > let go or suspended due to inappropriate activity were > based solely on > > the analysis of firewall logs that record all internet > activity. In > > our Computer Security Policy we do not specifically say that the > > firewall is > > logging everyone's internet surfing activities. However in > > the computer > > security document it is spelled out that they are using company > > equipment and the company reserves the right to monitor any and all > > activity. > > > > Would you say in this instance that the tools (firewall > logging) used > > would be classified as "spyware"? > > > > Darrell > > > > > > > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > --- > [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 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.
RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
The term "spyware" refers to software whose sole purpose is to surreptitiously gather and transmit information about a user. A firewall log is a neutral record of general internet activity. Any reasonably informed adult who uses the internet should understand their actions may be logged, in the same way they understand a policeman might be watching them when they drive their car down a road. Certain parts of our daily activities are observed; that's a facet of urban life. What matters is whether the prior intent of the observation is hostile. Keith Purtell, Web/Network Administrator VantageMed Operations (Kansas City) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Darrell L. > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of > Ethics > > > I suppose you can say that any monitoring tool or piece of software > could be spyware. I know in several instances where > employee's were let > go or suspended due to inappropriate activity were based solely on the > analysis of firewall logs that record all internet activity. In our > Computer Security Policy we do not specifically say that the > firewall is > logging everyone's internet surfing activities. However in > the computer > security document it is spelled out that they are using company > equipment and the company reserves the right to monitor any and all > activity. > > Would you say in this instance that the tools (firewall logging) used > would be classified as "spyware"? > > Darrell > > > --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [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.
RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
On 02/27/03 9:32am you wrote... > >>>I'll trust you on that, and apologize for the roundhouse >>>classification. Yet in your "several dozen cases where divorces were >>>contemplated, employee terminations took place, even people who were >>>sent back to prison" and "kids who have been grounded" examples, >>>clearly your tool was used as spyware. And these are the cases which >>>you brought under discussion. > >This is only in reference to a business environment. > >Would you say in this instance that the tools (firewall logging) used >would be classified as "spyware"? I would imagine that any product that logs any activity could be considered "spyware" in certain circumstances. This includes IMail, Declude, Exchange, MS Proxy, anything that logs activity. There is a huge difference between products that log activity and "spyware". For example, there is a product that takes low res screen shots of the computer and allows the parent, employer, or other "supervisorial" person to playback everything that was done. Several of CYBERsitter's competitors have built in keyboard logging that keeps a record of everything typed. Although I am sure this has cost us sales and review points, we have consistently refused to incorporate similar functions into CYBERsitter. We have been asked thousands of times to provide functions to capture email messages, and capture instant messaging content. Certainly this is possible, but we won't do that either although there are other products have this capability. In my opinion, these are "spyware" products. Our primary purpose in keeping logs is for support purposes. The user's purpose is probably different, but here again, this is a common function of all "tools" that manage or distribute content. We also track users who come to our web sites. We know what pages they visit, their browser versions, IP addresses, locale, referrers, and operating systems. We, like tens of thousands of other online retailers, use this information for improving traffic flow, determining user interest, and fine tuning our marketing. So are we spying on our customers? I can use the logs generated by IMail to spy on people as easily as any spyware product. I can see who sent what to who, where and when. Does this make it spyware? I don't think so. You can "hold" any message that meets certain criteria with Declude and the administrator can read the entire message. It doesn't have to be spam. Does this make Declude spyware too? I think that an overly broad interpretation of what is "spyware" is foolish, no matter how the data is used. Virtually every Internet related application is designed to manage or regulate the distribution or reception of data in some way. Tools that log activity are absolutely necessary. Tools that are intentionally designed to invade a users privacy are quite another thing entirely. --- [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.
RE: Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
>>I'll trust you on that, and apologize for the roundhouse >>classification. Yet in your "several dozen cases where divorces were >>contemplated, employee terminations took place, even people who were >>sent back to prison" and "kids who have been grounded" examples, >>clearly your tool was used as spyware. And these are the cases which >>you brought under discussion. This is only in reference to a business environment. I suppose you can say that any monitoring tool or piece of software could be spyware. I know in several instances where employee's were let go or suspended due to inappropriate activity were based solely on the analysis of firewall logs that record all internet activity. In our Computer Security Policy we do not specifically say that the firewall is logging everyone's internet surfing activities. However in the computer security document it is spelled out that they are using company equipment and the company reserves the right to monitor any and all activity. Would you say in this instance that the tools (firewall logging) used would be classified as "spyware"? Darrell --- [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.
Re[2]: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
> This is incorrect. We do not make spyware. That is not the purpose > and never has been. We make content management software. It can log > activity or not. The vast majority of our customers do not maintain > logs at all. I'll trust you on that, and apologize for the roundhouse classification. Yet in your "several dozen cases where divorces were contemplated, employee terminations took place, even people who were sent back to prison" and "kids who have been grounded" examples, clearly your tool was used as spyware. And these are the cases which you brought under discussion. > Declude by design, is a TOOL. The user can make it behave any way > they want to. I do not agree. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make Declude alone distinguish between unsolicited porn and solicited porn. Yes, you can *not care* about which is which, but you cannot tell for sure. > Who said they had to be suspected spam? Who said? Dan said! His very concern is that held spam is being used to incriminate a user. Our question is how/why/whether Declude is being used as an agent in his dismissal. > We have received hundreds on inquiries about blocking adult material > whether it is spam or not. "Whether it is spam or not" is not a reasonable foundation for employee termination, which is, again, the topic under discussion--not the ways and means of blocking porn in general. > This is a hot segment of the market right now. A lot of spam is > tolerated. Porn is not. Porn pix, movies, and e-mail can each create grounds for sexual harrassment lawsuits, whether viewed/downloaded purposely or accidentally, so of course this market remains hot. Incoming porn e-mail does not itself constitute purpose. I believe the best medicine for avoiding both employee time-wasting and a hostile workplace is preventative technology, as CyberSitter or other content filtering tools provide, combined with people management, including both frank discussion of company policies and the creation of a stress-aware workplace in which people make human contact, take breaks, start new projects, whatever, instead of relying on their prurient interests to get them through the day. Suddenly dismissing an employee to deflect attention from your previous lack of filtering and person-to-person management skills is disingenuous; termination without warning may itself be questionable in court. > What they may be evidence of is violation of company policies. Information that "may or may not" be evidentiary...is not. > They may be unsolicited, may be not. Doesn't matter whether the guy > has a porn habit or not. If he is receiving inappropriate material, > and if the employer has good reason that some of it is not > unsolicited as you claim it all must be... An employee at will can be fired without cause, which is often the safe way out that employers take. But if an employer goes on the record as saying that a termination occured because of a violation of a company policy, this claim must be backed not with suspicion, but with legally valid evidence. In this case, like I said, if the employer's "good reason" comes from hard monitoring and red-handed evidence, then that evidence is all you need; incoming e-mail is essentially a red herring. > the employer is perfectly within his rights, and possibility even > obligated to fire the guy. The employer is only within his rights if his evidence is solid, and trapped spam is not solid. Fire away, and then get ready to settle the lawsuit. The question remains: are they actually going to cite porn spam, even a seeming "ton," as evidence in court, or have they followed this guy's tracks enough elsewhere to not worry about that easily challenged tactic? Hey, maybe this guy was really a baddie. We don't know. I do know that there are plenty of "protected" executives who surf porn all day and don't get canned, while people lower on the totem pole at the same companies can get warned for a single infraction. I've personally known an employee fired for being overweight (framed as a "productivity issue": lawsuit settled out of court) and one for not putting her hair in a ponytail (framed as insubordination, though without any company policy whatsoever: also settled out of court). After much wrangling, I convinced a client not to terminate the Internet access of an employee who demonstrated to me that an otherwise legit CAD/CAM tutorial site was supporting itself through soft-core popup ads (think auto mechanics' calendars). So I'm likely to keep my mind open to the employer's need to have a defensible case. -Sandy Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist Broadleaf Systems, a division of Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
On 02/26/03 11:46pm you wrote... >> ...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. > >Your company makes spyware--no offense intended, and I agree with your >stance that you guys are not responsible for the uses made of your >tool and see Cybersitter's reasonable application in some home and >business environments. This is incorrect. We do not make spyware. That is not the purpose and never has been. We make content management software. It can log activity or not. The vast majority of our customers do not maintain logs at all. >Declude, by design, is the opposite of spyware, as it is intended to >protect end users from UNsolicited, UNwanted Internet-based >communication, and in turn from the consequences of such communication >being presumed as solicited. Declude-tagged data, *as* suspected spam, >CANNOT be used to implicate an end user. It's not an ethics issue; you >just can't do it. It's insane, backward, punishably ignorant to even >contemplate it. It's like...using a history of porn surfing as proof >that someone isn't into porn! Declude by design, is a TOOL. The user can make it behave any way they want to. We can make it block ALL porn, not just unsolicited porn. And we do. >> I am willing to bet that the employee in question was not fired >> solely based on information provided by an anti-spam program...It is >> quite possible he just needed the evidence. > >Porn messages held as suspected spam are not evidence of a porn habit, >even in relative quantity. Really, now: if they really need more >evidence, track the *outgoing* mail in combination with their existing >web monitoring (though this would be unlikely to trap much), and track >often non-suspect "plain brown wrapper" e-mail receipts for credit >card transactions. How could web monitoring over a month or more >*possibly* be insufficient evidence, anyway? Who said they had to be suspected spam? We have received hundreds on inquiries about blocking adult material whether it is spam or not. This is a hot segment of the market right now. A lot of spam is tolerated. Porn is not. What they may be evidence of is violation of company policies. They may be unsolicited, may be not. Doesn't matter whether the guy has a porn habit or not. If he is receiving inappropriate material, and if the employer has good reason that some of it is not unsolicited as you claim it all must be, the employer is perfectly within his rights, and possibility even obligated to fire the guy. --- [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.
Re: DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
> ...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. Your company makes spyware--no offense intended, and I agree with your stance that you guys are not responsible for the uses made of your tool and see Cybersitter's reasonable application in some home and business environments. Declude, by design, is the opposite of spyware, as it is intended to protect end users from UNsolicited, UNwanted Internet-based communication, and in turn from the consequences of such communication being presumed as solicited. Declude-tagged data, *as* suspected spam, CANNOT be used to implicate an end user. It's not an ethics issue; you just can't do it. It's insane, backward, punishably ignorant to even contemplate it. It's like...using a history of porn surfing as proof that someone isn't into porn! > I am willing to bet that the employee in question was not fired > solely based on information provided by an anti-spam program...It is > quite possible he just needed the evidence. Porn messages held as suspected spam are not evidence of a porn habit, even in relative quantity. Really, now: if they really need more evidence, track the *outgoing* mail in combination with their existing web monitoring (though this would be unlikely to trap much), and track often non-suspect "plain brown wrapper" e-mail receipts for credit card transactions. How could web monitoring over a month or more *possibly* be insufficient evidence, anyway? -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.
DSN:Re: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
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] >
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] A Question of Ethics
> 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.
