Recently in Computer Use Category

November 20, 2012

Four lessons employers can learn from the Petraeus scandal

David H. Petraeus 2004Yeah, I know, this post would have been timely if posted last week, when the Petraeus news actually surfaced.

Well it is -- err, was --  timely. That is, my Dilworth Paxson colleague, Sehyung Lee, did post "Attennnnn-tion! 4 Important Lessons From the General Petraeus Scandal" over at the White Collar Defense Update Blog last week. I just didn't get around to reading it until last Friday and, by then, it was too late to link to it from this blog, and...

You get the point right? (I'm too lazy to offer you any original content today).

Sometimes Generally, you get what you pay for with this blog. Maybe if you sent me a few dollars now and again, I'd step up my game.

(Kidding. Compliments Twinkies Bearer bonds only.)

June 4, 2012

The golden rule on forwarding emails at work

I'm with the Stupid network"An employee who emails pictures of Trayvon Martin's head cropped onto the body of a dead police officer is a thought-leading change agent." 

-- Absolutely nobody in HR

No, he gets fired.

According to this story from Chris Biele at FOX40 News in California, an employee in the state's Employment Development Department forwarded that picture with the message, "Would it make people feel any different if this face was on a dead pig?" And of course, the picture made it onto Facebook.

Just terrible.

Here's my simple golden rule on forwarding emails at work:

"If you would feel at all uncomfortable about having to explain from the witness stand to a federal judge or jury why you forwarded that email, it's best not to hit send."

May 18, 2012

That's what they said: "Naked ambition" and a "voyeur boss"? (And more...)

theysaid.jpgAs evidenced by the nature of this blog post and the picture on the right, it's best not to leave me in the office alone, unsupervised, with an iPhone, and App Store credits, as I punch this out at 10:52 at night on a Thursday. (And yet, somehow, the Wall Street Journal deems me quotable).

Rest assured, everything I do, I do it for you. And, best of all, it's all employment-law related. Love my job!

(My wife has to be cool with me using our wedding song for this blog post, right? Love ya, baby! "Take me as I am....")

And that's what they said...

Now, you'll have to excuse me as I try to beat the locksmith to my house (kidding...)

February 24, 2012

Want to keep your job? Don't do this if you're bored at work...

Thumbnail image for englishwig.gifSome folks -- not you and me, but some folks -- can watch porn at work and not get in trouble; they work in the porn industry.

When you're an employee of the courts -- a courtroom clerk, to be precise -- it's frowned upon. 

Oh, you'll never guess what happens next. Well, maybe you can. See how right you are after the jump. Fair warning, however, this is one my less tasteful posts. And that's saying something...

* * *

Continue reading "Want to keep your job? Don't do this if you're bored at work..." »

February 6, 2012

The so-called "privacy" of employee emails

passwordprotected.jpgHumblebrag alert.

Reporters call me all the time. It's a wonder that I can get any work done.

Why, just last week, I was speaking to a reporter about an action recently initiated by current and former employees of the FDA, alleging that the agency unlawfully monitored their private emails. During our discussion, I mentioned another case -- this one called Stengart v. Loving Care Agency -- in which the NJ Supreme Court held that an employee who emails her attorney from a company computer may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those emails provided that the employee uses a password-protected web-based email account.

Ah, serendipity! The following day, I read about another case decided last week in which the NJ Superior Court reaffirmed that many employee emails are not private. More on this case and a best practice for employers after the jump...

* * *

Continue reading "The so-called "privacy" of employee emails" »

June 13, 2011

Does an employer's computer policy trump the marital privilege?

private.jpg

Let's assume that your company -- as many do -- has a computer-use policy, which underscores that electronic communications sent over your network are not private and the company has the right to monitor all such electronic communications. 

Under federal law, communications between the spouses, privately made, are generally assumed to have been intended to be confidential, and hence they are privileged. What if a husband and wife who work for your company email each other over your network? Are these emails subject to the marital privilege, or does the computer-use policy eviscerate it?

Find out after the jump.

* * *

Continue reading "Does an employer's computer policy trump the marital privilege?" »