Australian Gov't Official Fired For Googling 'Knockers' From Home With Office Laptop

from the don't-go-knocking dept

Thu, Feb 10th 2011 6:58pm — Mike Masnick

If your employer gives you a laptop, which you sometimes use from home, does that employer still have the right to look at what you're doing while at home? Down in Australia a long-term government employee in the Commonwealth Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism was apparently fired after the monitoring software on his laptop notified his bosses that he had done the unthinkable and Googled the word "knockers." The monitoring software apparently takes screenshots of the computer every 30 seconds, which revealed the search. The guy fought back in court, saying that while he was using the laptop provided by the government, it was on his home connection, and he felt the intrusion was a gross violation of his privacy. The judge disagreed, saying that the guy should have known his computer was being monitored and that surfing for porn was a serious issue.

Filed Under: australia, computers, privacy

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jake, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:11pm

He might have done better arguing that he was in fact looking for a new knocker for his front door.

Seriously, who still uses that euphemism anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brian (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:28pm
  
  Re:
  Well it appears he tried something like that. Near the bottom of the article it mentions:
  
  "At first the public servant claimed the access to the pornography was accidental and then, Justice Perram said, later created an "elaborate but ultimately unbelievable explanation for his actions based around notions of research and inquiry"."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2013 @ 6:46am
  
  Response to: Jake on Feb 10th, 2011 @ 7:11pm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Busy to Debate Fully (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:16pm

searching for knockers
It appears he wasn't fired for doing the search, but for downloading pornography on a government issued computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:37pm

He was clearly looking for a Mel Brooks movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:39pm

If it's government policy for not using it to download inappropiate materials, shouldn't they just enable web filters with password (possibly even blocking keyword for web browsers to make "intentional" to break policy of no non-approved browers allowed), so they can't do it at all?

It looks more like a set-up trap to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:53am
  
  Re:
  Agreed. Personally, I think that the judge got it wrong. When the guy is at home, whether he is using a government provided computer or not, the government has NO right to dictate what he does on that computer, period.
  
  The fact is that the whole "Porn sites are virus-laded traps!" hasn't been true for a long time now, from my liberal explorations of the porn aspect of the internet.
  
  In fact, the bigger source of viruses and malware is ADS ON LEGITIMATE NON-PORN WEBSITES!
  
  I still remember my cousin surfing to CartoonNetwork.com/video on her computer and getting pwn'd by a virus on it. I traced it directly back to the ads on that website by surfing there myself in Windows with NoScript disabled in Firefox, and having Norton immediately pop up a warning about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sean T Henry (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 6:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    I disagree, the govt' owns the laptop most of the time employees sign a user policy saying that you cannot do X on our equipment.
    
    If it being on our own connection made a difference then employees could just get a wireless connection and plug it in at work and when on break look at porn. If you want to look at porn especially if your work monitors the computer and not the connection BUY YOUR OWN COMPUTER, want to use it for work then do so.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 7:48pm

Bonkers, did he do his job well? Didn't matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too Busy to Debate Fully (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:23pm

proper use
made me think - if you were given a work car and allowed to use it at home - do you think you would expect to be allowed to go drag racing in it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:39pm
  
  Re: proper use
  made me think - if you were given a work car and allowed to use it at home - do you think you would expect to be allowed to go drag racing in it?
  
  Do you think you should be fired for ogling some knockers you passed on the way?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:10am
    
    Re: Re: proper use
    "Do you think you should be fired for ogling some knockers you passed on the way?"
    
    Not only that, but in Sweden you could be charged with "pre-rape".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pitabred (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 6:04am
  
  Re: proper use
  I'd think so, as long as you did it legally and filled it back up with personal money and not on the government's dime. If they allow personal use, they allow personal use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vlad (small business blog), 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:37pm

OMGWTF?!!??
I just googled knockers, boobies, kahoonas and juggs on my work laptop. And decided not to fire myself, because, after all, I manage to get my chores done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:37pm

I'm with the judge on this one. Work laptop is for work. Home PC is for porn. Don't mix them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:54am
  
  Re:
  I'm not. The fact is that expecting someone to have two computers when you are GIVING HIM A COMPUTER TO TAKE HOME is totally outrageous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sean T Henry (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    No you are giving them a computer to do work and may do work at home.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SUNWARD (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 8:40pm

never
use a company or government computer for personal use.

Never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:12pm

Hooters
Dumbass should have searched for Hooters. At least then he could have said he was hungry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Puppy (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:12pm

Funny as in Odd
It strikes me as odd that the Australian government went to such lengths and taxpayer expense to fire the government employee. Why not simply an official reprimand and/or a demotion? It sure looks as if someone was simply after this guy. I assume it was a male, a woman would have only had to take umbrage and claim that she was researching breast cancer and using the colloquialism to ensure a thorough search.

That brings up a thought: What if an Australian female government employee searched 'wanker'? Would she be fired for searching for porn or for trolling for comments about her boss?

Seriously: This is a good lesson to anyone using company or government kit be it a laptop, car, or any other type of equipment. It's not yours it's the owner's/taxpayer's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 9:35pm

Just weird ...
Amusing stuff ... the Australian government wants to block porn and can not even keep its own computers free of it. Yeah, that is going to work out so well for them. I guess they missed that one site ... better luck next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xenomancer (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:16pm
  
  Re: Just weird ...
  Since "that one site" was google, I dare say they are fucked.
  
  ... cue: moral panic outrage internet patrol.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AW, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:08pm

From the article it did bring up a decent point that it could possibly be viewed at work because images would be stored in the cache and the guy was in IT so should have fully known that his computer takes pictures of usage. A fireman can't bring an engine home and start setting large fires just to put and an IT pro can't bring a computer home and start hacking out viruses, which is another thing he opened himself and his company up to. I side with the court on this one. Use of company property is a privilege not a right, if you get that chance to work at home, do so, but use your home computer for home stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:01am
  
  Re:
  an IT pro can't bring a computer home and start hacking out viruses, which is another thing he opened himself and his company up to.
  
  Huh? I didn't see a thing in the article about him "hacking out viruses." Do you have source for that or are you just making stuff up?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Papa Fox, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:12pm

A few extra facts:

1. The person involved was a senior public servant whose laptop held sensitive info.

2. The *only* way the laptop could connect to the internet was via a VPN.

3. The google search for 'knockers' thus went through a government firewall/proxy. Unfortunately 'knockers' was on it's banned list.

4. The person was actually responsible for enforcing the 'zero tolerance' policy - it was held that he was fully aware it.

So, the judgement might well be harsh, but it isn't unreasonable. The big deal was that the search went through a government server, because that was the only way the laptop could connect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pixelation, 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:18pm
  
  Re:
  "because that was the only way the laptop could connect"
  
  Guess he should have set it up to dual boot Linux...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:03am
  
  Re:
  A few extra facts:
  
  Source, please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny, 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:44am
  
  Re:
  If he was responsible for enforcing this policy then he deserves all he got...
  
  Besides it doesn't sound like he lacked money (senior public servant) to get a home PC for porn browsing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 12:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    How many people are going to do that when they have a PERFECTLY capable computer that is furnished by the government? Not many, in my opinion.
    
    The fact is that policies like this are fem-nazi policies, meant to catch men more than women and dismiss them for simply looking at something that other people don't like.
    
    I could understand if they could prove that he was doing it during WORK HOURS, not that he was just doing it period.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Johnny, 11 Feb 2011 @ 1:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I totally agree with you, what any one does in their free time is their own business ...
      
      ... except he was the "nazi" responsible for enforcing these rules. So it only seems fair he fell in his own trap.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How many people are going to do that when they have a PERFECTLY capable computer that is furnished by the government? Not many, in my opinion.
      
      Maybe more now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 10:30pm

He deserves it.
If he was in IT and couldn't do his search without being detected, he should be fired, obviously not qualified for the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have A Banana, 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:32pm

A Freudian slip of the fingers. Meant to Google Knockwurst. Reminds me of a scene at the Noble Franfurter (hot dog place) in San Francisco, Powell Street, circa 1975. The cook was always yelling out: "The wurst is yet to come!" (He was right.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BuzzCoastin (profile), 10 Feb 2011 @ 11:58pm

serves him right
That's what he get's for being stupid about Big Brother & working for the SOB's too. But, in the end Winston learned to love Big Brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Fool (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 1:02am

I fail to see whats pornographic about visitor alerting devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny, 11 Feb 2011 @ 2:10am
  
  Re:
  NSFW door knocker
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PandaMarketer (profile), 11 Feb 2011 @ 3:13am

I agree
If you have a take-home police cruiser, you're not supposed to use it to pick up groceries. (or hookers for pleasure)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 11 Feb 2011 @ 5:09am
  
  Re: I agree
  Yep, that makes total sense because it is much more efficient to drive all the way home, get into your own vehicle and then go back to the store you just drove by earlier.
  
  Bottom line - one should avoid anything that even looks like impropriety regardless of the inefficiencies and lack of logic, unless you are a politician which means you are exempt from the laws you help write.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: I agree
  Depends on the employer. My husband, a small business owner, permits certain workers to take work vans home (saves him from having to ferry them to jobsites), and undoubtably they use them for personal reasons here and there, like picking up stuff for home renovations or moving furniture. We've used his work van for that many times.
  
  But any damage done to the truck on personal time for personal use will come out of their paychecks.
  
  His is a really small company and he's pretty invested personally in his crew, so the trust is there. I can absolutely see a larger, more impersonal company strictly prohibiting that kind of activity with their equipment with good reason, mainly liability issues.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord_Unseen, 11 Feb 2011 @ 6:56am

Idiot
First of all, I agree, if he was an "IT" guy and couldn't get around that, he wasn't a very good IT guy. Second, if you let me borrow your laptop, would you be very happy if I was surfing porn on it? Even if I was at home when I did it? Of course you wouldn't! It wasn't his laptop to do with what he pleased, so he should have respected that. (Also, no self respecting IT person would be caught dead without owning their own desktop).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AW, 11 Feb 2011 @ 7:13am

Replies
@ Anonymous Coward, Feb 11th, 2011 @ 12:01am
It was an intentionally hyperbolic example, I'm sorry you took an example of something you can't do as statement of what he did do. Point is you can't just do what you want with someone elses tools.

@Christopher,
It's actually pretty routine in my company to bring a laptop home that is solely for owrk use. in fact We have 3 computers in my house and I bring my personally laptop into work for use on my lunchbreak. But usign a work laptop for work is not abnormal at all and again as a senior IT pro hw knew better.

@Pitabred I'ts not for personal use it's for work use. it lets you get to the jobsite faster. They are doing you and themselves a favor by saving you time. It's almost entirely for the companies benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: Replies
  It was an intentionally hyperbolic example, I'm sorry you took an example of something you can't do as statement of what he did do. Point is you can't just do what you want with someone elses tools.
  
  Ah, so you *were* just kind of making stuff up. Otherwise known as a straw-man argument.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Feb 2011 @ 11:17am

So Australia has software on all their govt. computers that takes screen shots every 40 seconds? That is a lot of storage space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]