"The Nerdy Duo" <> wrote in message
> On Jun 5, 5:42 pm, "Sebastian G." <s...@seppig.de> wrote:
>> The Nerdy Duo wrote:
>> > Lately, I've been teching for my
>> > mother in law, and somebody in her office is messing with her CPUs,
>> > uninstalling programs, deleting system files. I hate installing the
>> > same software over and over again. This has made a 6 hour reinstall
>> > into a 3 week ordeal where I have to redo the computer on a daily/
>> > every other day basis. I have my suspicions, but I need to prove it.
>> I also have my suspicions, and the evidence is blatantly obvious: You're
>> giving someone administrative rights who shouldn't have any. How else
>> it be that system files are getting deleted?
>> > So, I want a keylogger that I don't have to fork over my green for.
>> Huh? How should a keylogger provide evidence that you're an incompetent
>> administrator? (Other than by the fact that you even draw such
>> > The more it monitors in this case, the better. Generally, I'm anti-
>> > monitoring in the workplace, but, I can't think of a better way to
>> > catch Ms. subversive secretary. Thoughts and ideas appreciated.
>> Monitoring without sufficient reason (read: suspicion of criminal
>> is strictly illegal.
> I did use the wrong word. I wanted something that would do screen
> captures and log the times of deletions.
> As far as the legality goes: In what country? If monitoring in the
> workplace were illegal here, then it wouldn't be done on such a
> widespread basis.
> The secretary only has a user account, but the answer to what is
> really wrong is this: Mom in law decided to share her entire c drive.
> Thanks mom.
> I am indeed an incompetant administrator in the work place. Why?
> Because I do it for free, and don't give it anywhere near my full
> attention, so that somebody who does do this to support themselves
> looks better than what I do, and might look worth the money. So, when
> you're collecting a paycheck for IT, you be glad that the people who
> do it for free suck at it. Or else no one would want to pay you for
> your smarmy attitude. .
If the company owns the computer, it is not illegal for it to monitor use of
it's asset. It does need to have a published policy that lets people know
that monitoring can take place. If you own the computer, you can run any
legal software on it that you want. You don't have to publish a policy.
Someone gets in to your box, and you monitor their use you are not violating
any law anywhere. It would be like telling someone that they cant use
Lojack to locate their vehicle when an unauthorized person has stolen it.
"Richard Johnson" <> wrote in
> If the company owns the computer, it is not illegal for it to monitor
> use of it's asset. It does need to have a published policy that lets
> people know that monitoring can take place. If you own the computer,
> you can run any legal software on it that you want. You don't have to
> publish a policy. Someone gets in to your box, and you monitor their
> use you are not violating any law anywhere. It would be like telling
> someone that they cant use Lojack to locate their vehicle when an
> unauthorized person has stolen it.
It's not that you are utterly wrong, it's that you are so provincial!
Whether monotoring is legal or not, and under what conditions, is dependent
on the JURISDICTION! The US is not the whole world. Not yet, anyway.