need legal keylogger for system on my network

[Lourdes]

I'd speak to company lawyers first...

[directhex]

i suspect the steadfast refusal to speak to lawyers or allow people whose job it is to monitor staff to get involved shows there's something else going on here we're not aware of

[Jay]

i suspect the steadfast refusal to speak to lawyers or allow people whose job it is to monitor staff to get involved shows there's something else going on here we're not aware of

well need to be 100% sure here.

[monkeyville]

Is it called entrapment when you use things like keyloggers? Seem to remember a news article on the BBC that had a drugs case thrown out due to inadmissible evidence

[ikonia]

you don't need to be %100 sure, thats why you pass it over to HR to deal with, they then find out for you.

Its not IT's job.

[directhex]

well need to be 100% sure here.

get this through your skull

USING A KEYLOGGER ON STAFF COMPUTERS WITHOUT EXPLICIT DETAILING OF THEIR POTENTIAL USE IN EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS CAN AND WILL LAND YOU IN COURT

[TiG]

Jay,

I hope DirectHex's comments aren't taken as anger, they are just written to try and help protect you and your company from making a huge mistake.

As i said we looked into this as a company and the legal advice came back as pulling no punches. DO NOT DO this in the most stressed terms.

Making people know they are being monitored is the best way to do things.

TiG

[IAmATeaf]

So is she failing to do her job, failing to meet her deadlines or failing to meet expectations put on her? If what you suspect she's doing is impacting her work then I'd have valid reasons for having a word with her, if not then I personally don't see what the problem is.

For me for example, I eat my lunch at my desk and will then use my lunch time to surf the web, it's my time but the companies equipment which as far as my work are concerned they are quite happy with as it means that as I'm in the office I can be contacted it need be.

[Jay]

Jay,

I hope DirectHex's comments aren't taken as anger, they are just written to try and help protect you and your company from making a huge mistake.

As i said we looked into this as a company and the legal advice came back as pulling no punches. DO NOT DO this in the most stressed terms.

Making people know they are being monitored is the best way to do things.

TiG

well he is being a bit harsh, i did say quite a few posts ago I wasn't going to do it.... lol

But I doubt he would to talk to people in the "real world" like that.

i suspect the steadfast refusal to speak to lawyers or allow people whose job it is to monitor staff to get involved shows there's something else going on here we're not aware of

as for the above comment I think only he knows what that is supposed to mean


Anyway people, thanks for your help. Passed the buck back over to HR with a big "NO" as the answer.

[Splash]

I certainly had no problems interpreting the latter quote. As for the talking to people in the real world like that... I bet he does. I certainly behave the same on these forums as in Real Life.

That said, I'm completely familiar with John Gabriel's theory

[Jay]

I certainly had no problems interpreting the latter quote. As for the talking to people in the real world like that... I bet he does. I certainly behave the same on these forums as in Real Life.

That said, I'm completely familiar with John Gabriel's theory

Can you tell me then?

I just wanted some advice in a polite manner, not to have people jump up and down on my head!

I appreciate the help in this issue I just think that some times people go way over the top.

And no, he wouldn't talk to me like that in real life.... its just not how it’s done and we all know it. Could you imagine talking to a work colleague like that? Your ass would be out that door!

[Splash]

You really want my interpretation? Ok, here goes.

The fact that you were so keen to go to any lengths to not approach the people who really need to be involved in anything of this nature suggests that you were possibly doing something a little bit underhand and naughty. If you want to sack or discipline someone you have to involve HR, right?

Ok, so it's not in a polite manner, but you asked for my literal interpretation, and there it is.

[Jay]

Well your assumption was wrong. This is the danger of assuming facts without any real proof.

Anyway people, thanks for your help. Passed the buck back over to HR with a big "NO" as the answer.

Work the rest out yourself.

Anyway its up to them what they do now and if it was my department I would never have wanted to do it this way either, but its not my department so I have to support the manager and HR department in any way I can. Finding out info on this was my contribution.

[Splash]

jay_oasis - your quoted post was in the thread some 2 days AFTER directhex's. I interpreted it as it was intended at the time of posting. I'm not starting a flame war over this because frankly I have better things to do with my time, but you asked for my assistance and I gave you it.

As for assuming facts without any proof... erm, wasn't this what you were doing in the first place?

[Jay]

As for assuming facts without any proof... erm, wasn't this what you were doing in the first place?

no, hence the point of this entire thread! And where is your help exactly?

[Splash]

no, hence the point of this entire thread! And where is your help exactly?

I interpreted Directhex's comment, like you asked me to. I'll do my best to ignore your future requests for help.