full-disclosure - Re: You shady bastards.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <28f529ba0706061056q54a48bd3hc0bcfda88795bb8f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:56:35 -0700
From: blah <blah@...kogre.com>
To: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: You shady bastards.

It seems there's a presumption that an employee, when he leaves, still owns
that email address that the former employeer provided.  I do not believe
that's the case, anymore than the ex employee owns the cell phone provided
by the former employer.

If a call comes into the cell phone of the former employee, or a voice mail
is left on that phone of the former employee, the employer, to my knowledge,
is in no way prohibited from listening to that message, and that is not
considered wiretapping, interception, or anything else.

I think we're conferring way too many rights to someone who no longer works
for the company.  If this were personal information sent to the old address,
the vast majority of companies make it clear that work assets are for work
purposes only, any other usage is not permitted, and electronic
communications are monitored.

But bottom line: the guy had no rights to an email address he no longer had
access to and never owned and I doubt anyone would win a case otherwise in a
court of law.

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/