Australian Gov't Official Fired For Googling 'Knockers' From Home With Office Laptop
from the don't-go-knocking dept
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seriously, who still uses that euphemism anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"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 ]
Response to: Jake on Feb 10th, 2011 @ 7:11pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
searching for knockers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It looks more like a set-up trap to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
proper use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: proper use
Do you think you should be fired for ogling some knockers you passed on the way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: proper use
Not only that, but in Sweden you could be charged with "pre-rape".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: proper use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMGWTF?!!??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
never
Never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hooters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny as in Odd
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 ]
Just weird ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just weird ...
... cue: moral panic outrage internet patrol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
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 ]
Re:
Guess he should have set it up to dual boot Linux...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Source, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
... 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe more now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He deserves it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
serves him right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree
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 ]
Re: I agree
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 ]
Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
@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 ]
Re: Replies
Ah, so you *were* just kind of making stuff up. Otherwise known as a straw-man argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]