Employees cannot delete files without permission, says U.S. court

[mugs]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mugs

Citrin says that his employment contract authorized him to "return or destroy" the data in the laptop, but the court said that he ceased to be protected by that contract when he started doing his own work.

Why?

Remember the thread a while ago about doing work on the side?

Some companies strictly forbid it. Especially if you are using their resources to do the work. That is pretty much theft.

I don't deny that it could be grounds for firing him, but I don't see how it nullifies his contract unless it's explicitly stated in the contract. If he was fired and THEN deleted the files I agree with the ruling, but that's not clear from the article.

Edit: Actually scratch that. His contract allowed him to destroy or return any of the data on the laptop at the end of his employment. Unless they made an exception in the contract for his being fired, I don't see how his doing something that merits being fired would nullify that part of his contract.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Hammerhead
The appeals court argues that Citrin's deletion violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because he accessed a protected computer without authorization.

Even though the laptop was in his possession, his authorization ceased when he violated his company's loyalty.

What proof do they have he "violated" Company "Loyalty".

Where is this "Loyalty" written in law???

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't deny that it could be grounds for firing him, but I don't see how it nullifies his contract unless it's explicitly stated in the contract. If he was fired and THEN deleted the files I agree with the ruling, but that's not clear from the article.

Edit: Actually scratch that. His contract allowed him to destroy or return any of the data on the laptop at the end of his employment. Unless they made an exception in the contract for his being fired, I don't see how his doing something that merits being fired would nullify that part of his contract.

Well that would all depend on the contract, right? Of which we have no details. He could have signed anything and it binds him (contracts, rules, employee handbook/guidelines, etc) that specifically state the employer is within their rights.

And the court upheld it.

So without seeing every document this moron signed we're guessing.

What I'm also saying is that most contracts have a way to break the contract....a way out. For example - if you do any business while employed here your employment ceases on that date.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mugs
I don't deny that it could be grounds for firing him, but I don't see how it nullifies his contract unless it's explicitly stated in the contract. If he was fired and THEN deleted the files I agree with the ruling, but that's not clear from the article.

Edit: Actually scratch that. His contract allowed him to destroy or return any of the data on the laptop at the end of his employment. Unless they made an exception in the contract for his being fired, I don't see how his doing something that merits being fired would nullify that part of his contract.

Well that would all depend on the contract, right? Of which we have no details. He could have signed anything and it binds him (contracts, rules, employee handbook/guidelines, etc) that specifically state the employer is within their rights.

And the court upheld it.

So without seeing every document this moron signed we're guessing.

I'd like to think that if the ruling was based on something that was specifically stated in the guy's contract or employee handbook, the article would have said so. But you're right, we can only really guess about that.

 

[spidey07]

I think this part sums it up pretty well...

"but the court said that he ceased to be protected by that contract when he started doing his own work. The appeals court argues that Citrin's deletion violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because he accessed a protected computer without authorization. Even though the laptop was in his possession, his authorization ceased when he violated his company's loyalty.
"

So by doing his own work he broke the contract (whatever it said, I'm sure the court reviewed it) and from then on he was an unauthorized user.

I know it sounds silly, but contracts are pretty straight forward on their interpretation. They are normally written so there are NO questions about what the outcome will be under just about every circumstance. That is of course if both parties have good lawyers.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I think this part sums it up pretty well...

"but the court said that he ceased to be protected by that contract when he started doing his own work. The appeals court argues that Citrin's deletion violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because he accessed a protected computer without authorization. Even though the laptop was in his possession, his authorization ceased when he violated his company's loyalty.
"

but thats BS. so a person can't have a pert time job working in the same field?

it does not say he was useing the computer for it (not that it should matter). Loyalty is not something that you are able to force by law.

 

[Vic]

This isn't an issue of loyalty. In real estate professions, it is illegal by law to work for 2 employers at the same time (even if one of those employers is yourself), for obvious reasons of conflict of interest.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: spidey07
I think this part sums it up pretty well...

"but the court said that he ceased to be protected by that contract when he started doing his own work. The appeals court argues that Citrin's deletion violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because he accessed a protected computer without authorization. Even though the laptop was in his possession, his authorization ceased when he violated his company's loyalty.
"

but thats BS. so a person can't have a pert time job working in the same field?

Not if the contract says he can't-- which is pretty customary clause in an employment contract.

it does not say he was useing the computer for it (not that it should matter). Loyalty is not something that you are able to force by law.

I agree.. but in this case I think there must've been a clause in his contract that the court say that prohibited outside work. If there wasn't such a clause, then I disagree with the court's premise... but I doubt that's the case.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Vic
This isn't an issue of loyalty. In real estate professions, it is illegal by law to work for 2 employers at the same time (even if one of those employers is yourself), for obvious reasons of conflict of interest.

ok thats real estate. wich makes sense. i don't see how this law can be applied to this though.

and yes it is a issue of loyalty. even the court stated that.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: MathMan

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: spidey07
I think this part sums it up pretty well...

"but the court said that he ceased to be protected by that contract when he started doing his own work. The appeals court argues that Citrin's deletion violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because he accessed a protected computer without authorization. Even though the laptop was in his possession, his authorization ceased when he violated his company's loyalty.
"

but thats BS. so a person can't have a pert time job working in the same field?

Not if the contract says he can't-- which is pretty customary clause in an employment contract.

it does not say he was useing the computer for it (not that it should matter). Loyalty is not something that you are able to force by law.

I agree.. but in this case I think there must've been a clause in his contract that the court say that prohibited outside work. If there wasn't such a clause, then I disagree with the court's premise... but I doubt that's the case.

I could swear a few years ago the courts stated taht you can't stop someone from doing outside work. or something like that. possible i am getting it confused, old age is getting me ya know!

 

[theeedude]

Personal business doesn't mean he was working for himself. Maybe he was just reading his personal yahoo email. I think it's outrageous decision by the 7th circus that will allow companies to retroactively terminate employees for conduct they otherwise don't actively enforce. You could be checking your yahoo email or your stocks for years without your boss saying anything, but then when you are terminated he can say, whoops, you were actually terminated 5 years ago when you first checked your personal email at work, and you've been actually working on our computers without authorization all this time, so off to jail you go.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: classy
Nothing really to discuss. If the equipment does not belong to you, you have no right to delete anything.

I agree, the computer was not his. He obviously used it for purposes other than what was intended.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: Turkish

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: classy
Nothing really to discuss. If the equipment does not belong to you, you have no right to delete anything.

And if you do your personal business on a computer that your employer provides...you = idiot.

i agree. but the problem comes down to say personal email etc. shouild be interesting to see the fallout heh.

no kiddin. if this guy had confidential private information on that computer (SS, credit history, health status, etc.), would this give the company the right to access it?

The answer is yes. Any information that he voluntarily puts on that company computer is now property of the company. So the moral of the story is don't put your personal business on company property. Don't utilize company property for your personal business or gain. Nothing but trouble can from this.

 

[sygyzy]

I am surprised because he said they allowed him to delete data. Even said it in his contract, and they don't dispute this clause existed. But why did it exist? Why would a company allow you to do that?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I am surprised because he said they allowed him to delete data. Even said it in his contract, and they don't dispute this clause existed. But why did it exist? Why would a company allow you to do that?

Unless they have other evidence that he was doing personal work on the computer, they are basically trying to say that erasing the data, which was allowed in the contract is a cause for retroactively terminating the contract. I think it's outrageous that the judge sided with them.