Blow the Whistle, Lose Your Job? 839
ccnull writes "You're a systems admin. On a routine PC repair, you discover a trove of child porn on an employee's PC. You call the cops. The employee pleads guilty and goes to jail. Then what do you do? You get fired. InformationWeek has an interesting expose on whistleblowers who lost their jobs, they say, because they publicly embarassed the company. The company has another version of the story. No matter what the reality is, at the center of this is a good question: If you discover illegal goodies on a machine, what should you do about it?"
unless of course... (Score:5, Funny)
Illegal things... (Score:5, Insightful)
But child porn... I'd tell for sure. Fire me if you will...
Re:Illegal things... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Illegal things... (Score:5, Insightful)
Though out of work at the moment, I have in the past drafted company policy regarding things of this nature.
I always made sure that employees understood that the workstation they sat at was the property of the company and to be used for company related business only. I made certain they understood that they were not to use resources as though they were connecting via an ISP, (I helped many people connect to thier ISPs mail system in order to recieve personal messages - I'm not heartless, just professional) and that the company viewed activities of this nature very, very seriously. "Dismissal with cause" was used very often in the wording of the policy, and "seek Legal remedies" was used once or twice as well.
Most people don't realise that even viewing questionalble content with company resources, (But I didn't "download" it, I just looked at it!!!) leaves the company open to legal issues ("Know what a proxy is Bob? How about your browsers cache, hmmmm?) since the file ends up on the comanies system somewhere.
Executive summary: Things like this should be a matter of policy, and made known to each and every employee the day they're hired before they even touch a keyboard.
Soko
They told their boss, who reported it to the cops (Score:4, Interesting)
The company's article says that there are other things going on, which they can't talk about because there's a lawsuit pending. If that's not true, and they're really doing it because they're embarassed about it being reported to the police, then they should presumably have also fired the supervisor who reported it. Sounds like there are multiple sets of ugliness and stupidity going on here...
Re:Illegal things... (Score:4, Funny)
Which is exactly why I can't view a site like
Yet, I've been warned more than once(informally) because the sniffer on our proxy picks up nasty words pretty frequently. The compliance guys are even thinking about banning
The only reason I haven't been warned formally or canned is because it IS a tech relted site. But this excuse is getting old.
So, hey guys, stop cursing around here. Please.
Re:Illegal things... (Score:5, Insightful)
A) how embarrassing it will be when the news outlets get ahold of the story of them FIRING an employee for doing the right thing. and
B) what else the former employee might be able to embarrass them with once he's no longer employed and has a good reason to do as much damage to them as legally allowable.
Unless they provide the whistle blower with a spectacular severance package tied to a no-blabbling agreement, they might as well lay off their PR department, because at that point the company's reputation is officially worthless.
Re:Illegal things... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's as if I left my diary in a car that was in the shop, and all the mechanics started reading it. Except for computers, this is the norm rather than the exception. I don't want someone going through all my personal shit.
So the people that fired them made the right decision. The word is now out that giving your computer to these people will hold all your personal data up to scrutiny by complete strangers. So what if your wife picks it up, and they tell her about the (legal) porn hidden in an innocuous sounding directory? Or maybe they'll read about the financial plans of your company, because some important documents were on the PC?
The truth is that people doing repairs should make every attempt not to view even a smidgen of personal data on the PCs they repair. So this article makes their discovery sound like they couldn't help it. But why were they clicking around in random directories? Simply wondering, "Hmm, what's in this directory," is not nearly a good enough reason. A repairperson should know what directories are relevant to fixing the computer and which are not.
Now, of course, all of this is null and void if there was some telling "C:\ChildPorn" directory on the computer. But barring such obvious dumbassedness on the part of the person giving the computer for repair, the repair-persons' actions were clearly unethical, even if, in the end, they discovered another unethical action. Two wrongs don't make a right, remember.
Re:Illegal things... (Score:4, Insightful)
To try and fix your car analogy it's like getting your mechanics to swap your car with another, and while transferring your personal effects, they find a whole bunch of loose paper in the back of the car with child porn on it.
Computer repair people often *need* to see everything.
I'll give you a real-world example
Your PC stops working. I find that windows 98 is scrambled. I say, "Hmm
I check "C:\program files"
So, now I'm poking around your PC going "Where the hell does this guy store all his data?"
So eventually I find your data, in C:\windows\options\cabs\Porn. While copying the files to a safe place, I see lots of "lolita" type filenames. What to do? If I've copied it to a spare drive of mine, whilst I erase and fix yours, *I've* got child porn on *my* drive now.
What If there's a raid just after I finish reformatting your drive? "Honest Officer, It's *my* drive, but it's that guys data" is a hard one to pull off.
Re:Illegal things... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you just claim stupidity
There is no real reason to go snooping through other people's files
This is just a lousy excuse so you get to copy other peoples porn.
Don't snoop. 'Problem' solved.
Re:Illegal things... (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Ms. Perry's previous experience showed that virus's leave evidence of their existence on the system. The PC had come in with the end user suspecting it had a virus and the tech had had problems with getting virus software on there. It is inherently easier to fix a computer for an end user than to reinstall it and lose either data or custom settings which the user would find difficult to recreate.
b) Th
Re:Illegal things... (Score:3, Insightful)
How many children did that guy abuse?
Exactly as many as the number of children on the pictures he held.
I don't care if he didn't take the pictures. He's creating the demand for the pictures to be created.
what would be bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Adult : "Can I tattoo your face?"
Child : "Sure, go right ahead"
Re:Illegal things... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm, If I download mp3's for free, I'm destroying the music industry. But If I download child pornography pictures for free, I'm supporting the child pornography industry.
Re:Illegal things... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a really good question that I have no good answer to. I'll have to chew on it a lot longer to come up with a satisfactory answer; probably longer than this thread will stay editable on Slashdot.
My gut instinct is that child porn producers won't cease their trade unless caught, scared, or harassed out of the industry. The same goes for those who consume it.
Wow, I ju
"Goodies" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Goodies" (Score:5, Funny)
You get fired for "embarrassing" the company? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I encounter misdoings (Score:4, Insightful)
That way, the perpetrator gets punished, I am left out of the deliberations, and everyone's happy.
Just email the URL or IP address to the proper authorities (your boss, the police, etc.) from one of your anonymous email accounts and you're all set (use a proxy too).
Re:Whenever I encounter misdoings (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymous speech has no credibility.
Absolutely not. (Score:3, Insightful)
I know I would be very displeased if I found one of our system administrators playing "computer god" with our proprietary information. If he can't be trusted to keep the privacy of a coworker, then who's to say that he can keep the privacy of the company's trade secrets? He would be outta here in no time.
Absolutely WOULD report it (Score:3, Insightful)
If the company policy is that PCs are not for personal use and may not contain illegally-copied materials, I'm gonna tell them to clean up their act. If I find it a second time, you're goddam sure as hell I'm going to report it. Same with giant MP3 collections, P2P clients...none of it is appropriate in a work environment. You remind them they're violating policy, and if they keep it
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:3, Funny)
"If you discover that an employee has, say, severed limbs in his desk drawer, it is certainly not your business to go and report him. You are not the law, you have no moral authority, and you should therefore not be able to bring punishment down upon someone who has done you no wrong. After all, you still have all your limbs, so what harm is it to you? Pure and simple."
"I know I would be very displeased if I found one of our system administrators playing "hall monitor" with our proprie
Well, DUH... (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, a "company" doesn't exist. It's just an idea held by a group of people. Think of these people as your friends, because even if you don't like them, they are. They help provide for your welfare.
Would you report your best friend's smoking weed? Would you report your father for voeyerism?
Report this matter to your boss, and document (in writing) that you did so. Having effectively wiped your hands of the matter, enjoy your job.
What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that there should be a law to protect whistleblowers, and perhaps some form of federal insurance that the can draw from in the event that they are retaliated against.
Whistleblowing, wether it is calling the cops on pedophiles in the workplace, or terrorists in your apartment building, is a critical tool of law enforcement. Sadly, too many privacy nuts would rather shelter pedos for the sake of being able to post anonymous crap on message boards...
Re:What do you do? You do the RIGHT thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would, of course, never defend kiddie-porn, but only because of the children harmed in the actual filming, not because it has some perverting effect on viewers. When Ashcroft wanted to charge those who possesed porn that was "simulated" kiddie porn, the Supreme Court (rightfully, in my opinion) struck it down. There are no thought crimes, and no laws prohibiting things which are explicit simply because they may (according to you; I would dispute the claim) have some sort of perverting effect on people. Extend that, and you end up with bans on explicit (non-kiddie) porn, explicit movies and television, and Mark Twain and J.D. Salinger.
In comparison, quite a number of wrongful imprisonments spring to mind, especially when you comment on "terrorists in your apartment building." A Middle Eastern student (Jordanian, I believe) at NYU was arrested shortly after September 11 and held for a few months without a lawyer and only intermittent contact with his family because a hotel security guard claimed he had found a pilot's radio tranceiver in his room. It had, in fact, been found in the room beneath his, and he was completely exonerated of possessing a radio tranceiver (something that is not a crime, at least, not if you aren't Middle Eastern).
Suspicion and accusations are not what we need to protect our safety, but they do aid in removing our liberties. Are we trying to merely defend our physical safety, or our society which embraces people without suspicions based solely on their accents on the sound of their last names? Some may be heroic whistleblowers, but others are just scared, suspicious fools.
Reason for Being Fired (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Reason for Being Fired (Score:3, Informative)
The story submitter says that these people were fired because they gave the company a bad light, but this wouldn't even be about the company, since they were being outsourced.
The way these things usually go is like this:
Very Big Outsourcing Customer: "One of your employees embarrassed one of our employees publicly. This embarrasses us publicly. What are you going to do about it?"
Small Outsourcing Provider: "We will fire that employee, as quickly as we think we can get away with it, o
what should you do? (Score:5, Funny)
The pervert doesn't know you'll both get fired for reporting it.
Not so simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that is not always such a simple decision.
In some states, and I'm sure many more will follow, it is the law that, should you find evidence of child abuse or child porn, YOU are guilty of a crime if YOU do not report it immediately to authorities.
You may be an agent of the company, but you are also subject to the laws of the state you are working in.
Re:Not so simple (Score:4, Interesting)
In Illinois and some states, if the cops pull you and your friends over after a night of drinking, they give everybody breathalyzer tests. If the least drunk guy is driving, they're happy. But, if you're in the car, the driver is drunker than you, then you get a ticket. Same goes for everyone else in the car.
I know it's a stretch but it seems relevant to this thread for some vague reason.
The sick irony is (Score:3, Funny)
A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.
Or maybe it's not that funny.
Nothing at all (Score:5, Insightful)
We are legally bound NOT TO report anything even if discovered on a routine call, not our job. We are not legally authorized to invade your privacy. That is why they have policy with warrants. It is also a position I stand behind and advidly enforce on my more moral or do gooder juniors. Your users should trust you to do your job and FIX the computer / issue, not narc them out. Your job is NOT to enforce your morality or ideas of what the law is upon them.
If you want to be a narc join a legal body and put your computer skills to use helping them. If just want to narc on your coworker because they don't fit in your ideas of morality, I have no sympathy for you or anybody like you. Losing your job should be the least of your worries, you should be hung from a tree.
Everybody breaks the law including you. Do you really want to live in a society where the guy behind you on the freeway calls the police on you for doing 57 in a 55.
Mind your own business and do you job unless your job is to bust folk.
Re:Nothing at all (Score:3, Informative)
But what you have utterly failed to comprehend here is the third word in your post. Government. Since you are working as an employee of a government agency then you are considerably more restricted in what you can and ca
In South Carolina (Score:3, Informative)
If you discover illegal goodies on a machine...... (Score:3, Informative)
Am I the only one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's start from the beginning. We have a PC that has access problems and crashes, and the owner fears it's infected by a virus. The techie installs and uninstalls the antivirus software several times, in order to find the virus. Give me a break! All you need is to install Norton once, get the latest updates, and you'll catch 99.9% of existing viruses (the rest is so rare that it's very unlikely to infect a machine). Then you install AdAware, get the latest updates and look for spyware. If you still don't find anything, you do the usual defrag, diskscan and clean up the registry, and if it still gives you problems, you back up the Documents folder and reinstall everything. (Sorry if I missed a step, I have only my own 8 PCs that I take care of.)
So all you have to do is to copy the Documents folder somewhere, if you feel like it, get the bookmarks and cookies folders as well, and that's about it. There is absolutely no reason for a techie to actually snoop around the folders.
All that, assuming, that the company is a not so traditional computer outsourcing company. The computer outsourcing companies that I have worked with operate on a different principle. Your computer gets broken, and they replace it with an identical one. They warn you in big bold letters on the screen or the case that everything stored on the computer may be lost, which is why you should keep all your documents on your network server. In that case, there is even less reason to check the files in the Documents folder, because all you do is to wipe out the hard drive and do a clean install of everything.
So suddenly we have two conflicting issues here. The techies have violated the customer's privacy, snooping around his Documents folder, but found child porn there, which is illegal (this kind of reporting to authorities reminds me painfully on my youth in Eastern Europe, but that's a different story). The employer is grateful in this case, but soon realizes that the techies could have very well gone through other people's private documents at will, with the only difference that they didn't find anything appaling enough to admit it.
Looking at the story from this perspective, I am well aware that the techies did the right thing by reporting the customer. However, I am also well aware that the techies in this company routinelly check their customers' private documents, which is why I would not want to hire the company. This may be very well the reason why the techies got fired after all...
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO, that seems overly simplistic as there are lots of programs that don't keep data and configuration info in that directory. People don't necessarily try to keep stuff there either. I know Quicken 2002 keeps its accounting data in its program files directory by default(!). Backups are IMO clearly the responsibility of the owner but unfortunately they don't take kindly to a wipeage of data.
You do have a point though, techs shouldn't be snoopin
Similar Happened Where I Work (Score:5, Interesting)
So we told our boss, who told the guy's boss, and I thought he would be fired for sure, but he just got a letter of reprimand in his permanent file.
Someone else in our company was discovered with child porn on their computer and it was leaked to the press. Huge black eye for the company. If the person who leaked it was discovered, they were probably fired for making the company look bad.
The other thing about these idiots is they don't realize we backup the network at night. So our backup tapes have this stuff archived on them and if a subpoena is issued to get that data, the perp is screwed. Personally I think our guy was trying to get caught.
Me too (Score:3, Interesting)
Grad student was working on UNIX computer owned by professor, and noticed some weird files. Freaked out, he went to a sysadmin in the department. Sysadmin monitored network usage on the machine, noticed that files were being transferred back and forth between server and the prof's home computer (which was also on campus). Files turned out to be a shitload of kiddie porn. Sysadmin went to police.
This was quite a large scandal at the time, aggravated by the fac
Do what's right (Score:3, Insightful)
What these two individuals did was right, and I applaud them. They deserve every dollar they can get from Collegis. Until you've been in a similar situation, you can't possibly pass judgement. There is simply no room in this world for pedophiles or weak air traffic controllers.
It doesn't add up... (Score:5, Interesting)
The next day, Perry gave the PC to Gross to back up, fearing it might crash and lose valuable data.
In the process, according to the suit, Gross opened a folder titled "my music," within which was another folder, named "nime," then another, "nime2." It was here, Gross said in an interview, that he encountered the illicit content. "I didn't have to click on any files when I went into the folder," says Gross. "There were thumbnail images, so I was pretty much instantly exposed to that."
If Gross hadn't opened those folders, he wouldn't have come across the offensive images in the first place. But Perry and Gross say it wasn't unusual for them to check the content of folders when troubleshooting; a large file, for example, can be an indication that a virus is at work.
I don't buy this. Are they claiming that standard procedure for these folks, when looking for a virus, is not to boot with a known-good disk and run an up-to-date virus scanner, but rather to go through folders looking for large files which might "be an indication that a virus is at work"? If so, that's pretty crappy. Well, I have this huge file called PAGEFILE.SYS on my C:\ drive, I guess I have a virus (it's Windows' swap file, for those who use other OSes), right? Sigh.
I also don't buy the "they were looking in the folder for files to backup" argument, either. That's not the way you do it. You use Windows backup, or a 3rd party utility, or a disk-imaging program (like Ghost for windows or DiskCopy for Mac) or you drag everything to a server for later restoration, or you use an external firewire/USB drive. You don't poke around for files and copy them one by one. Apart from being horribly inefficient, that would also kill the client's directory structure. For example, within my documents folders, I have subfolders for different classes, and for things like correspondance, and receipts, and the like. If some tech support company had to back up my stuff, and had copied the files one by one, instead of copying the entire tree, I'd be real pissed off.
So I don't think that they quite came across the porn in the line of duty. I think they were looking around without any good reason. (Not that this makes child porn any less wrong, but it does cloud the issue of discovery and reporting)
There is, of course, the other issue, which is that by default, newer versions of Windows use thumbnail view, which is unfortunate. If the prof had been using regular list view, and the techs had double-clicked the files, they wouldn't stand a chance of defending themselves. This raises the issue of just what exactly is "invading someone's privacy"? Even filenames can say a lot about someone. For example, if you see someone's desktop, and they have a bunch of files named "naked_teens_1.jpg" through "naked_teens_50.jpg", what are you going to think about them? What if the files were named "12_year_old_naked.jpg"? Does that change things? Suppose you wrote an editorial to your newspaper about how much you though Al Qaeda sucked. You named this file "al_qaeda_letter.txt". You take your PC in for service, and some tech sees it, and decides to report you to the FBI. (Not too far-fetched in this day and age). Are filenames public or private information? Sure, you can't prevent people from seeing filenames, but do they have the right to act upon them? (This applies to other issues, like when the RIAA found files with the name "usher" and "mp3" and assumed they were songs when they actually were some prof's lectures.)
I work in tech support, and I find myself in lots of situations when I have access to users PCs. The general guideline where I work is to see as little as possible. For example, If I'm working on a PC, I try to stay at the root level as much as possible. When we need to backup a PC, we drag the entire directory tree to a USB drive (if its PC) or a FireWire drive (if it's a Mac), or a server if nei
Re:It doesn't add up... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It doesn't add up... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's exactly what the filmmakers who make that sick crap want you to think. They don't want you to ask little Suzzie why she comes into school crying, and they dont' want her to tell you why either.
Normally I would agree with you, but in the case of child porn, I don't. People who have it need help. The children in it need to be stopped from being forced to make it. If an employee spends all day in his office whacking off, I woudln't car
Re:It doesn't add up... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, many of "our" porn sites proudly state "Only 18!". How is that not a crime for us, but a mortal crime for someone in a country where 19 is the age of consent?
Videos/Pics that actually involve harm to a minor certainly deserve the witch-hunt mentality we see on here, but nobody is questioning the fact that this is probably only illegal because of an arbitrary limit being different between countries.
Re:It doesn't add up... (Score:4, Interesting)
But in this case it's different. The way you pose it, there is a dilemma between two choices:
Maybe in your world (1) is better, but I definitely prefer (2). Total loss of privacy is not something I'd sacrifice to stop child pornography, as noble as its eradication would be.
Maybe I'm attacking a straw man, but I don't think so. You speak as though any invasion of privacy is justified if it discovers something like child porn. But this is only known after the fact. So there are two choices: (a) snooping without discovery of child porn, or (b) snooping with discovery of child porn. The actor who snoops cannot know whether they are facing (a) or (b). And what they cannot know they cannot act on. And what they cannot act on they cannot be held morally responsible for--ought implies can. So by moral theory, these actions are by necessity equivalent. And, if in your mind, (b) is justified, then (a) must also be justified.
But (a) is not justified. No one has a right to invade my privacy without any reason to suspect me of wrong-doing. And if you think about it, you should come to the same conclusion.
It seems very simple to me .. (Score:3, Insightful)
If managenment doesn't feel it needs to do anything, or the action doesn't match your moral standards, you don't wanna work there anyway - so go ahead and blow the whistle - anonymously or not.
Working for M$ is selling your soul?! No, working for an employer that doesn't report child porn in order to protect marketing interests is selling your soul!
"Who" messed up our priorities? (Score:3, Insightful)
Turn a blind eye? (Score:3, Insightful)
From a point of view of avoiding personal hassle to oneself, it might be best to pretend one has seen nothing, in situations where that is plausible.
I really don't see how it is possible for an employee to get out of the situation of being sacked for one reason, if the company says the reason is another -- since the employee cannot prove why they are really being sacked.
Even Senior VP's get fired for blowing the whistle (Score:3, Interesting)
Use some common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
The right thing to do is report it to your manager. Presumably they will bring it to the attention of the authorities, and if they don't, well THEN you consider going to the cops yourself.
Why is whistleblowing so sanctified when it's on the part of the little guy ? Would we automatically want companies notifying the cops if a drug test showed we had (say) coke in our system ? Should we expect our neighbours to call the RIAA if they have evidence that you're sharing files illegally ?
For many, reporting child porn is required (Score:5, Informative)
Why shouldn't a computer support person have similar protection under the law, especially in this day and age, where so much of the porn is in digital form?
Re:For many, reporting child porn is required (Score:3, Insightful)
It's stupid escalation of terminology. Now everything is terrorism, even if it's what would have been called Assault with a Deadly Weapon a few years back. Ditto with kiddy porn. A few years ago the term would have meant 12yo or under, and rape. Now it seems to be used for anything where anyone is under the age of co
Non-discolsure? (Score:3, Interesting)
People generaly want to protect their privacy, even in cases where a person who did what I'd consider to be the honest, moral, and legal thing, businesses don't tend to hire people who phone the cops on clients, right or wrong. Business if full of shady dealings, even how profit margin businesses like resturants and their dealings with local health inspectors.
This is sad but true.
What comes to mind, typical non-discolsure agreements prohibit you from discussing what you see in the workplace. Sadly, violating that even in this case tends to get you fired.
Personaly I feel there should indeed be a law protecting wistle blowers, but until then, do it ANONYMOUSLY.... like in this case, burn the CD of the offending material, and send to the FBI, or better yet, setup a simple script to e-mail the images on a time delay.
Tell HR (Score:4, Informative)
The policy at my employer is for us to tell our boss who then tells the VP HR.
In every case I know of the employee was fired and in one case where child porn was found the employee was arrested on the spot.
The right call at most companies is to punt the situation to HR and let them deal with it.
The employees did the right thing (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see why anyone should get in trouble for reporting an illegal activity going on at work to their supervisor. I could understand if the employees directly went to the police or media and not giving the company the ability to handle it.
Maybe I've had the experience of working at better companies. A coworker and I had the wonderful experience of walking into work late one night and all the lights were off and one of the employees was sitting at a computer... well you get the idea. I reported it to my boss and the employee was fired the next day. Their were logs that verified what was going on. Some things just aren't appropriate at work.
As a system administrator, I always make sure that their is a message drawn up by the legal department that we may discover things in the normal duties of our job. I have never poked around people's stuff. But I have had to go into people's home directories to fix things for them (my general policy is I don't touch your home directory unless you ask me to). However, I do go through system logs occasionally. If something turns up in system logs that shouldn't be there, I will report it to my boss.
One company I worked for had a policy that we were to ignore any porn found. That was fine with me, it's their decision. This was done after management decided to crack down on it, and it was found that the largest downloaders of porn were some of the vice presidents. After those results, the policy was quickly put in place.
What I do currently (Score:3, Interesting)
Let the user complain someone removed their MP3's or pr0n. Just let them compain...*signed* BoFH
I have it all planned out. (Score:3, Interesting)
I save proof of the offending material, along with the IPs from which it was obtained, etc., such that I could prove it in court. At that point, I go to the CEO and demand weekly "protection" payments to commence immediately in the amount of US$2,000.00 (what a good deal), adjusted semi-annually for inflation and/or any arbitrary amount selected by me, whichever is greater.
KIDDING ASIDE I would actually handle this situation legally and ethically: Save the proof I talked about a moment ago for my own protection, but not to bring down the company. Then, I go to the most in-charge people in the company and talk to them about the problem. Let them call the police, fire the guy, or do whatever they think is right. I save proof of these meetings (like, audio tape of talking to the big shots about it). If they fire me for bringing up the subject with them, or try to silence the issue without busting the asshole who is doing it, I then deem the company unethical and call the police, the media, and every customer this company has and tell everyone about it, getting the company busted big time for not only having tons of child porn on their boxes but also for trying to shut me up and discredit me. It'll be on O'Reilly faster than shit going through a tin horn.
Oh yeah... And either way, I'd get the biggest, baddest gangsters in town to kick the ass of whoever is looking at that material. It's immoral and unethical because it wastes bandwidth that should be used for transferring FreeBSD ISOs around instead. Want porn? Buy a magazine, asshole.
Pathetic response from Collegis (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, sure. (Score:4, Interesting)
But as criminally disturbing and emotional as this issue may be, the pending litigation has nothing to do with the professor. Employment of the technicians ended due to issues completely unrelated to this isolated incident, which will become clear as the case progresses through the legal system. Claims made by the plaintiffs cannot be taken at face value and should not be trumpeted as fact via media when they are based solely on unsubstantiated allegations.
Translation: Yeah, we fired them for that, but we didn't think they'd sue us. We'll just say we have evidence that will appear in court. We'll pull a tardy report from a few months ago, bam, permission to fire them. Never mind that the guy they told on was a golf buddy of mine and asked me to get rid of them as revenge.
Do corps do this kind of thing? You'd better believe it. I used to work for a utility as the network admin. They would come to me and ask for me to find "evidence" for them to fire someone. Usually all that took was a weblog or a copy of an email of them doing something against company policy. I hated doing it, but it would have been my job if I said no. The reason they tell you you are fired is never the real reason.
Whistleblowing 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
If you've stumbled across evidence of substantial and systematic bilking, theft, fraud, etc. in a corporate database on an utterly massive scale... remember, fish rots from the head down. Going up your chain of command is what you have to do, but do expect severe and immediate retaliation.
Just them knowing that you know what they've been up to, by your routine data QA, is enough to cause sudden complaints about your "behaviour." Remember, it takes two to tango, but only one to squirm . Their complaints are evidence that they're starting to squirm. You need a plan now.
When the going gets tough, the tough take notes . Keep copies of things. You you are going to need a well-planned and pre-established "exit strategy", because you will be punished for doing the right thing.
While "Retaliation for Opposition to An Unlawful Practice" is illegal, it will take you 3-5 years to prosecute your retaliation case, while also giving testimony in the civil and criminal cases the FBI or Serious Fraud Office is going to be bringing against them. You are going to need one heck of a safety net.
So your order of business is:
- Detect Evidence
- Discuss with Spouse, Family, Religious Leaders
- Document Evidence
- Find out whose the best lawyer in the
State, if not the Land for handling your case
- Copy Evidence,place under lock and key
- Find another job, sell excess assets, cash in annuities
- Report Evidence up Chain of Command
- Enjoy Watching them Squirm!
- Resign at the worst possible time for them
- Provide Your Evidence to The Authorities
- Going to the Press is a last resort
You have to discuss this with your spouse and grown children as soon as you even have suspicions, so that you can plan your exit strategy together. They have to understand that you all might be a lot happier in the Peace Corps or setting up wireless networks in Africa, or living on a high-school teachers' salary or grad student stipend. If you belong to a church, mosque or synagogue, discuss it with your pastor, priest, imam, rabbi-- because, God help you, you will need serious moral support when the poo hits the ventillation system.When you must report criminal wrongdoing expect to get canned--for "other reasons" of course. You will be surprised at how lame a case they'll be willing to make for those "other reasons." So will the judge.
Child pornography is criminal wrongdoing. Bilking legitimate shareholders of millions of dollars a month is criminal wrongdoing. A utility defrauding half a nation to the point that its factories are closing, [nzherald.co.nz] its schools are cold and dark, and its hospitals have to turn away sick children [nzherald.co.nz] is criminal wrongdoing.
Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do people enjoy pornography? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wait until you get married and you're down to one night every week. You'll go hunt down some dvds you and the wife can 'enjoy together'. Believe it or not, the right kind of porn makes women very excited.
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:3, Informative)
According to the employer's response, that's exactlty what happened in this case.
What happened after that, and why, is less clear.
The problem with the other option - covering it up - could be that some children would continue to be abu
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the other option - covering it up - could be that some children would continue to be abused.
How does having JPEGs on a computer equate to child abuse? I'm sure many of us have seen the pictures of the death camps with corpses stacked like cordwood, but that doesn't mean we go out and exterminate Jews. A couple of decades ago, there was a problem with so-called "snuff flicks" which showed the actual torture and murder of people (usually young women). I can't imagine anything worse than t
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ideally you should alert the boss first to prepare for the embarassment and have the spokesman prepare statements before the employee is carried away. Tell her, I intend to notify the cops, she wont be able to stop you then. If she tries to stop you, and you tell the cops, and get fired, youd have a lot against the boss too.
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we becoming good little nazis who spy on each other and use punishment and revenge as the first resort?
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:5, Interesting)
i'm not talking about some 17 year old tittie, or some 18 year old drerssed in a school uni. hell, if i'd found the stuff on his computer, i'd probably just take the guy out back and beat him fucking senseless.
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, fair enough. If the kids in the kiddie porn were his own kids, or there was some other evidence that he had taken the pictures himself (they were taken in his house, for instance), then I would agree that one should get the police involved immediately. But if he just downloaded some stuff off the net, I think the correct response is just tell him to delete it from the office computer and do his jerking off at home!
Really, do we have to make a federal case out of everything?
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except then he continues to be a consumer of child pornography, thus he continues to pay for it, and someone else (an even bigger sicko) continues to get paid to exploit children in disgusting ways.
Re:tell your boss and not the police.....?? (Score:3, Interesting)
To what extent is being put in to the position of being photographed in sexually explicit positions not molestation? The point is that some child is abused in this process and that downloading *and storing* this material is contributing to this abuse. If someone can *make money* by *sexually abusing childen* then that person needs to be put in prison for a long long
Re:Don't call the cops. (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone has child pornography on their work pc, they may have it on their home pc also. This isn't just about losing a job for that person, it's about a deep sickness they need help with. The last thing they need is a slap on the wrist from the boss and carte blanche.
I don't know what I'd do in this situation, but the cops would definitely be involved.
Re:Don't call the cops. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the question would really come down to, "am I willing to be an accessory to a Federal crime" for my paycheck. Not only is the answer "no", but, I would expect compensation of a punitive nature for even being *asked* to commit a crime.
>If the boss' boss does nothing, will you bring
>the cops in yourself?
It depends. Can I go to prison for not reporting this? Can I be held responsible? Am I myself committing a crime by helping to cover up evide
Re:How about go through proper channels? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How about go through proper channels? (Score:5, Informative)
That does seem to be what they did in this case, and the empolyer insists they were commended for their actions and fired for completely unrelated reasons.
The whole thing seems fishy to me, but that's why we have courts -- to allow both sides to present their positions, instead of jumping to a conclusion based on what Information Week has to say. It's a shame that a ludicrous sexual harssment claim has to be the vehicle for justice, though.
Re:How about go through proper channels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about go through proper channels? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, I could do such browsing at home. But many things don't make sense to always do at home. If I need to schedule a meeting with a doctor, I'd have to call during the doctor's office hours, which are also my work hours. If I emailed information to my doctor rather than calling him up and telling him, why does this information suddenly become less priviledged?
Your company does not own you. Even if you don't use a computer at work, you still have some expectation of privacy. The company cannot go rifling through your wallet or purse, yet much of the stuff on the computer is even more personal than this.
Really, is it that hard to imagine situations where it would be valid to use the computer at work for personal reasons? What if I suffer from panic attacks, and need to schedule an appointment during office hours (again). I obviously don't want to say over the phone at work, "Yeah, I need to schedule an appointment with the psychiatrist." Doing something like having my partner arrange the appointment, and email me the time to show up, is a much better solution.
I could get around this too, but really, the bottom line is that no company owns my sole, even for eight hours a day. When we enter work we do not become property of the company. What could possibly be your justification for thinking otherwise? That someone said, "Anything that happens at work is the business of the company."? Does someone saying it make it true?
Or you might be convinced by the law. But just because companies have successfully lobbied for laws granting sweeping rights into invading our privacy by no means makes it correct. There are many instances throughout history where laws are incorrect, even in our own country. So it has to be something else. So what is it?
Finally, here's a little exercise for you. Tell me who you are. Tell me where you live. Tell me when you masturbate, and how often. Tell me what the stupidest thing you ever said was. Tell me your grades on every assignment you've taken. Tell me your personal medical history, including all the embarrassing ailments you've ever had. Tell me about all the "black sheep" in your family, such as the uncle who cheated on his wife, or worse, someone arrested for doing something stupid.
If you feel in any way hesitant to comply with any of these requests, then you have a sense of privacy. If you feel that the company you work for would be stepping over the line by asking for any of this information, then you believe that we have a right to keep information from companies we work for. And as society demands that we work more and more to maintain sustenance, and as communication tools put us in touch at any moment and any place, you have a fundamental contradiction in your beliefs. Unless, of course, you deny that we should work at any job with these communication tools present.
Re:How about go through proper channels? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. You have a responsibility to society that goes beyond any contract you have with your employer. If you find out that someone is doing that is extremely harmful to society, you must turn them in. If you do not drawn a line on what is permissible and what is not, then anyone can do anything, incl
Re:How about go through proper channels? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact companies will protect its employees from the law in direct proportion to their seniorit. In fact I was palced in a situation where federal law was being violated and my employer plain didnt care.
Proper channels, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked at particularly large American semiconductor manufacturer for many years.
They have their own fire response team.
If there's a fire on the site, screw the city fire department -- you're supposed to call security.
The company says that the city fire department is unfamiliar with the chemicals and equipment that they're liable to encounter. On the other hand, they have been chastised by the city police department and fire department on more than one occassion because they unnecessarily risked human safety by trying to handle their problems themselves, allowing them to spiraled out of control.
In the end, the company was frequently unable to handle these situations.
Now, here is why I'm very, very skeptical of your suggestion...
Corporations are legal entities in the eyes of the law, sure, but they have no morals. They didn't "grow up"... they are chartered by suits, snapping into life in one afternoon. Unlike real people, their first and only priority in life is financial.
I don't know you. Our parents didn't know each other. I grew up and live in Texas and I have no idea where you live. Still, I'll bet that you and I would probably agree on the "right thing to do" in 99% of the moral delimmas that we encounter, even though everything in the equation is subjective.
That's amazing to me, but it's a testiment to how societies function to keep order.
And how about corporations? Who "raised" them and what are their motives?
The real purpose of a company's "proper channels" is to mitigate their legal liabilities, that's all.
Go find a corporate lawyer and ask. They'll set you straight on this.
An employee discovering illegal porn on a computer or illegal anything is in a tough position: report it to you employer and the problem will magically go away or report it to the proper authorities and get fired because you violated some legal agreement you signed with them (under duress) the year before.
Employees caught in this situation are not fools; they're just unfortunate bastards.
--Richard
Only partly agree (Score:3, Informative)
Creating a record of your interactions is helpful because if they fire you depending on the state, you may be able to sue, or at least com
Re:Only partly agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, there are illegal things (like mp3's) and illegal things (like child porn) and they are not created equal.
Well, yes and no. I do expert witness testimony in criminal defense cases, many involving accusations of child pornography. The reality is that the feds view kiddie porn as an effortless conviction machine. Here's how it works:
If you have ANY porn on your hard disk whatsoever, they print it all up poster size and show it to a jury. After about the 450th pic of a thirty year old in pig tails, cheerleading outfit, or with shaven nether regions, technicalities such as legal age disappear from the minds of most jurors. It's easy to say to yourself, oh, kiddie porn - fry the bastard. It is quite another to consider the ramifications of having every image ever stored on any part of your system's hard drive (including deleted files, file slack, ram buffer slack, swapfile contents, etc.) and shown to 12 church ladies. And that's if the case even goes to trial. Most defense firms have no idea how to challenge electronic evidence, and often simpily do a plea bargain. In the cases I've dealt with, I have yet to see one instance of actual, real child pornography. Furthermore, of the computers I've worked on which were ever used to view pornography of any kind on the Internet, I've found enough of what passes for "evidence" these days to put the owner in prison.
Simple rules: if you like your money, don't download mp3s. If you like your freedom, don't surf porn. And don't participate in the 3 minutes hate. You may not know how finely the line is drawn beteween yourself and "those evil bastards".
Re:How about go through proper channels? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, lets say you report it to your super and he/she reports it up the chain of command. Someone in that chain decides that the best way to handle the matter is to fire the guy and be done with it. So the guy is fired. A year later some father finds out from his littl
Re:Excuse me, but WTF!!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also it encorages those pervs inbetween who are potentially abusers themselves. Since they can get the porn, and since others find it desirable to share, then what is depicted must not be so bad.
So why not look at little suzy? It's just looking
Why not touch little suzy, it's not serious...and my net friends told me they would too...
Does that make things clearer for you?
Enron: Re:Chain of command bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
They di
Re:So we let the boss decide what's illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to hold in my opinions about using net filtering software at all, and just say this. How the heck do you know he didn't ssh into his home computer and download it from there? Or go to an ftp site? Or download the thing using any method that doesn't use a browser, thus bypassing the net filter?
Not to mention the guy getting caught was a professor...I'm willing to bet he had admin
Re:He deserved to lose his job (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't until AUGUST that th
Re:Only an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you "Work within the system" and let management discipline him, or call the cops and have his ass thrown in jail?
If you say "call the cops" How is it different if you're not the victim?
If you don't, when did you lose your self-preservation instinct, and did it hurt?
Re:Only an idiot... (Score:4, Insightful)
So lets see, you find a coworker murdered in a storage closet. You go inform your manager at Waste Management, Inc. He pounces for the phone, and tells you to proceed to your next task, which happens to be on another floor. Oddly enough, the police didn't come by to question you about the body. You still let the company deal with it???
I find it incredible that anyone could think that its an employee's duty to withhold information on felony activity occuring at a workplace. Or perhaps you think one needs to be sympathetic to a company's concerns while child molestation is being committed? Its people like you that let clowns from Enron swindle investors.
And yes, its obviously the employee's duty to inform their manager first. Which is what they did. How likely is it that two employees previously with good work records BOTH lose their jobs because they simultaneously are performing substandard work?
This is not about acceptable use. (Score:3, Informative)
And technically, if you have knowledge of a felony and don't report it, YOU have committed a crime, as well.
Secondly, if you are sitting in front of my computer, yes, it's my business what you do with it. You can make arguments about the quality of a work environment, sure... but ultimately, NO, you DONT have a righ
Re:Not My Job (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, once techie noticed the kiddie porn, he was in a "damned if he does, damned if he doesnt" position. He had three choices. He could go to the cops like he did and face being fired for exposing the company to embarrasment. He could have kept his mouth shut. Howe
Re:Not My Job (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignore the kiddie porn? Ignore clear evidence of a felony?
What if you recognized one of the children in the photos? What if you (accidentally or otherwise) ran across a photograph of your neighbor's child, your niece or nephew, your son or daughter, being sexually abused? Would you just ignore it and get on with your life? If not, why would it make any difference if the children in the photographs are strangers?
Ok, maybe you don't think child pornography should be a crime. What if you ran across photographs that provided evidence of bank robberies? Murder? Rape?
!!!NUKE ALL ARABS GO AMERICA!!!
Oh, I see. You're an idiot.
Re:Not My Job (Score:5, Insightful)
Well without seeing exactly what pictures these techs saw, one can't say for sure, but I think 99% of 'kiddie porn' accusations are nonsense. They don't involve, say, someone kidnapping 5 year olds and photographing their rape and torture. Now, if this professor was actually doing that, then I'd have no problem throwing the switch on him. But something tells me that's exceedingly unlikely.
Usually what's involved is someone that didn't produce the pictures, has no way to know their provenence and in no way contributed to their making, and the pictures in question are perhaps shots of 16 year old girls on nude beaches and the like. 16 years is the age of consent in a lot of countries you know. In the US it was formerly 12, in fact if memory serves 11 in one state. And there's no way to tell what age a model was in most cases anyway - is that a 16 year old, or an 18? Without knowing the provenence of the pictures and having records to prove the ages of those involved, it's simple conjecture, hiding behind outrage to avoid proving anything.
Frankly, in the absence of evidence of some real wrongdoing (kidnapping, torture, whatnot) I'm extremely skeptical of the notion of simply possessing digital image files being a crime. I'm extremely skeptical, also, of a tech that would make a stink because he saw some naughty pictures on a professors machine. Like I said, without having been there and knowing all the details, I'll have to withold judgement, but it sure sounds to me like a couple of people that have proven themselves untrustworthy by their actions, caused a basically innocent man a hell of a lot of trouble, and deserve a lot worse than they're getting.
Re:Not My Job (Score:4, Informative)
from
http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll/Infoba
18-3-402. Sexual assault.
(d) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or
(e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or
from the US criminal code, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html
(8)
''child pornography'' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A)
the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B)
such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C)
such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D)
such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
**End of law quoting
Note that it would be COMPLETELY legal for 2 14 year olds to have sex. However, I do think that if another 14 year old was to photograph this, then that would be child porn, even though the act itself is completely legal. This is incredible to me, that an act can be legal, and a recording of that act, with the conscent of all to be featured in that recording is illegal!
Also, these laws do not take into acount the age of the person who posses the child pornography. What if a person who is 17 has pictures of other 17 year olds having sex with other 17 year olds? It would be legal for all of those people to have sex, but it is a FELONY for some of the latter to make a picture, and give it to the first person? That is really incredible.
Two hierarchies, and a note on competence (Score:5, Informative)
the article says: "For two hours, Perry tried to fix it, uninstalling and reinstalling antivirus software, but the system continued to malfunction. The next day, Perry gave the PC to Gross to back up, fearing it might crash and lose valuable data."
Any technician that "fix things" repeatedly installing and uninstalling the same software doesn't deserve the job... but that's my opinion...
We can't really judge the competence of the IT guys from how the news article describes their actions. Even if this is InfoWeek, you still can't assume that the reporter is technically competent enough to accurately sum up the actions described to him by the people he interviewed in this case. Reporters misquote and describe poorly all the time (I've been quoted in a newspaper 3 or 4 times and I think once were my words accurately transcribed).
And to report the problem to police is wrong, there is an hierarchy in the company, if they thought that the company wasn't acting accordingly to the case, the should anonymously fill a complain with authorities...
I keep seeing people saying "These people should have gone through the proper channels." This argument doesn't fly on two counts:
1) They did in fact go to their supervisor first. Their supervisor took it up the chain and police action resulted. Once police action resulted, it became a criminal matter and anyone with actual knowledge of the crime is perfectly entitled to take what they know to the police.
2) There are two hierarchies at work here, not just one, and they operate in parallel, not serially. One is your office's corporate hierarchy, which deals with matters relating to the operation of the business. The other is the legal hierarchy, which deals with matters relating to the legality of various actions. In this case, both came into play -- but the corporate hierarchy can't trump the legal one, or preempt it.
If you want another reason why it's not only justified but required to go to the law or otherwise make sure law enforcement is informed of a felony in progress in the workplace: Your office policies are a matter of contract law between you and your employer, and contracts are not allowed to force one party to commit a crime, or become an accessory to a crime. So if a crime is being committed in the workplace, you are required to report it to the legal authorities (or see that it's reported) if you know about it, and you may be required to report it to your boss.
None of the above should be taken as saying the company wasn't in the right in firing them, but the workers are justified and required to go to the law with what they knew, even if they knew it as a result of violating corporate policy (in which case the company is justified in firing them for said violations). The company doesn't get veto rights of any kind over the reporting of a crime in the workplace.
To make an analogy, if you broke into an employee's office to play a prank, and found a rape in progress, would you call the cops, or would you call your boss (assuming your boss isn't the rapist)? At that point it ceases to matter why you were there, for purposes of who to report the crime to, but it may matter in that you might lose your job over it (which is, really, as it should be).
Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Contraband MP3s/movies are one thing - child pornography is something completely different.
Re:#1 Reason why DVD-R is a must at work... (Score:5, Informative)
In what way does some anonymous pervert in New York downloading images that someone probably posted months or years previous from someplace hundreds or thousands of miles away constitute encouraging anything? Be serious for a second and think rationally about how these images are produced and get disseminated.
As a writer I've researched the matter, and the fact is that 99% or more of what most people would consider "child pornography" to be (hardcore sexual images of pre-adolescent or early adolescent minors) comes from two sources. Once-legal magazines and videos that were published in the 1970's before any child pornography laws existed, and which were later scanned or captured to digital format, are one source. Child molesters who film their abuse and pass it on to "friends" online are the other.
Now, with regard to the former, no one possessing such images can truly be said to have been encouraging anything--the abuse occurred 20 or 30 years previously, when the abusing was just as illegal as it is today yet the filming and distribution were not explicitly illegal yet. It is *exactly* the same situation as viewing concentration-camp footage--no one doing so is encouraging or discouraging anything. It's simply a heinous relic of the past. No one makes money off it anymore--it's no longer a commercial industry and hasn't been for 20 years and more.
Regarding the latter, yes, if you are one of the "friends" to whom the child molestor sent his imagery, then you can truly be said to be encouraging the abuse. However, most people who view child pornography view it as distant links in a tenuous chain, after it has been e-mailed between countless people and posted to websites and posted on USENET hundreds or thousands of times. This becomes a very gray area both ethically and morally, even though the law makes no distinction. Posting the material, passing it on along the tenuous chain, could reasonably be argued to be a subtle form of encouragement of what is depicted. That's an argument that makes some sense, though is still ambiguous. However, what if the college professor in this case merely downloaded the images for his own private viewing and never passed them on to anyone, never posted them anywhere, never became another link in the chain because the images stopped at his hard drive and weren't further disseminated by him?
Well, then the idea that he encouraged anything at all through his possession, but not dissemination, of the imagery, becomes far from convincing. In fact, I'd say the argument fails entirely--facelessly copying a digital file off a public forum like the Net isn't unethical *or* immoral on its face. Yet, it is still illegal, although one can clearly say it *might* be unjustly so.
There is no commercial industry in such material being "fed" by the consumer. That's a common misconception. The child molestor does what he does for the sex and power, and shares the material with people he deems as like-minded. Those people can be thought of as supporting him and the abuse, but somewhere along the line the imagery leaves the purview of him and his "friends" and just floats through the electronic ether for strangers to find.
However, what most people would consider child pornography is not the same as what is actually considered child pornography in the U.S. It's a much broader category, which includes nude images as well as hardcore videos of 16 and 17 year olds which were produced legally in parts of Europe until recently. In places where the age of consent was 16 and child pornography laws stated that child pornography constituted imagery of people below that age, adult material featuring 16 and 17 year olds was once as common and legal as adult material featuring 18 and 19 year olds is in the U.S.--and yet U.S. law makes no disctinction between this material and something produced by a child molestor raping a young girl or boy. One has to seriously question the rationale there, since
Re:Get the boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Go to HR. Talk to them about what you found. Give them a heads up and that you may have to involve law enforcement, but want to give the company time to put together a coordinated response.
Re:This is what we've been taught since day 1. (Score:3, Funny)
The pallet of cardboard boxes?