Workplace Violations

Did you know that 58% of employers have fired workers for Internet and email misuse? And 48% justify employee video monitoring as an effort to “counter theft and violence?” According to the “2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey” of which 304 U.S. companies participated in, computer-monitoring results have led to the highest cause of employee termination. These companies used several tactics to eavesdrop on employees while claiming to be managing productivity or for security purposes. Some argue that surveillance is absolutely necessary to help protect and grow a business; others argue that employee and customer rights come first. However, companies that use such tactics often violate the privacy of individuals, exploit their private information and even punish those that do not conform to their standards.

Everyone that goes to work expects to go to a place where they will not be harassed and will work in a friendly and fair environment. There are many instances of a hostile work environment, including sexual harassment, bullying, and berating due to religion, just to name a few. Likewise, there are instances where employees may think they are dealing with a hostile work environment when in fact they are not, such as rude and obnoxious coworkers. Employees and companies alike should be aware of what constitutes a hostile workplace environment, harassment, etc., so as to avoid any possible litigation.

Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. In the workforce, the issue of racism and discrimination has been brought to the center of conversations around the world. Companies claim to be “colorblind” and not hire somebody based on their race or gender, but the employment rates among minorities and women around the world is significantly lower than the majority in the given country. There is also the growing issue of minorities, such as blacks in america, making significantly less money than whites. This issue affects people all around the world who happen

When that technology is used to view, collect or disseminate inappropriate content, again employers have cause for concern. Use of workplace computers to access and distribute pornography, for example, frequently results in discipline and workplace harassment complaints. In some cases it can even result in serious criminal investigations.

1. Use of on premise security cameras to spy on the activities of fellow employees

The following memo describes the events that have taken place in Saint Leo Police Department as it relates to the Sheriff’s findings in Officer Narcissus office computer. It will contain a summary of the Sheriff’s and Officer Narcissus’ actions, as well as their reactions to the other’s stance. As the special assistant to the Sheriff, the author of this compilation will provide as much detail about the legal ramifications the Sheriff may face as it relates to this situation and conclude by providing some recommendations to resolve the situation at hand. The author will back up the recommendations with laws

So my norm violation will revolve around the work I do. Currently I am a Regional Safety Manager for a company named Hydrochem. As a safety manager, it is my job to make sure everyone has the knowledge, tools, protective equipment and training needed to perform their job safely.

In this growing day and age, as modern technology becomes more advanced than ever thought possible, there are a multitude of ways people are committing federal crimes, under the disguise of protecting their individual privacy. First Amendment states–“Congress shall make NO law”—and holds instead that there be no unreasonable search and seizure. Meaning, the framers of the Constitution

In doing so, the Ninth Circuit renounced the “broad” approaches use principles of agency. The Brekka court overtly denied holding an employee liable under the CFAA’s “without authorization” language based on an agency theory in order to avoid interpreting the CFAA in a “surprising and novel way[] that impose[s] unexpected burdens on defendants.” Through Brekka the Ninth Circuit advanced what it called a “sensible” interpretation of the CFAA, giving separate meaning to the phrases “without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access” by focusing on the “employer’s decision to allow or to terminate an employee’s authorization to access a computer[.]”

Due to the fact he was no longer employed under this department, Defendant was no longer privy to access sensitive SSD data, including passwords. Defendant continued to work for Intel as a private contractor and used a gate program to access an Intel computer from remote locations for e-mail purposes. Schwartz was warned to cease his use of gate programs twice; he argued after the first warning his alterations to the program made it secure but an administrator reminded him his usage of the program violated company policy. Shortly after, Defendant downloaded the password-cracking program “Crack” and ran it on several Intel computers before finding the log-in information for authorized user Ron B. Defendant used this information to log into the authorized user’s computer. Defendant copied the SSD password file from that computer onto another one, where he ran the Crack program to obtain the passwords of 35 more SSD users. Defendant believed if he could expose the flaws in the company’s security then he could regain his lost reputation. Upon returning from teaching classes in California, Defendant ran Crack on the SSD file once more on a superior personal computer. His activity was detected by another Intel administrator who—with other administrators—contacted the

What would you do if you ever found out that one of your coworkers are doing something they shouldn’t? There are many different ways you can handle the problem. You could just let it go and do nothing, report the violation to my supervisor myself, or take care of the problem yourself and never let it go until solved.

“The Playpen Story: Some Fourth Amendment Basics and Law Enforcement Hacking” is an analytical blog post published on the Depplinks Blog section of the Electronic Frontier Foundations (EFF) website by Mark Rumold. Mark Rumold is a senior staff attorney at EFF, a non-profit organization with a stated purpose of: “defend[ing] free speech online, fight[ing] illegal surveillance, advocating for users and innovators, support freedom-enhancing technologies”. This article is one of several, written by Rumold covering the FBI investigations and prosecutions connected to the child pornography hosting Tor site called “Playpen”. The author analyzes how the FBI actions during the investigation relate to the Fourth Amendment and proceeds to contrast them with the established legal precedence. The author argues how the hacking performed by the FBI are either searches or seizures and thus covered by the Fourth Amendments. He interprets the courts’ rulings on these cases and translates them into future implications for privacy. Author’s objective tone with a hint of concern indicates that this article is for readers 25 years of age or older valuing their privacy and constitutional rights. While he could have included greater detail, it would turn off his intended audience by providing superfluous information unrelated to the analysis he is conducting. Lack of case details and references to previous postings and articles shows that he is writing for

This essay analyzes the morals and ethics of the amendment to Rule 41 (Search and Seizure) of the federal rules of criminal procedure (FRCP). The ethical theory used to analyze the amendment to rule 41 of the FRCP is act utilitarianism (based off of the ‘greatest happiness principle’) which states that an action is considered moral if its benefits exceeds the harms to the affected parties. With the use of this ethical theory of act utilitarianism, it will be demonstrated that the amendment to to Rule 41 pertaining to electronic remote search and seizure of computer data is morally and ethically unjustified. Firstly, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. constitution is violated by the amendment to rule 41 which would eliminate the “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” of citizens. Additionally, the amendment to rule 41 of the federal rules of criminal procedure can act as a double edged sword, since personal information can leak out to the public. Finally, the amendment to rule 41 lacks a clearly defined mitigant to warrantless remote search and seizure of computer data, which allows for any computer to be remotely searched (hacked) without the knowledge of the owner. The act of electronic remote search and seizure is a violation of personal privacy rights and is not only unethical but also unconstitutional.

When a person is discriminated against their race, gender, and age. This is some of the most evident forms of discrimination. I believe the most qualified person should receive the job, regardless of race or ethnicity. When employers disrupt workplace discrimination, legally they can be sued by the person or persons and receive bad publicity. When a employee hurts from unfair treatment due to their race and religion. Proving discrimination is difficult as is can occur in a number of work-related areas, during your initial hiring phase, during training or even after you get the job and have to participate in job evaluations. As far as ethnicity goes, Americans come in every color, shape, and size and a successful business is one that understands

While the world has unanimously advanced and is more accepting of change, the workplace continues to be a place of discrimination, prejudice and inequality. Discrimination is broadly defined to ‘distinguish unfavourably’, isolate; and is context based (Pagura, 2012). Abrahams (1991) described the workplace as an ‘inhospitable place’ where gender disparity and wage gaps persist (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015). Among other states and countries, the Australian government actively implements and passes laws to protect and maintain equal employment rights. While the objective of these laws is ‘to eliminate discrimination,’ the regulatory mechanisms in the legislation are largely ineffective at achieving this ultimate goal (Smith, 2008). However,