what is good software to log keystrokes on my computer?

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by admyc, Aug 26, 2006.

  1. admyc

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    I wouldn't say incorrect as much as incomplete or even irrelevant. The
    problem here is we're not talking about illegally transferring
    possession of an automobile, only "misusing" it for a time. the
    definition is brief but more or less accurate as far as far as it goes.
    Nomen Nescio, Aug 29, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. admyc

    Rick Merrill Guest

    In the US the term is called "joyriding" and is equivalent to stealing.
    Rick Merrill, Aug 29, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. admyc

    Rick Merrill Guest

    Let's assume the OP is the employer and believes an employee is using
    company computer for non-company or nefarious purposes. Would said
    employer have the right to put a key-logger on a company owned machine?
    Rick Merrill, Aug 29, 2006
  4. An employer shouldn't have any administrative privileges. He thus might
    install a keylogger, but it would only work under his very own user

    Beside that, users shouldn't be able to run any executeable but whitelisted

    And if he has administrative privileges, there's much more to worry about
    than just keylogging.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 29, 2006
  5. No. It's incomplete and/or you're misreading it or inferring something
    that's not explicitly stated.

    Your scenario falls outside the scope of your cited definition because
    the intent was not to retain possession or "take" your property, only
    to "borrow" it. There's a very real legal distinction between the two
    irrespective of what your, or even my opinion is. Truth be known if
    someone "borrowed" my car as you've described I'd feel as though it had
    been stolen too. Unfortunately for both of us the law in our (assumed)
    jurisdictions doesn't see things that way. Our "feelings" are
    irrelevant to the task of defining the crime. Sentencing may be a
    different story.

    Note that this is US law, and even that can vary from locality to
    locality. Autos stolen and not taken across state lines are State
    Felonies I believe, so your state might have different guidelines than
    another state. Federal law might diverge from state even further. Not to
    mention the fact that "borrowing" a car in some turd world jurisdiction
    might be an offense punishable by death. ;)
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Aug 29, 2006
  6. admyc

    ArtDent Guest

    I believe that the courts - so far at least - have said that the answer to
    that question is a definite yes.
    A big part of the question tho, whether they have to tell the employee
    about it, I think is still in 'limbo'.
    Personally, I think that the employer should tell the employee if/that
    they do - perhaps even if they didn't (keep 'em paranoid, eh?).
    ArtDent, Aug 29, 2006
  7. From: "Rick Merrill" <>

    | Let's assume the OP is the employer and believes an employee is using
    | company computer for non-company or nefarious purposes. Would said
    | employer have the right to put a key-logger on a company owned machine?

    Simple answer - YES !

    Complex answer has to do with disclosure of that fact.
    David H. Lipman, Aug 29, 2006
  8. admyc

    ArtDent Guest

    Erm... Sebastian, the employer is the one that pays the employee, I think
    you may have gotten the two confused here.
    The employeR is usually the one that owns the machines.
    ArtDent, Aug 29, 2006
  9. False!

    First of all joyriding is a State defined term, there is no US code that
    addresses it as far as I'm aware. Not all States have a criminal code
    definition of the term either.

    That fact aside, the states that do define the term or define a crime
    as "joyriding", I've not found any that don't differentiate between
    joyriding and theft. Here's a cite from an Illinois case for example,
    an appeal to the US Supreme Court...

    ILLINOIS v. VITALE, 447 U.S. 410 (1980)

    "The Illinois court relied upon our holding in Brown v. Ohio, supra,
    that a conviction for a lesser-included offense precludes later
    prosecution for the greater offense. There, Brown was first convicted
    of joyriding in violation of an Ohio statute under which it was a crime
    to "take, operate, or keep any motor vehicle without the consent of its
    owner." He was then convicted under another statute of stealing the
    same motor vehicle. The Ohio courts had held that every element of the
    joyriding "is also an element of the crime of auto theft," and that to
    prove auto theft one need prove in addition to joyriding only the
    intent permanently to deprive the owner of possession. "

    Please not the use of the word "permanently".

    Utah defines joyriding as "unlawful control over motor vehicles,
    trailers, or semitrailers" in § 41-1a-1311 of ity's criminal statutes.
    Completely different from the definition of theft.

    Here's another section of criminal code from the Yavapai Indian
    Reservation in Arizona, to demonstrate the localization of joyriding laws
    as well as point out its criminal status.

    Sec. 6-104.01. JOYRIDING.
    A person commits joyriding if, without intent to permanently deprive,
    such person intentionally or knowingly takes control of another's means
    of transportation.

    Any person convicted of joyriding shall be sentenced to imprisonment
    for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) days or to a fine
    not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), or to both such
    imprisonment and fine, with costs.

    A clear distinction between theft and joyriding, and an appropriate,
    lesser penalty to support that.

    I could cite literally hundreds of examples that prove joyriding and
    theft are completely separate crimes if you'd like, almost without
    exception the difference being the intent to permanently deprive
    someone of their property or not. And almost without exception showing
    that joyriding is a misdemeanor, while auto theft is a felony. Unless
    of course there's property damage or bodily harm involved while
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Aug 30, 2006
  10. My fault, but the facts remains. An employer shouldn't have administrative
    privileges as well, only the admin should have. And it's his responsibility
    to have the authority to refuse unlawful requests from his employer.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 30, 2006
  11. admyc

    Rick Merrill Guest

    Well, sounds like YOU have tried it. Just don't try it in my state
    young man.
    Rick Merrill, Aug 30, 2006
  12. From: "Sebastian Gottschalk" <>

    | My fault, but the facts remains. An employer shouldn't have administrative
    | privileges as well, only the admin should have. And it's his responsibility
    | to have the authority to refuse unlawful requests from his employer.

    Admins. are agents of the employer and thus is an extension of the employer and the action
    is lawful. Admins. want to be employed/remain employed.
    David H. Lipman, Aug 30, 2006
  13. admyc

    nemo_outis Guest

    An admin may be a "servant" (employee) under master/servant (nowadays,
    employer/employee) law, an agent, an independent contractor, or have some
    other relationship. Moreover, some professionals have overriding
    obligations to those with whom they work or to the public, or professional
    obligations, and there may be statutory obligations as well (e.g., under
    privacy laws). The whole world does not follow the USian model of
    employers as all-powerful lords and employees as serfs :)

    nemo_outis, Aug 30, 2006
  14. Even further, it should be the admin's interest to protect himself against
    any requests that violate his job's purpose. If the employer demands a
    violation of security policies, and some incident happens, the admin will
    be fired and will never find any other admin job for the next 10 to 15
    years. If he refused, he'll just be fired and find a serious job somewhere
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 30, 2006
  15. admyc

    TwistyCreek Guest

    Awwwwwwwww.... did diddums get his widdle feewings hurt? Does diddums
    have problems just admitting diddums is full of shit?


    Get over yourself.
    TwistyCreek, Aug 30, 2006
  16. admyc

    Anonyma Guest


    What the employer suspects is meaningless. Employees have a reasonable
    expectation of privacy, and unless they willingly abdicate that right
    anything that breaches it is criminal. Employers can't surreptitiously
    install key loggers for the same reasons they can't install cameras in
    bathrooms even if they suspect an employee is sneaking into a stall to
    do drugs.
    Anonyma, Aug 30, 2006
  17. admyc

    Rick Merrill Guest

    Rick Merrill, Aug 30, 2006
  18. admyc

    ArtDent Guest

    Key words in the paragraph above:
    'willingly abdicate' (are told ahead of time, and still show up for work)
    surreptitiously install (are not told)
    I think that so far, courts in the USA have ruled both ways, so it is a
    very gray area. But, it certainly is immoral and unethical, if not
    exactly illegal in some areas. These are ongoing cases, so we are not
    allowed to comment - bah!
    ArtDent, Aug 30, 2006
  19. It may or may not be legal, I think that even in this scenario it's
    debatable. It's morally reprehensible in any case, and does little or
    nothing to prevent undesirable activity either on the part of your
    child, or the bad guys out there. It's reactive, not proactive, and
    piss poor parenting. A real parent knows what's going on because they
    have a honest, open relationship with their children and they've
    instilled in them a sense of right and wrong.

    I dunno when society took a wrong turn here, but playing spy games with
    your kids isn't any way to build a proper relationship, or teach them
    anything. Quite to the contrary, it teaches them all the wrong lessons,
    and any parent who uses those tactics is borderline abusive in my

    Before anyone starts flinging crap, I'm almost 50 and have raised three
    kids. Working on helping out with grand kids now.
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Aug 30, 2006
  20. admyc

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    Incorrect assumption. If you create something, say a literary work, you
    own it and all copies of it. If someone makes an unauthorized copy of
    it and retains possession, they are depriving you what's rightfully
    yours... the copy of your work.

    The same holds true for any literary work, even something as short as
    a password.
    Nomen Nescio, Aug 30, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.