Don’t worry, it’s not in the US. What’s the gif for tearing out my hair?
2 Likes
Unfamiliar with Canadian labor laws, but that seems like an obvious wrongful termination lawsuit.
1 Like
Agreed. But there is (or should be) more at play than just compensation for wrongful termination.
1 Like
If the description of images that “start popping up” is accurate this seems like it might involve some fairly serious security negligence as well.
It’s not as common anymore, because discrete malware(or ransomware) pays better; but having dubious windows just “popping up” has been a good sign that your computer may not be entirely your computer anymore for absolute ages. ‘Just’ adware if you are lucky.
Even if you were wholly indifferent to ‘hostile workplace’ related issues; or the pop-ups were for g-rated boy scout kittens exclusively, it’s equally IT’s prerogative and obligation to dissect a computer exhibiting that sort of anomalous behavior in as much detail as they seem forensically useful before at least wiping it; 8f not retiring it. All the more so if it touches sensitive data and/or credentials.
If you are important enough to think that IT doesn’t apply to you; that usually indicates either a personality disorder or access to data valuable enough that you Are Not above IT’s concern. We have to protect The Shareholders from data breaches, after all. You don’t hate shareholder value, do you?
In this case, it wouldn’t surprise me if IT was screwed either way: just looking the other way would require strategic inattention that looks ever closer to incompetence or negligence depending on the organization’s security sophistication; while failure to look the other way is, clearly, not something sleazy C-level’s leadership Bros will let slide. Nasty situation all round; and probably a reflection of wider rot.
Things like this always make me glad that I’ve never had the…pleasure…of stumbling across anything particularly serious from people who can’t keep their hobbies on their own equipment. I think a pedo would probably be the worst.
The description is too vague for asserting anything.
When I read it, I thought it was either the program that converted the images or those thumbnails that show a preview of image (I always get an inconsistent behavior from them when moving files).
But, that also considers that the facts portrayed on the link are completely true.
There is not way to verify/reproduce that the image did flash while being transferred, and it looks like a good excuse for “we shouldn’t have open those files, but we did and now we have to report them”.
This isn’t for try to discredit the findings anyway, also because I don’t think that the requirements used in criminal law (evidence only matter if obtained from legal ways) apply here.
It seems that the accusation of misuse is not contested, and maybe the source of the noise only appears in the news article and it might be more clear in the internal process.
Perhaps I should have said “IFF the description of images that “start popping up” is accurate”.
If the article is just plain wrong on the details, or misleading in other ways, anything I said on the premise that the article was accurate is subject to reevaluation.
I’d certainly be deeply undersurprised if a generalist publication made an absolute mess of relevant technical details; and articles that contain material errors of other sorts are hardly uncommon; but (without an independent scoop to contribute) I can only really work with the facts as presented; couching my assessment as being conditional on those being accurate.
2 Likes
“explicit photos on president’s computer”
Too bad Trump is probably post-PC.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
