what is good software to log keystrokes on my computer?

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.

 

In the US the term is called "joyriding" and is equivalent to stealing.

 

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?

 

An employer shouldn't have any administrative privileges. He thus might
install a keylogger, but it would only work under his very own user
account.

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

And if he has administrative privileges, there's much more to worry about
than just keylogging.

 

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.

 

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?).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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
joyriding.

 

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.

 

Well, sounds like YOU have tried it. Just don't try it in my state
young man.

 

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.

 

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

Regards,

 

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
else.

 

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

LOL!

Get over yourself.

 

No.

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.

 

Bingo!

 

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!

 

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
opinion.

Before anyone starts flinging crap, I'm almost 50 and have raised three
kids. Working on helping out with grand kids now.

 

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.