Adult Website Use At Work Leads To Hacker Conviction

safesorry notes that several sources are talking about a recent tale of woe about Richard Wolf, a lonely guy looking for love in all the wrong places. Wolf used his work computer to visit the Adult Friend Finder website and upload personal nudes to prospective "friends." Now he's been convicted under a "hacker" law targeted at employees who steal data or access information they shouldn't. "Richard Wolf acknowledged that his behavior was inappropriate when he used his work computer to upload nude photos of himself to an adult web site and view other photos on porn sites, but he didn't think he should be convicted of hacking for doing so."

Comments

Just fire him

[brkello]

I think losing your job would be punishment enough in this case.

Most of us are criminals

[QuantumG]

Every geek worth his geek-badge has bypassed the company web-filter. According to this law, that's hacking. That whole "theft of services from office" part was overturned but only because they couldn't show his work had actually suffered from his actions.. whereas if all you do at work is post on Slashdot and your work suffers, you could be charged with a crime.

So yeah, basically, if you have an employer who is a big enough dick, most of us are criminals.

Re:What the fuck?

[digitalunity]

We don't live in a world where news organizations do follow-up.

There's the sound bite. The 2 minute outrage. Then everyone forgets about it.

Delivering the news is only profitable while the news is still new. Follow-up is just too boring to be profitable apparently.

Re:Stupid Law

[digitalunity]

Extrapolate that policy to it's finality. A company can decide at any time to change their policy and any use they don't agree with, pornographic or not, becomes a felony.

Watch out /.ers, it's a felony to browese at work now.

Persecution, not prosecution

[unlametheweak]

The case began when Larry Wise, the Superintendent of the Shelby City Wastewater Treatment Plant, where Wolf was employed, was deleting old files from a work computer and found a nude photograph of Wolf.

and

Initially he was suspended while police investigated the case, but was promoted after he returned to work. He lost his job, however, when he was convicted of the charges.

The important question would be why his employer even phoned the police in the first place. This is one of those bizarre situations where it is obvious that the person was persecuted for a lifestyle choice and not for what he did or didn't do at work. As stated in the article, he would not have been prosecuted if he would have looked at horticultural Web sites [and uploaded pictures of flowers].

Re:Persecution, not prosecution

[unlametheweak]

The statements you make (many of which are completely bogus and worthy of a Troll Moderation) do not necessitate the involvement of law enforcement (in this particular situation).

You have to know why the photograph was on your system. You have to know how it was being used.

I question the whole rationality of your statement (without trying to sound like a Troll, but just merely using Logic). I will elaborate; you do not have to know why a naked picture of an employee is on a companies computer system. Of course it is an oddity, and probably something that should be taken up my management and not by law enforcement. Nude photographs of adults are not illegal (or even of minors, necessarily, but that would be a tangent). Nude photographs of oneself are not even immoral (you need to trust me here and have some faith. Presumption of innocence isn't just a legal matter).

You can't take the man's word as gospel.

Of course not. Most people lie, but I always give people the benefit of the doubt unless or until I observe evidence to the contrary. It would be fair to presume that this supervisor is not a legal expert and probably only made the worst assumptions. I doubt if this supervisor would have realized that merely going to a Web site (and interacting with the people on it) that was not directly related to company business was illegal; hence the abusive nature of the supervisors behavior. Considering that (from what I've read from the article at least) nothing illegal could possibly be presumed (without going out of the way to consult a an aggressive lawyer with courtroom ambitions), nothing of a criminal nature should or logically could have been presumed. This is (at least) an over-reaction, and in a Democratic society shouldn't have even been given consideration by the courts (the abuse of the law here apparently trumps my assertions however).

You need answers and you need them now.

No offense, but that's a Bullshit statement. I need answers now all the time when I deal with the incompetency, immorality, and illegality of all the companies and bosses I have ever worked for. Of course I'm on the ass-end of the Totem-pole and the pecking order so my righteousness and logic will always get me fired and without job references. Your statement is unfounded.

The mayor won't be pleased when a secretary files a ten million dollar lawsuit for sexual harassment.

This is definitely a red-herring Troll. I will "risk" being down-modded by stating this. So be it. There is no evidence of sexual harassment here. There is however, implications of a fishing expedition on behalf of Management.

He will be even more unhappy when your man is arrested by the feds for soliciting minors on online

Another Troll. I will go out of the way and state that you should be down-modded because you are going out of your way to suggest unsubstantiated illicit behavior. The person who up-modded you should be punished through meta-moderation.

and he'll be really - royally - pissed off if comes out later that you tucked the photograph away and did nothing.

Another Troll. Use some logic. You are advocating fishing expeditions and witch hunts. You are an Asshole. I say this not out of spite, but merely as an observation. I will let the Moderators judge me.

I fully agree with Rasch.

[Jane Q. Public]

This is a classic example of an overly-broadly-worded law that is now being used to prosecute people to whom the law was never intended to apply.

WHENEVER your Congresscritters -- or eve City Council -- want to pass a law that is too broadly worded, oppose it. I did once, and was told "It will never be enforced that way." My reply was, "If it is not intended to be enforced that way, why was it written that way?"

When you give the government power to do something, eventually it will... even if that was not your intent. So make sure the intent is clear, and just do not give them powers that you do not intend them to use.

Re:consulting a dominatrix is a misdemeanor?

[PAjamian]

Clearly you don't understand the difference between a professional dominatrix and a prostitute who simply dresses up and gives a light spanking.

Re:What the fuck?

[JCSoRocks]

This is particularly true for anyone that finds themselves in the media spotlight for months and is hyped as being guilty. Even if mountains of evidence ends up being used to exonerate them the damage has already been done. The media isn't going to bother to spend months clearing their name. They get a 15 second update, "John Doe was innocent." Most people never even hear it. I feel the same way about the tiny section dedicated to corrections in printed publications.

Re:What the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of the word for this, but in the Middle Ages, pretty much any offense past blowing a nose in public was death, and the forms of death got worse and worse. The problem this created was the fact that because something small had such a heavy penalty, might as well be put to death for murder, so this resulted in people feeling they had nothing to lose by going to extremes.

That is a lesson that countries have seem to have forgotten with all these anti-hacker and anti-terrorism laws.