Untitled Document

Now Smithers – The Board wants to be safe. So legally intercept all inappropriate E-Mails,
Internet Access, Instant Messaging and Inappropriate Images
to remove us from this “HazardSphere” thing.
 There’s a good fellow!

FACT - Employees use E-Mails and Inappropriate Images as part of their Misconduct
in the Workplace

FACT - Employers Suffer Significant Legal Exposure as a Result

The classes of Legal Exposure which can arise for corporate entities when their employees misuse E-Mail, Instant Messaging and Internet Access facilities provided for them and their exposure to lewd or pornographic images and Spam offer up a significant, a new and little understood area of exposure for the unwary.

Classes of “Misuse” being addressed by Dr. Bandey’s Current Research include (E-Terrors from Within):

Harassment by E-Mail Indirect Harassment via Internet Access
Defamation by E-Mail Distribution of Confidential Information
Distribution of Obscene Material

Possession and Downloading of Illegal Images
Unlawful Discrimination Infringement of Copyright

His Research further addresses the Legal Exposure that may arise to an employer who permits employees to be exposed to Spam E-Mail containing pornographic or inappropriate content (E-Terrors from Without).

It is necessary to understand that there is no single cohesive area, theory or doctrine of Law which applies in this area. Rather, the activity of Corporate E-Mail and Internet Access Misuse occupies a space at the intersection of a number of significant, well-established and important theories of Law.

The Research being conducted by Dr. Bandey is answering both Users’ and Developers’ questions at every level – principally with respect to UK Law and addressing other relevant jurisdictions including the USA, Australia and New Zealand.

The objective of the Research (at its simplest level of abstraction) is to eradicate the confusion over the area of the Legal Liability for Corporations when employees misuse E-Mail and Internet Access Systems with especial reference to E-Mails and Spam E-Mails (“EMM”) and Inappropriate and Illegal Image and Graphic Material (“IIM”).

The Research will be conducted to the highest academic standards, applying an intellectual rigour of Doctoral Level, and seek to address the issues at all levels – practical and theoretical.

As no single cohesive area, theory or doctrine of Law applies in this area. Rather, the activity of Corporate E-Mail and Internet Access Misuse involving Inappropriate and Illegal Image Material occupies a space at the intersection of a number of significant, well-established and important theories of Law.

This HazardSphere™ represents the space that so many organisations occupy with little or no understanding of the perils awaiting them.

Some major objectives that have been already covered include….

     

 As a Matter of Law – Exactly How does an Employer become liable in circumstances of Direct Harassment involving EMM and IIM?
      
In Real Life – Employees send hateful and hurtful e-mails to their colleagues. The harassed can claim significant damages against their employer.

     

 As a Matter of Law – Exactly How does an Employer become liable in circumstances of Indirect Harassment involving EMM and IIM?
      
In Real Life – Employees expose colleagues to lewd images on PC desktops. Employers must provide a safe working environment for their employees – even those who are not as ‘broad-minded’ as others.

     

 As a Matter of Law – Exactly How does an Employer become liable in circumstances of Bullying/Harassment involving EMM and IIM
      
In Real Life – Harassment happens in the largest and best run of organisations. Exposure to harassing e-mails or pornographic images can expose the employer to liability arising under the UK 'Protection from Harassment Act 1997'.

    

 As a Matter of Law – Exactly How does an Employer become liable in circumstances of Unlawful Discrimination involving EMM and IIM?
      
In Real Life – In the 21st Century, employees are more likely to make racist comments in e-mails than they ever would either in person or in type-written memoranda.

     

 As a Matter of Law – Exactly what are the Employer Duties to prevent EMM and IIM entering the Workplace?
      
In Real Life – Acceptable Use Policies are NOT enough. A complex network of obligations surround the Employer. Obligations that give rise to civil liability – safe work environment, safety from harassment, discrimination, psychiatric harm. Additionally – obligations that give rise to criminal liability – not possessing or neglectfully enabling the making of pornographic images of children.

     

 As a Matter of Law – Exactly How does an Employer become liable in circumstances of Employee Distribution of Pornography?
      
In Real Life – Obscenity laws apply to all and organisations may be liable for the distribution by their staff of obscene material across their IT infrastructure.

    

 As a Matter of Law – Exactly How does an Employer become liable in circumstances of Illegal Images entering the workplace?
      
In Real Life – Paedophiles make (copy/upload/download) illegal images of children in the workplace. The Law places obligations on the Employer not to possess pornographic images of children and not be neglectful in the matter of employees possessing them at work electronically.



A ‘Worked-Example’ of Personal Criminal Liability for Corporate Officers and their IT Management, when an Employee introduces Child Pornography into the Workplace – IT Infrastructure

This Research Programme is not ‘merely’ an academic exercise. All of the Research takes place in a Technology-Based Context. Reference has at all times be made to the Technology available to identify, filter and interdict EMM and IIM in the workplace.

Imagine Farson – a whole Board of Directors
and their IT Managers in the Criminal Courts.
All because of one Bad Apple!

Here is a ‘worked-example’ to illustrate one of the current hypotheses mounted in this Research and how it operates in real life.

      

Employee X has a interest in Paedophilic Images. X downloads images to his Employer’s server from the Internet, uploads images to his Employer’s server from his home collection using a Mobile Telephone/PDA supplied by his Employer, and keeps images on the Laptop supplied by his Employer.
      

The Employer has well-developed Acceptable Use Policies in place which have been communicated to every member of staff.
      

The Employer has no Image Interdiction Software Solution in place. The IT Security and Risk Manager has gone so far as to consider quotations from supplying companies but was not convinced of the Risk involved nor of the return on investment.
      

Employee Y is the administrative assistant in the Department in which X works. She is asked to forward e-mails whilst X is on leave – she discovers the Paedophilic Images and reports them to her Manager. Y is very distressed by what she saw. It triggers a depressive event which hurts her employment and career prospects.

      

The Police are called in and X is summarily dismissed.
      

Y brings a legal action against her employer claiming a safe work environment was not provided for her. She sues for £100,000.00.
      

The Police impound the Employer’s servers and Charge the Employing Company, its 7 registered Board of Directors, the Company Secretary and the IT Security and Risk Manager with offences under the United Kingdom 'Protection of Children Act 1978'.