Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How IT Pros Can Avoid Legal Trouble

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-listen-to-michael-bolton dept.

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Peter S. Vogel reports on the kinds of inadvertent transgressions that could land IT pros into legal trouble without realizing it. From confidentiality and privacy negligence, to copyright and source code violations, IT staff are legally liable for a lot more than they might think — in some cases because the law will not stop at your employer, instead holding individual IT employees responsible for violations even if the individuals are just 'doing their job.' Worse, as the recent case against Terry Childs has shown, judges and juries are often not technically savvy enough to understand what IT pros do. 'That lack of understanding can lead them to conclude you're at fault or should have known better,' Vogel writes. 'After all, many people think anyone technical is a whiz kid or brainiac on any topic.'" What legally questionable scenarios have cropped up at your job?

3 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Licensing by CaptSlaq · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's such a gigantic PITA to track all of the licensing for everything that I weep for any small to medium sized shop that can't afford to have a dedicated person/dedicated people for it.

  2. Has it shown that really??? by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Informative

    Worse, as the recent case against Terry Childs has shown, judges and juries are often not technically savvy enough to understand what IT pros do. 'That lack of understanding can lead them to conclude you're at fault or should have known better,'

    Has it shown that really??? I recall the foreman of the jury for the Terry Childs case was a pretty smart IT guy. Also, the resumes of the other jurors were not all that bad technically either. If anything, I really do think that Terry Childs was judged by a jury of his peers (even if this doesn't always happen in other cases).

  3. Both wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Both wrong.

    (a): there was no law demanding he hand over the keys unsecurely
    (b): he did the right thing. If he'd been hit by a bus, they could reset the passwords by getting an engineer out to the sites.

    Terry did the RIGHT thing according to law and the thing demanded by his employment contract. That contract stated who he could give the passwords to, where and who could override those orders.

    A general cannot order a Private on Guard Duty (assigned as such by the Duty Officer) to leave his post. Doing so would be a court martial offence (potentially one that could see him shot, if it's a war zone or in time of war). The General may or may not be able to order the Duty Sergeant to order the private to leave his post. But if the general is not the Base Officer, OD can demand that the correct channels be used and the Base CO would have to order the Duty Officer to order the Private (note: even the Base CO cannot order a private off Guard Duty at his post).

    Similarly, the captain of a ship outranks any officer on board ship, even a Port Admiral. At port, the captain can be removed from command by the Port Admiral. This is why Barratry is such a severe offence in the Navy.

    But short version: both your statements are wrong.