posted
We're TALKING about British law, dumbass. What part of "I can assist wherever possible and also recommend some excellent lawyers with the best reputation in this field in London" didn't you understand?
(and this is me saying that - Kate was far less civil!)
posted
How can anything reguard to the internet and computers be 100% fool-proof. I mean Microsoft can't even plug big holes in their system. I personally don't think they should be allowed to say - this person did this, and that person did that based on computer tracking. If any evidence is to be given, it should be given by a minimum of at least two reputable people who had first hand witness to the situation.
I'm sure you could exploit the whole 'computers aren't infallible' angle
2. Could you also play the angle that somebody is out to get you - and maybe sue the place of employment for workplace mistreatment/bullying/harrassment.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
He's "remembered" some relevant facts that might help him get off the hook so to speak - he's forgotten about this other person using his user details due to the stress involved but he's gonna fight for it.
IT turn around? Not sure, obviously within a week!
Lee and Kate - thanks! Check your e-mail account for a reply to your PM.
As for everything else - I'm tired now so will save these pages and read later when I've got some energy and had a chance to talk with me mate!
Many thanks everyone!
-AK
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, they can't proove that a person DID visit a site without them being video-taped or witnessed by at least two non-connected people. That is, without beyond any doubt.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
Well . . . he got the IT report on his PC. The list on the PC matches that on the server (makes sense as it logs everything every user does), although he hasn't seen this list. But . . . he's apparently accessed, downloaded files from a site and deleted them from the hard drive. Problem is, the site that he apparently downloaded from isn't in the list at the dates specified (for that site there's only one entry near the beginning of the month and he says that is a pop up). The IT guys says isn't possible as
quote:". . . advised that pop ups do not affect the speed which the computer runs at and that cookies ar only recorded when someone intaracts with a page. Pop ups are linked to cookies, therefore for a pop up to appear a cookie would have to be present. Pop ups do not appear as visited sites".
This has me a bit confused, can someone explain this to me please?
Also, sites he's been on every day for work don't appear on the list he's got either. Sounds like it's a major cock up if you ask me - their evidence contradicts previous evidence! He's also not got a copy of the files that they've saved as evidence which he's gonna try and get before the next meeting.
The IT guy also said there are no viruses on the PC - my mate thinks someone has cleaned it up to make him look bad as there were definately some on there.
All in all, his stress is rising and his depression is getting worse! Anyone got any advice for his meeting next week?
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Cookies, on their own, can not open popups, but popups themselves can not open either without cookie information already present or the right strand of virus or spyware. Whatever it was, though, it should have been removed from his workstation by the IT folks at the first sign of trouble, which is the point your friend should be driving home, very loudly, with the IT department, or, more succintly, that he needn't have visited (ie. interacted with) $FORBIDDENPAGE to have been infected by something malicious that redirected his browser there (which would then have stored a cookie pertaining to that site in its cache) or spawned popup windows all over the place, or both.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sounds like they're looking to fuck yor pal: if the list of visited sites is incomplete, who's to say it's not doctored? Of course, if your pal say's "The list's not complete: I got to Flare when I should be working!" it's aticket to unemployment as well.
Your pal may seriously want to seek employment elsewhere after he's off the hook: if they wanmt him fired this badly, they'll find another way to make it happen.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
AND it all comes down to - the only way they can SAY he's been to any 'illegal' sites - is that if they have VIDEO evidence or that two non-connected people witnessed his activities. BTW This is me talking here, not law things - but it is just common sense. If they can just 'say' that someone is doing one thing and there is no '1st person' proof - then it sounds fishy. It obviously is just the company wanting the person to be out of there but trying to concoct evidence enough to dismiss him. Fight it all the way, computers aren't infallible.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
"...cookies ar only recorded when someone intaracts with a page. Pop ups are linked to cookies, therefore for a pop up to appear a cookie would have to be present."
Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds like complete bullshit.
"...popups themselves can not open either without cookie information already present or the right strand of virus or spyware."
Erm... Or by simply visiting a site that has pop-ups on it...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Well, yes, but I was specifically talking about a popup opening for previously not visited site A while browsing unrelated site B (or while doing desktop activity C, even) due to the presence of virus or spyware X or cookie information Y stored during earlier browser hijack Z.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Kazaa had been previously installed on the PC by the previous user - who's account my mate was made to use. The IT guy has admitted that this can be responsible for pop ups but that it was removed sometime after being installed.
Doctoring a PC - we're heavily leaning towards this conclusion.
So are you guys saying that the IT guy doesn't know what he's talking about (cookies, pop ups, etc)?
-------------------- If you cant convince them, confuse them.
Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Removing KaZaa alone will neither get rid of the spyware it deposits during installation nor of the veritable sentient microculture of organisms that almost invariably grows larger every time it's run. Have your friend mention that in his next hearing as well.
As to how knowledgeable those IT guys are, well, a single quote really isn't much to go on, but this does have a lot of hallmarks of a setup.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
He's also not got a copy of the files that they've saved as evidence which he's gonna try and get before the next meeting. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
