IT Employment

Company employees viewing porn: Have the rules changed?

Most Internet usage policies contain vague wording about the repercussions employees will face if caught surfing porn sites. But after a precedent-setting case in 2006, is this enough to cover your company's bases in the event of a lawsuit?

Most Internet usage policies contain vague wording about the repercussions employees will face if caught surfing porn sites. But after a precedent-setting case in 2006, is this enough to cover your company's bases in the event of a lawsuit?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you asked most company executives and IT pros, you would find that they believe they take appropriate action when it comes to employees viewing porn on work computers. Most Internet usage policies contain wording that explains how those caught surfing porn sites are "subject to discipline, up to and including discharge." That kind of policy seemed to have the bases covered until an appellate court overturned one case in 2006.

In the case of Jane Doe v. XYC Corporation (this generic form is how it appeared in court docs), an appellate court ruled that the employer had a duty to take prompt and effective action to prevent the employee from continuing to view child pornography.

Here's the background: In 1999 and 2001, a man employed as an accountant by XYC Corporation came under fire when various other employees became aware that he was using his office computer to view pornography. This was reported to company executives who, upon reviewing his Web usage, promptly warned the employee to stop accessing pornographic sites. (One of the sites the employee had viewed several times involved child pornography.) Despite being warned a second time, the employee was caught accessing those sites again. No further disciplinary action was taken.

In 2001, this man was arrested for child pornography. Shortly before his arrest, the employee transmitted from his office computer three pornographic images of his 10-year-old stepdaughter to a child porn site in order to obtain access to it.

The child's mother, now the employee's ex-wife, sued the XYC company, asserting that its knowledge of the employee's use of his office computer should have triggered an obligation to report such misconduct to the authorities. The company's negligent failure to report such misconduct "caused, and rendered it liable for, the resulting injuries sustained by Employee's stepdaughter."

The appellate decision held that:

"An employer who is on notice that one of its employees is using a workplace computer to access pornography, possibly child pornography, has a duty to investigate the employee's activities and to take prompt and effective action to stop the unauthorized activity, lest it result in harm to innocent third-parties. No privacy interest of the employee stands in the way of this duty on the part of the employer."

The court rejected the company's argument that the employee's right of privacy barred it from investigating his private e-mail communications.

I don't think the ruling means a company will be held liable if anyone in their employment accesses a child porn site, and you're not aware of it. It means that you're held liable if you were AWARE of the conduct and didn't report it to the authorities.

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

48 comments
Photogenic Memory
Photogenic Memory

I had a customer once that said their websites weren't resolving. After some troubleshooting and confirmation via dig/nslookup; their ip's weren't being cached in the DNS server. Whoops!? Anyways; after having someone re-add them and force replication, the sites came back up. The funny thing is that I had to confirm it in my browser and then the boss walked in. It was a little awkward, LOL! But everyone laughed considering the customer was demanding help and we all new what they did. Thank goodness none of it involved kids but just consenting adults. If it wasn't I would have opened up their cabinet and turned their stuff off and reported it to the boss.

gary
gary

"...investigate the employee?s activities and to take prompt and effective action to stop the unauthorized activity..." What if the accusation was unfounded? Perhaps, another employee was using the "innocent" employee's credentials and company. Perhaps, the employer invented the accusation to fire the employee. With neutrality and after sound reflection, the employer discharged the employee believing that the accusation were found. Later, it was discovered that the accusation were unfounded? What I love about this article is the financial liability of the employer. If he ignores, he can be sued. If he fires, he can be sued. In the US, the criminal is not fully responsible for his acts. Let me take this one step further. We all should assume a moral responsibility for our mistakes. The X-wife is suing the employer for damages caused to her daughter by the employer's employee. Hey, the guy who did the crime was her X-husband. Doesn't she have any responsibility for marrying this pedophile and putting her daughter in danger? Of course, she will say that she did not know he was a pedophile when she married him. The employer did not know that he was a pedophile when he hired him.

drbayer
drbayer

I work in a very lenient environment, where most anything is tolerated as long as it doesn't interfere with job performance/productivity. That being said, there are incredibly strict policies in regards to certain types of content where laws can be infringed. HIPAA violations can lead to immediate termination. I would expect (and desire) that child porn and other illegal activities would deserve that and immediate reporting to the authorities. I'll preface the following comments with the fact that I find it inappropriate to surf porn on company time and equipment (what you do elsewhere on your own time is up to you). Some others have commented on the increased risk of virii/malware from such activity. As a compromise for those companies who do not desire to completely ban such sites, how about a company policy outlining consequences for damaging systems (OS included) through gross negligence like surfing porn?

reisen55
reisen55

Years ago, of course, it was bad and I came up with two simple solutions. One user saved a porn movie to a server. Not an office under my control but I would have loved to save OVER the porn file a Road Runner cartoon with the same PRECISE FILE NAME so when he clicks on it, he gets Wile E. Coyote. Secondly, then perform an office audit of all recent on-site and server saved files, for one user (the bad one) and come into his office with lotsa documents and announce a corporate policy of audit (rotational, it is his turn today) so we need his computer for 20 minutes to audit uploads. Ask the user to get coffee while this is being done - or - have him watch as we browse to the server and find his FILE ..... ooops.

SpamKiller
SpamKiller

The cure might be as simple as a new domain name. If the W3C set a new standard of .prn for porn domains, then you can easily block them out at the router. Protect your family and children, protect whole school networks and block the employees from surfing where they don?t belong. Add fines for domains that do not comply and now the W3C will not have to depend on donations as much.

shornsby
shornsby

Political correctness gone in short. This is totally unacceptable and the attempt by XYC company to use privacy rights as an excuse seems completely stupid to me.! This is not right and it should have been reported, no questions asked.! View porn @ work = pack your bags and go home.. End of story.!

reisen55
reisen55

Termination offense. For many reasons and not just the moral ones. Porn sites alone tend to be virus laden, so folks let us not condone opening up doors to more hell. But virus(s) infect computers through a stupid open door porn policy, then shall we then hold the employee accountable (financially) for client data compromised? Stolen records? What gives here? Oh and I am just waiting for lawsuits too by fellow workers who are offended. My rules = you are caught watching porn = fired. We can invisibly monitor what you do and where you go. (Websense does that great). We can monitor your chat software. Privacy does not exist at the office. Ever.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Legal porn Using company assets for erm, 'recreational' pursuits, that's company policy, and up to them how they enforce it. Though they should be aware that that sort of browsing can lead to very bad security risks. Porn being a favourite vehicle for all sorts of nasties. The other problem, is if another employee comes into contact with it during the course of their job, possibility of a law suit for 'subjecting' someone to offensive material is fairly high. Child porn, I really don't give a crap what the company rules are, who's privacy is involved, what the legal technicalities are, who they are connected to, it's not happening again.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

becomes their property. Their property, their rules. My 'right to privacy' goes only as far as their rules allow. I think the company blew it.

jdclyde
jdclyde

A few things I wonder. What would be the legal standing if the child porn was taken out of the issue? Is there a legal obligation to make sure an employee does not surf ANY porn at work, or is that just a companies policy? What if there is not a company policy prohibiting the surfing of porn? (assuming NOT a government job) Who in the company could/would be charged for not reporting the child porn access? Is that Federal law, or state by state? What is the charge, and penalties for that charge? As a net admin, these would be good things to know.

JamesRL
JamesRL

I was showing a group of IT people how our new blocking system worked when I tried a typcial website that should always be blocked - www.playboy.com. Ooopsie, the system for some reason wasn't working and it popped up. I was a little red faced to be sure. James

ebairead
ebairead

Hi we've documented this, and I'm sorta happy with it. Basically: If I find porn - I tell their boss. If they're paying for porn on our computers - I tell their boss. If they're sending inappropriate emails - I tell their boss. If they're using the office email to conduct a political campaign - I tell their boss. If I find material I believe to be illegal - I ignore their boss completely, and I ignore MY boss completely, I contact the cops - straight away and directly. Why. Because before being an employee, I'm a citizen. And, even before that, I'm a father. OK Eoin

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

When they call you about a problem, then stand there watching over your shoulder while you find the photo series of their spouse getting his / her genital tattoos. Good times.

ted.arellano
ted.arellano

As a database admin, I cringe at the tough of our data being compromised. Tougher laws have been enacted to penalize companies that breach their clients security.(California SB 1386 is a prime example) I depend heavily on the infrastructure folks to monitor our website usage. As stated previously, Porn sites tend to be virus laden. Anyone violating that rule should be terminated. Personally, what an individual does at home on their own time is not the companies business. I just don't want using work computers to do it.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

look good and make employees happier by not being too strict/watchful. The problem with this is litigation issues. Other companies go the other route and create a 'police state' on their networks. There are always stupid people, and these people need to be rooted out to give everyone more privacy. However, you are right, this company screwed up. Depending on what they knew (was it known about porn, or child porn?) would depend on minimum actions. If it was known about child porn, then no warning should have been given, the Police or an HR/IT investigation should have taken place. If it was just porn, the warning would have been fine. After that, when found again, no second warning, put him on suspension while an investigation takes place.

daveo2000
daveo2000

... any company considered an employee's e-mail account to be private! The server is owned by the company, the network is owned by the company, the PC the employee is using is owned by the company, any intellectual property created by the employee is owned by the company (and often the employee as an interested party) and the electricity powering it all is paid for by the company. The company management was clearly naive to an extreme degree! Boxfiddler, I think you should remove the "I think" from your last line! That company blew it.

wbock
wbock

The offending person should be fired for wasting/stealing company time alone.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Hi JD, as far as legality, it is only a legal issue is others in teh office are subject to it inadvertently or purposely. If I am viewiing porn and someone else can see my screen it can become a legal issue. As far as the company is concerned, it is not illegal as a practice, unless a minor is provided with the means of accessing it through work. Other than that, porn is completely legal as far as adults are concerned, except within the known boundaries of child porn but that would not be considered 'adult' anyway. iif teh company has no policy about surfing porn, there's no offense unless someone complains about seeing it, hearing it etc in the office. The problem is only when others are subject to it without choice. As for child porn and who is responsible, anyone knowing of illegal activity is required to report it or they can be charged with aiding and abetting illegal activity. child pornography is a federal offence, which can be applicable in many ways: -Section 1462 - Importation or TRansportation of Obscene Matters -Section 1455 - Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution -Section 1470 -Transfer of obscene materials to minors -Section 2241- Aggravated Sexual Abuse -Section 2251 Sexual Exploitation of Children -Section 2252- Certain activities relating to the Sexual Exploitation of minors -Section 2252A - certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. -Section 2260(a)(b). Production of Sexually Explicit Depictions of a Minor for Importation into the United States These are all the common federal offences however I am sure there are many state level offences also. Of course in th ecase of simply viewing child pornography and not creating,m selling or transporting it for sale or other exploitive means, the common federal charge will be :Section 2252A - certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography.

DelbertPGH
DelbertPGH

That's the biggest problem with it, and the justification I have seen publicized here at the bank. Viewing of any porn on any of the bank's equipment at any hour of the day is grounds for immediate dismissal, and I believe that it is vigorously enforced. Women feel less comfortable, even less safe, in an environment where men are drooling over onscreen smut. Women are a major component of the workforce here (80% of some divisions, close to 50% of the whole bank, and represented in rare specialties and all levels of management), and there's no urge to make them want to quit and work at a place where they aren't surprised by dirty men watching dirty pictures. Plus, some ladies have sued their employers for creating or permitting a woman-hostile environment. Apart from the time wasting element of it, you lose respect for anybody who burns time getting sweaty over smut. Imagine working in the cube next to two guys who got together at lunch hours to stare at transsexual porn (chicks with d*cks, she-males, etc.), whispering about the deeds, the length, the cup size, etc. I can imagine that getting awkward really fast. Would you want to stick around your desk or work late with them?

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"What would be the legal standing if the child porn was taken out of the issue?" Since viewing porn featuring consenting adults isn't necessarily illegal, I think there wouldn't have been an issue had it not been children. It's like the difference between selling cocaine on company property or selling any legal product on company time and grounds. One is a violation of the law, the other of company policy. Of course, the company might still have faced civil charges of operating a hostile workplace. Their mistake was in not taking action after the continued policy violations.

ltspacemonkey
ltspacemonkey

viewing porn is not illegal but does hold company liabilities. If a male is viewing porn at in the work place in a location where it is legal to do so. And a coworker becomes aware of it depending on the sexual preference and sex of the co worker it then becomes a sexual harassment liability for the company if something is not done to mitigate the issue. IT can also lead to EEO issues depending on the how items are portrayed. I had an issue at a previous employer involving a end user asking his female co worker about a gift for his wife from Victoria secret. She took it the wrong way filed sexual harassment papers on him with HR. He then had to take sexual harassment training after being found in the wrong. These are just the times we live in and being the IT support and infrastructure professionals we are we find ourselves involved.

SKDTech
SKDTech

1) In the absence of child porn or other locally illegal porn, it is up to the company to determine what it allows on its network and how to handle infractions. As long as the rules and potential punishment are laid out at the time of hiring and any time they are changed the employee has no one to blame except themselves if they get themselves fired for doing something they shouldn't. 2) Only if they can be held legally liable by local law in those cases where any pornographic access is legally proscripted and anyone facilitating access can be held liable. 3)They can't punish someone for doing something which is not disallowed by policy, although it may cause them to change policy in the future. But I beleive in the case of child porn you would be required to report it regardless. 4)Anyone who can be shown to have had knowledge of it and not reported it. To my understanding it is a federal law and there may be state laws which apply as well. These are my understandings of the laws as they are now. I may be wrong, but then again I am not a lawyer and so it is not something I have had to deal with yet. Also, I am a resident of the USA and so cannot offer opinions as to the law in other countries.

MGP2
MGP2

[i]The court rejected the company?s argument that the employee?s right of privacy barred it from investigating his private e-mail communications.[/i] I'm sure if the employee was using company email to sexually harass the CEO's wife or the CEO's husband (he said, keeping the conversation non-sexist :-) ), they wouldn't have considered his communications so private.

gardoglee
gardoglee

...a trainer forgot his laptop. He asked for a machine to set up in a room in which several hundred people were waiting to be trained on a new accounting system. The tech grabbed the first machine he found in the accounting department, knowing the necessary software would already be installed. The machine was set up in the training room, and attached to a projector. Once the machine was set up, the tech left. The trainer was drinking coffe and waiting for everyone to sit down when a screen saver kicked in which rapidly displayed a series of soft-core porn images on the ten foot screen behind him. A password protected screen saver, of course. The display finally quit when the trainer, desperatly trying to rip the video cable out of the back of the desktop, knocked the entire machine to the floor, smashing it.

unixwolf.edu
unixwolf.edu

The "Company" got caught with their pants down (please excuse the pun) and the "Company" is claiming the employee's email is private just as a tactic to escape liability. The "Company" forgot that you can not always have it both ways; you own the the network, the computer, the software, and the the employees time, you own what they do right or wrong especially if that employee has already been warned.

w2ktechman
w2ktechman

I see you escaped from Hal's prison.

Old IT Guy
Old IT Guy

While you are correct that the Company owes everything, you do have a right to privacy in your workplace. You work there they don't own you. The company is required by law to notify you of any monitoring they do and to what extent. This is usually a line in your employee handbook somewhere that "The company has the right to monitor all communications phone, email, fax and to examine your computer(s), company provided cell phone for misuse, abuse or violations of company policies". It's stupid but it is the law (Consumers and Workers Act 1993). If the company has been notified of any illegal activity they are required to report it to the authorities and I would imagine anyone who stopped it from being report would run the risk of being charged as an accomplice after the fact or obstruction of justice or some such. Like others I'm no lawyer but I did help write our policies and added verbiage where the lawyers said it was required.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

you're right! :D You appeared missing in action for a bit. Things are ok with you?

Wcoyote1
Wcoyote1

A hostile work environment doesn't stop at one gender, and can be just as offensive to the other. Should ladies have to deal with that? No. Should men have to deal with that? No. The simple fact is that the idea of comfortable vs. hostile work environments is based entirely on the "bystander". If a gentleman discovered your example of two persons viewing/commenting on said porn and found it distasteful. Then he's now in a "hostile" work environment, and has every right to make a complaint and demand that the issue be addressed. If that were not to happen, then he would be well within his rights to potentially take it into the civil arena. Just because it's a man who's doing the complaining shouldn't mean that such a case is taken any less seriously. Yet, as has been stated before, most would just laugh it off and ignore the complaint because it was a guy who made it. Which would most likely lead to an even more hostile work environment as then the rumors would start circulating. Others would begin to question the person's character, sexual bias, etc... Now, if a woman makes such a complaint, then everything seems to come to a halt. Everyone has to attend sexual harassment training, sensitivity training, abide by new policies and so forth. There seems to be a definitive bias toward one end of the spectrum.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"If a male is viewing porn at in the work place in a location where it is legal to do so. And a coworker becomes aware of it depending on the sexual preference and sex of the co worker it then becomes a sexual harassment liability for the company ..." Why only males? There are women who like viewing porn and men who would be offended were they to accidentally see them doing it. It doesn't depend on the preference or sex of the observing co-worker at all.

wlportwashington
wlportwashington

Where viewing adult porn is not a crime, it can be brought to court for sexual harrassment by another employee or a visitor to the company in question. The viewing of child pornography is a Federal crime and the viewer can be prosecuted by the Feds and State alike. The company has a legal responsibilty to prevent the viewing of such both on networked computers, but on stand alone systems as well. Anyone caught viewing child porn on a computer should be brought immediately to the authorites and not to top management where in many cases, senior executives will want all traces of the evidence wiped out - tampering.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You are completely correct on most counts except a privacy issue. The company has no obligation to set our a policy regardng privacy and use of their equipment. If you are transmitting anything over company hardware, they have 100% ownership of it, policy or not. They OWN the equipment, they provide it to you to use on their behalf, you have no assumed privacy of anything you send with it. Other than that, you are right. Anyone with knowledge of a crime, including a peer watching child porn on a computer whether on a personal or a company machine, is obligated to report it or else be deemed aiding and abetting in a crime.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I?ve seen similar cases in front of Canadian courts, who really push for citizens rights over those of an employer. In each case the company's computer system is not deemed private nor any of the email transmitted by employees through the equipment as it is intended for business use only and any personal communications must also acknowledge that the transmission is not to be considered for private use. Trying to protect yourself by claiming that your email system is private just goes to show how poorly the company was informed or that they had a clueless lawyer. Its a pretty well known fact that ANY use of company machines is not to be considered private and teh company owns 100% of any trsnmissions that are sent using its machines. When you send email on company computers and THEY OWN IT, they can interceot it without yoru knowing, redirect it, read, manipulate change and resend it or whatever they want, it is not yours and not private. I worked for a company tha had an employee looking for a deal with a competitor. I had all of his outbound email routed to my desk, the managers desk and the owners desk before it every left the office PO. We would confer and I was told when email was allowed to be passed through and when it was ot be stopped form transmission. The hwol etime teh guy had no idea his email was being read and intercepted. Needless to say, when he was released and charged for unfair business practice resulting in damage to company data and proprietary secrets he quickly tried to pull out the privacy card, much to his dismay when his entire case was ignored as it was transmissions on company hardware.

daveo2000
daveo2000

Hal has been holding me in a scissors lock... with real scissors!

gardoglee
gardoglee

One of the motivations behind some companies' email privacy concerns are cases where a court has ruled in favor of an employee whose phone conversations were monitored. Similarly with things like employee lockers, desks and the like, in which an employee has in some precedent setting cases been allowed a reasonable expectation of privacy by some courts. And yes, while the company also owns the phone, the locker, the desk and so forth, there are limits on company behavior. While most such cases where a company has been held to be in the wrong have involved other elements such as sexual harrassment or hostile workplace, the courts have in specific cases held that there is some expectation of some privacy. An extreme example was the case of a company which removed partitions in restrooms and installed cameras. OK, that was an insanely boneheaded thing to do, but once something like that has gone to court, precedents are established, and lawyers become worried about where the court will draw the line the next time. All of which is to say, the company's right to monitor is not absolute. In the case of the child porn 'privacy' was a weak and invalid excuse to be sure. Just be careful when your employer asks you to tap an employee's phone line, or to forward their email to someone else, both of which are fairly common. Such things should be limited as much as possible (e.g., copy the email to a senior HR officer, but not to just any supervisor who asks), and should be checked by a real attorney, not just "Hey, I called legal and they said it was OK." Protect yourself when you are asked to assist your employer with monitoring.

jdclyde
jdclyde

remember, this is a sue happy world we live in. Lots of dirtbags looking to get rich quick by sueing someone. Keeping that in mind, who wants to stick their neck out over what they "think" is a crime? Most don't know what the law really is, and a lot of what the average joe/jane thinks is child porn is actually protected as "art". Don't believe me? Take a walk through the photography section of your local major book store. I lost a bet over that a few years back. Add to that, a few years back, the court ruling that drawings and simulations are also not porn, it is a real mine field. They really should add in a law class for any networking and sys admin degrees as to what obligations are, and where responsibilities lie. I would LOVE a class like that, just so I could CYA.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

As this has been goin on sicne long before PC's were common, Ford used to actually send investigators to employees homes to report on drinking and cleanliness of their homes and it was COMPLETELY LEGAL!! "Hey dude, you place is a dump, you're fired!" Boy, that'd get me cleaning up the bedroom!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act- there are VERY VERY tight restrictions to how and when it is applied. Mainly it prohibits spot monitoring, random reading of stored email, recording and review of telephone conversations etc. Constant transmission review is ocmplteley legal under that law. So if your boss infiltrates ALL of your outbound email and reads it all for integrity and finds you hav broken the law, you cannot fall back on the PCWA for protection. Whether notified of such monitoring or not, it is he company's sole ownership of such tyrtansmissions and unless you can prove it was storing information to build a case, was reviewing OLD data that someone had alerted them to etc. they have complete legal freedom to track an dmoitor all electronic transmissions by emplouyees. The PCWA is only applicable in very few cases and was an ammendment to existing privacy laws to prohibit companies building false cases based on old data and using them to excuse employees without just cause.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

twice by other employees, child pron had been found on his computer. He should have been fired the moment the child pron was discovered. He also should have been (to my mind) reported to the authorities at that point. We can go on and on about a right to privacy, but when it comes to letting a creep like this get away with 'second hand' abuse of children while exercising his right, something is wrong.

rfredtelles1
rfredtelles1

granted the company doesnt own you but if you are using company resources they still can monitor you at all times even if you take a company laptope home with you they can determine you are using company resources inappropriatly if you view porn on it at home

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

Things are good for the moment, thanks! 2 relatively secure jobs. Warm, fed, and sheltered. Not much more to ask for at the moment. :)

daveo2000
daveo2000

I picked up a good gig at an investment bank that kept me very busy (that and two kids in the 10-yr old realm). Now I am down to the two kids and "looking" like JD and a variety of others here. [sigh] How are things with you?

DelbertPGH
DelbertPGH

The example involved a couple of co-workers chuckling over "she-male" porn. That's the kind of actor who has taken pills to enhance his skin and develop secondary female sexual characteristics, such as breasts and curves. However, the point of primary interest, the male genitals, are still present, conspicuously displayed as the actor is penetrated by people and objects. I'd consider that kind of viewing to contribute to a hostile work environment, because I get really uncomfortable with it. I chose the particular example, though, because I figured it would creep both men and women out. Most of them, anyway. I wouldn't want to walk into anybody's cubicle and see this or any kind of pervert crap on their screen, even if it was something I might be willing to look at on my own. I just don't want to be in contact with that aspect of people's personalities. I suspect a lot of other men don't, either. Having a flat abolition order in effect makes it easier all around.

JamesRL
JamesRL

But skip the movie with Demi Moore and Michael Douglas. James

Wcoyote1
Wcoyote1

Is technically a legal double-standard. I believe the old saying is, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". But I think we all know that the world doesn't work that way.

jdclyde
jdclyde

Most men would be laughed out of court if they tried the "get rich quick" scheme of suing over it.

jdclyde
jdclyde

I am sure that the majority of porn serfers are not going for the child porn. If the employee went to the playboy site (legal) AND there is no company policy preventing this, is the company in anyway liable, other than if the employee is a bafoon that brings on a sexual harassment suit by showing it to the babes? A much more likely situation. unfortunately, the emotional hot-potato of childporn get thrown in as if it were the rule, rather than the exception.

Reginald937
Reginald937

it's a given that company systems and data on them belong to the company. Any private data once stored on the company PC is no longer private but company property. If that guy was on our network the police would have been called the minute we noticed the websites being viewed!

Editor's Picks