Use And Abuse Of Computers Essay Example

caution against creating written records during or immediately after emergencies, as they can be discovered and used as evidence. Initial impressions and baseless opinions captured in the heat of the moment may later prove to be inaccurate. Copyright 2009 by Robert E Gregg. All rights reserved.

In Rowe Entertainment v.William Morns Agency, an amount exceeding $1 million was granted in Medication sofas or Danker.Michelson, 229 F.R.D.550;2003 U.S.Didst.Lexes 14447 (W.D.Teen., 2003). However, once these records are entered into the system, they become "evidence" and potential admissions.

The article suggests restricting official communication on electronic systems to messages reviewed by a coordinator beforehand, without any personal notes or messages. However, this can be challenging in today's digital age where everyone has computer access and most communication is electronic. During normal circumstances, email or electronic testing is commonly used for field and central office communication but implementing a "clearance" process could impede communication during emergencies.The article underscores the importance of addressing electronic discovery issues in legal cases involving electronic communication systems, despite the challenges they present. Currently, plaintiff attorneys are extensively searching informal emails and conducting tests to find evidence supporting their case. The presence of a comment in an email record holds more significance than oral remarks. Consequently, defense attorneys suggest ways to protect against this issue, even though it may impede effectiveness for those responding. The text also expresses concerns about employees' use or misuse of computer systems. Despite being purchased with the employer's budget and labeled as "property of" the company or public agency, individual employees may still have personal email addresses linked to their desktop computers. Various laws such as the Constitution, U.S Electronic Communications Privacy

Act, and state/local laws establish expectations of privacy and limitations on intrusion into employee usage. In the public sector, all government property and systems belong to and ultimately serve the people who own them.The public has the right to be informed about activities within government systems funded by tax dollars. To access information, any individual can submit a public records request or Freedom of Information RequestThe principle demonstrated in the case of In re Petition of Bad Of Commissions of Arapaho County 95 P.Ad 593, 2003 Cool.App.Lexis 1151 (Cool.Ct.App., 2004) is exemplified by the initial ruling made by the lower court. This ruling permitted the public release of a collection of romantic and sexually explicit email messages exchanged between a county clerk and his girlfriend using the county's computer system during work hours. These emails were considered to be "public records" and subject to requests for public information. However, this decision was later overturned on appeal in Denver Publishing v.County of Arapaho, resulting in certain emails being classified as "private". In City of St.Petersburg v.Consumer Federation of America, it was determined that personal usage records of government employees are not regarded as public records under Florida law. Another instance involving potential privacy breaches concerning Blackberry devices can be seen in Consumer Federation of America v.Dept.Of Agriculture. In this case, all contents within FDA officials' electronic calendars were ordered to be disclosed in response to a Freedom Of Information request. Despite containing personal and family details along with work appointments, these calendars were deemed as public records by the court.The discovery in the 1996 Bach v. City of Reno case revealed that staff calendars, organized through

meetings by industry lobbyists, have the potential to impact regulations on dangerous food toxins. This highlights how personal devices, like pocket pagers, can be considered part of public record based on Fourth Amendment's search and seizure rules rather than public records laws. It is important to acknowledge that different states have varying laws regarding the protection of public records for employee personal usage. For example, Florida courts provide more safeguards for employee personal usage under the ruling in State of Florida Times Publishing Co. v. City of St. Petersburg (558 So .2d487 Fl.App.Dist .1990), which exempts personal usage records from being considered public records under Florida law.

In the case V.City of Clearwater (863 So.Ad.149;2003 Flam.Lexis 1534 Flam., 2003), a newspaper requested all personal emails sent or received by two employees within a one-year period. However, the court ruled that these materials did not meet Florida's definition of public records and rejected the argument that anything stored in a publicly-funded system automatically becomes a recordFurthermore, the court ruled that personal messages were not considered public business records under the city's employment policy for accessing employee computers. A similar ruling was made in Grief's v. Final County, 2 CA-C.V.-2006-052 (Az.Ct.App., 2006). For more information on how Wisconsin handles this issue, you can obtain Bob Gregg's article "Is Your Email System Waiting to Become The Next Government Scandal" by contacting [email protected]. It is important to be cautious when using personal email and calendar for professional purposes as it could expose personal preferences and information to the public. Divorce attorneys may discover undisclosed meeting details. Employers have legal obligations under federal and state laws regarding privacy and confidentiality, including

securely maintaining certain information and monitoring for illegal use. However, there are limitations on employers' rights to investigate employees' system usage due to other laws, such as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Public sector employees have more protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" compared to private sector employees and can exercise their right to express themselves on matters of public concern using their employer's system.The Omnibus Crime Control Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and Electronic Communications Storage Act explicitly prohibit unauthorized interception and disclosure of electronic, oral, or wire communications. Violations of these acts can result in both civil and criminal penalties.

Despite having the authority to access email and other information within their own systems, employers cannot access external electronic communication services like Yahoo.com without consent.

The Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (HIPPO) is in place to protect medical information privacy and prevent misuse. Violations of HIPPO can result in civil penalties of $25,000 per year for each violation and potential criminal liability. Compliance with this act requires implementing an appropriate information management process.

The protection of employee medical information privacy is also mandated by the Data Accountability and Disclosure (DAD) Act and the Family Educational Privacy (FEM) Act. The Family Educational Privacy Act can be found under 20 U.S.C § 232.

Several laws safeguard the confidentiality of records for participants in educational programs that receive government funds, workplace job training programs, and various state, county, and municipal educational activities not associated with schools.
The laws outlined in this text cover various aspects of electronic communication and online activities. One such law is the National Labor Relations Act, which treats electronic systems and email as equivalent to

verbal discussions and hallway bulletin boards when it comes to employees' collective activities and distribution of union literature. Employers who violate these laws may be charged with unfair labor practices.

Another relevant law is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S. Code 5512), which limits the liability of service providers for copyright infringement related to copyrighted electronic information.

Similarly, the Communication Decency Act (47 U.S. Code 5230) offers protection to internet service providers by shielding them from liability for transmitted messages.

Additionally, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S. Code 51030) prohibits a range of acts including record destruction, identity theft, unauthorized system entry, and record alteration.

Under the Transmission of Wagering Information law (18 U.S. Code 51084), using wire communications for betting purposes is strictly forbidden.

In addition to these federal laws, individuals can pursue legal action under state laws or tort actions involving invasion of privacy, defamation, theft of trade secrets, and negligent supervision.

The interception and disclosure of wire, electronic, or oral communications are defined by Wise.Stats.968.31.If Workers Compensation preclusion does not apply, office gossip through email communication can lead to defamation and privacy cases. To obtain more information about office gossip, you can request the article "Office Gossip" by Bob Gregg at [email protected]. Additionally, Worker's Compensation does not preclude harassment cases that may arise from office gossip. This type of gossip often focuses on sexuality, sexual orientation, race, religious morality(lack thereof), and spreading rumors about diseases or psychiatric conditions of others. These cases fall under the category of creating a "hostile environment" according to Title VI, the DAD, and state equal rights laws such as Strauss v.Microsoft (814 F. Supp 1186 [SYDNEY 1993] e-mails about the

"spandex queen"). Email comments made by supervisors can serve as evidence in discrimination cases like Satsuma v.McLeod USA Telecoms serve., Inc., (317 F.Supp2d 334 [D.Utah 2004]) or 154 Fed.APPC.715;2005 U.S.APP.Lexis25567 (10th Cirri., 2005). Violation of harassment and computer use policies that prohibit viewing or sharing pornography on office computers can result in termination. This was demonstrated in United States v.Simons, 206 F.Ad 392 (4th Cirri.). In Doe v.EX.Corp..382 N.J.Super.122 (N.J.S.Ct., 2005), an employer was held liable for not reporting child pornography discovered on an office computer to the police, which led to subsequent sexual abuse of the stepdaughter by the individual involved.The court determined that if the employer had promptly reported the illegal material, it could have resulted in an arrest and potentially prevented or reduced the abuse. As a result, the employer was held accountable for the harm suffered by the stepdaughter. Additionally, there are laws in place to protect information confidentiality in both government and private sectors. Government employees are allowed access to sensitive records but are prohibited from disclosing specific information under penalty of legal action. Similarly, federal and state laws such as DAD, FEM., HAIFA, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act safeguard personal information confidentiality within the private sector. These laws also apply to employees who may violate them by improperly accessing or disclosing such information. Any violations can lead to liability for both the employee and their employer. To maintain confidentiality and avoid legal issues, it is crucial not to use office resources like computers and equipment for personal purposes. Even if an employee has access to job-related information, they do not have permission to access, use, or disclose

it for non-work reasons. An instance where these rules were breached involved an employee using the company computer system to access confidential salary and investment account details of their co-workers. Consequently, this employee was terminated but filed a discrimination case based on race and age.
The court dismissed a case affirming that termination was justified. Another incident involved a male manager claiming preferential treatment for female employees. He used salary and benefit records as evidence but was fired for violating confidentiality rules. The court ruled that using confidential information for personal purposes is a severe violation deserving termination, regardless of discrimination concerns.

Not all activities in one's job are directly related to their responsibilities. In some situations, employees may engage in actions outside their employment scope. These actions can be protected by a confidentiality policy and used as a defense in specific scenarios.

An employer successfully defended against a privacy case by proving that an invasion of privacy occurred at work but was unrelated to job duties. This situation is illustrated through the example of a lab technician in healthcare accessing medical records of her husband's ex-wife and sharing the information with him.

As a result, both the technician personally and her employer faced legal action for violating medical privacy laws, negligent supervision, and failure to uphold proper employment standards for personal reasons.The employer cannot be held responsible because the technician's actions did not benefit them, and her intention was not to serve the employer while accessing these records. The court case titled Cornered et al.V. Advanced Healthcare played a significant role in considering the company's policy on maintaining patient record confidentiality. This policy explicitly prohibits employees from accessing

records of family members or others out of curiosity or for non-job-related purposes. All employees, including the mentioned medical technician, have individually acknowledged and emphasized the importance of this key policy by signing it. Copies of these policies are kept in personnel records.

The current case deals with situations like theft or criminal activity committed by employees who misuse work computers for personal gain, often involving stealing business information or trade secrets. Laws exist to prevent information theft, misuse, and piracy in order to protect against such crimes. Identity theft is a major concern that can originate from various sources such as employees themselves, clients, or public records. Ensuring system security is crucial to prevent such incidents.

It is worth noting that despite technological advancements and the prevalence of remote work practices where individuals frequently bring electronic files home on internet-connected laptops, most cases of identity theft still occur through physical means like stealing paper documents.In 2006, the U.S Veterans Administration experienced a security breach when two laptops containing personal information of millions of veterans were stolen while being used at home. Similarly, Aquifer, a company specializing in identity theft protection, had to inform the public about a stolen laptop during a business trip that contained personal information for 2,500 employees (representing 52% of their workforce). These incidents highlight the risks associated with employees taking work data home.

Additionally, it is worth noting that these laptops are also used by employees' children for gaming purposes and may unknowingly share sensitive information with others. Given the highly regulated nature of personal information, especially in the private sector, there are established regulations by the Federal Trade Commission regarding the disposal

of sensitive employment data. Employers with one or more employees must comply with these regulations which require proper elimination of all personal data such as phone numbers, addresses, and Social Security numbers when clearing personnel files.

Violations of these regulations carry penalties amounting to $2,500 per instance and former employees can even initiate private lawsuits. It is interesting to consider this in light of the growing need to retain records for longer periods. Consequently, taking or erasing company information is strictly prohibited and an employer has every right to take legal action against an employee who intentionally deletes company data from a computer system.The text discusses the potential consequences of unauthorized activities involving a company-issued computer. It focuses on a specific case where an employee's job was to find real estate properties for their employer. However, after returning the computer, it was discovered that the employee had installed software designed to erase all collected information. As a result, the employer filed a lawsuit against the employee under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

The text also highlights various limitations imposed on "proprietary information," including copyright laws, patent laws, finance regulations, and trade secret protection measures. These safeguards protect both online and offline content that users may not fully understand.

Furthermore, engaging in unauthorized activities such as downloading, using, or sharing protected software without proper authorization or printing, using, or disseminating confidential information can violate privacy, finance, health, and "dumpster diving" laws. Infringements often lead companies or individuals to pursue legal action in order to seek damages. Both the individual who committed the abuse and their employer may face litigation as a consequence.

To prevent these issues from

arising in the first place, it is crucial for usage policies to clearly state that unauthorized use of proprietary information, trade secrets, and confidential information is prohibited. Employees who violate these laws could be held personally liable for damages and legal fees while employers can also hold them accountable for their actions.In addition, it is important to note that some employees may participate in online gambling while on the job, which could lead to fines or imprisonment if wire communication is involved in the betting process. Both federal and state laws strictly forbid gambling, meaning that every bet made can be considered a prosecutable offense. Furthermore, facility owners can also face legal consequences for permitting gambling activities on their premises. Employers themselves can be held accountable for negligent supervision if they fail to prevent illegal activities from occurring on their systems and subsequently cause harm to others. To fulfill their obligations, employers are required to establish policies, monitor employee activities, educate supervisors, and promptly report any unlawful behavior observed.

Under the National Labor Relations Act and state labor laws, employees are safeguarded when participating in "concerted activity," which encompasses using email and electronic platforms for discussions regarding unions or shared concerns. However, it is crucial for employers to exercise caution when monitoring personal communications among coworkers to avoid allegations of Unfair Labor Practice or retaliation. While similar to bulletin boards in function, email systems offer employers greater control over information flow. The advancement of technology poses new challenges such as privacy issues and global positioning capabilities. Employers now possess the means to track vehicle locations and provide devices with this capability as well.The text discusses the

use of tracking records as evidence in divorce cases to gather information about extramarital affairs and track people's whereabouts during evenings and weekends. The data collected from phones and laptops carried in personal vehicles can reveal attendance at specific events like fundraisers, treatment center visits, or red light districts. The Bush Administration supported the installation of tracking devices in newly manufactured vehicles under the U.S. Patriot Act, allowing for recorded conversations with a "listening option." While subsequent administrations discontinued this initiative, it remains technically feasible. Tracked employees have the right to file invasion of privacy cases against employers who secretly track their location, therefore employers should inform and obtain written acknowledgement from tracked employees. In 2005, Cowcatcher.Com pioneered implanting identity chips under their employees' skin in their arms as ID cards and access keys.Overprice Corp., approved by the federal government for marketing these chips, has implanted thousands of them in employees from various companies. Concerns arise regarding how terminations will be handled with the use of advanced technology, whether it is done by the company or delegated to an HRS assistant. On June 1, 2006, Wisconsin became the first state to outlaw involuntary microchip implants and imposed a daily fine of $10,000 for violations. The risks associated with using laptops while driving surpass those of using cell phones alone. Surprisingly, many traffic accidents involve laptop usage. If records obtained by a plaintiff's attorney reveal work-related laptop usage during an accident, legal proceedings may involve the employer. Company policies should prohibit both unsafe laptop and cell phone use. Generally, employers cannot take disciplinary action for off-duty use of personal computers and websites as long as it

is legal. However, if the employee's identity is easily identifiable or their actions significantly affect their job role (especially for public employees), there may be a "compelling interest" for the employer to take action. In one case involving sheriffs deputies engaging in pornography on a "private" pay-per-view Internet porn site owned by another deputy's wife (who resigned prior to termination), two deputies were terminated.The court upheld the Department's rule on off-duty conduct because it undermined public confidence in police operations.The San Diego v. Roe case in 2004 nullified any constitutional rights to privacy or freedom of expression for officers involved, as stated in the decision (543 U.S. 77). This case also supported the termination of a police officer engaged in off-duty pornography activity, as it was not considered protected under the activity of public concern. Police officers or key officials can be fired if they display racist behavior or maintain racist websites while off-duty. Lockout v.Giuliani (447 F.3d 159) established that the First Amendment does not require a government employer to tolerate insults towards those they serve and protect. Pappas v.Gallivant (290 F.3d 143), which was denied cert by the Supreme Court (539 U.S. 958), mainly discussed off-duty activities and their implications for employees' personal websites, blogs, message boards, and social networking platforms. These activities have the potential to defame employers or disclose confidential workplace information from employer records. The question whether an employer has the right to discipline employees and access personal sites for discovery needs clarification. When items are publicly displayed on blogs or social networking pages, there is no expectation of privacy, allowing employers to view them in most cases.However, certain protections

exist under the National Labor Relations Act that allow employees to openly criticize their wages, hours, and terms of employment.
Public sector employees are protected by the First Amendment when raising issues of public concern. It should be noted that personal grievances, opinions, and displays are generally not protected in these cases. When considering disciplinary action or evaluating off-duty conduct, employers must consider various factors including the impact on the workplace and business operations, an employee's ability to report for work properly, suitability for continued employment, potential refusal by other employees to work with the offender if applicable, and any danger posed to other employees within this context. The Federal Trade Commission is implementing regulations that could hold employers accountable for positive statements made outside of work about company products or services. Such exaggerated claims may be seen as company advertising and the employee may be viewed as a representative of the company. Therefore, it is crucial to establish policies and provide employee training on personal and electronic expressions beyond work while carefully balancing employer concerns with employee rights and privacy. Violating confidentiality can lead to termination regardless of where the breach occurs if covered by policy or law.When it comes to accessing a personal website without permission, there are various factors to consider. If the site is public, there is no invasion; however, accessing a private site restricted to specific individuals can infringe upon an employee's rights. In Snoop v.Hawaii Airlines (236 F.A d 1035), the court concluded that using deceptive means to access an employee's "restricted" chat room constituted an invasion by the employer.

Public chat rooms and e-bulletin boards often maintain anonymity, making it

challenging to identify those responsible for illegal defamatory messages. However, service providers are protected from liability for content posted on their network or message boards under the Communication Decency Act. While individual senders of defamatory messages may face legal action, service providers are rarely sued in such cases.

In cases where offensive statements are made, individuals can file a lawsuit against an unknown defendant (referred to as a Doe case) and use discovery rules to uncover their identity. This approach was taken in the Mediumistic Inc.V. Doe case in New Jersey.

When using online services, users are not obligated to provide their real name or email address. Courts apply a heightened First Amendment analysis when deciding on allowing discovery or imposing liability in public forums like the Internet. This means that even private sector employees have Constitutional rights, as established in the Doe v.The Mart.Com, Inc.case.Employees in multiple states have sued their employers over inaccessible computer systems, leading some states to file lawsuits against software companies for delivering non-compliant products. It is advisable for organizations to establish a comprehensive policy that addresses proper use, security measures, and misuse of computer systems. Whether personal use should be allowed or prohibited depends on the organization's preference. Some organizations choose to prohibit all personal use due to concerns about abuse. However, enforcing these policies can be difficult and face resistance from employees, despite being legally valid and within the employer's rights. Many employers prefer implementing "reasonable usage" practices along with monitoring policies. To prevent improper use and minimize personal usage, employees must be informed about management's monitoring and recording of their activities. This policy also extends to personal devices, which

will also undergo monitoring.