Steff

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:54 PM) we had one of our sys admins reading emails he shouldn't. i fired him. Justified.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:51 PM) It seems to me like you are telling the wrong people to relax. Maybe your company should relax. They sound very high strung about their own employees. Cub fans or not, what you do doesn't seem right. It may be your job and what you get paid to do, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it and think that it is the right thing to be doing. SSI... believe it or not.. it's done 24/7 by all types of companies more often then not. It's not about high strung.. it's about their right as the owner of the business. You should ask your company - which is your right. I bet if you look in your employment agreement or handbook it's in there that they can, and do, monitor and read your activities when you are within their walls. And for the record, I agree with you on the general thinking of it.. but they gotta do what they gotta do I guess.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) At least you spelled Francis right. He said he doesn't. It is up to you and I to believe if he does or not. I honestly don't trust that he didn't. He can say whatever he wants, but he seems devious enough to do that if he truly wants to. Say he was infatuated with someone at work or if he wanted to get revenge on a specific person at work. Would you completely trust that he would not read either of those said persons' personal email to do with it as he pleases? I wouldn't. I really don't since he does not work in my IT department. It just seems wrong. I don't even think about it. I don't do ANYTHING on my work computer I wouldn't care was shared with the world. I've heard those IT guys talking after a few beers.. some of them are just plain sneaky..

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:29 PM) Those types of suits never hold up (wrongful termination)...this is a completely different type of case. Those suits cannot hold up in IL because this state employs the "right/will work" clause, I forget what it's called on a lawful basis, but I know a company CAN terminate employment for ANY reason they choose in IL. A infringement on a persons privacy is a different story. In some cases it could be compared to installing a security camera in the womans bathroom simply because the company thinks it can. Doesn't work that way. Some rights to privacy, in a company or outside of a company, CANNOT be taken away. Bla... forget everything I have said here regarding this matter..

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) Looked to me like he said he did. Even reiterated it, saying he was only half joking. If that's so then my bad. I interpreted it as he was joking about that completely.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:29 PM) This is legally different than an independent employee, acting outside company interests, reads people's private emails. Just so that we are clear. But the real risk in these actions is that companies are all highly legal-risk averse. And if an employee does something that puts them at risk of even the possibility of a lawsuit, they are likely to respond swiftly and harshly. Absoultely.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) You should always assume that you are being looked at or watched on company time by the higher ups. I just don't see the need or the amusement in what SSI71 did. Reading personal emails and blocking people from legit sites seems ridicuous to me and not in the least bit funny. Relax Francis.. he didn't read personal emails.

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) I assure you at the company I work for, although I have the same power as the person we speak of...I never do any such thing unless I have a specific REASON, by and from the company, to do so. I don't think he was being serious about reading e-mails, either, as that would be a 24/7 job in and of itself...however, merely stating it is an abuse of power, which is what I think the poster is getting at with a lawsuit. Just because you "can" doesn't mean you "should", without proper reason, the employee DOES have rights. One thing companies don't understand with most "contracts" is an employee CANNOT sign away their lawful rights, no matter what the document states. There ARE privacy issues at hand... An ex employee just tried to sue us for wrongful termination because he was using the company server to conduct non-work business during non-business hours.. The case got tossed. The company ownes any and everything you do at your work station no matter what time of day it is. You sign a waiver to that fact upon accepting employment here.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:20 PM) I definitely agree that is the best, safest assumption to make. Food for thought.. bosses, the IT department, the mods at your favorite message board can and are reading your words..

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) For company purposes. But if someone's emails are being read arbitrarily, thats a big old lawsuit waiting to happen. And if they found out their IT guy was weilding his power this way, most companies would not be happy. I'd bet high that it's the boss looking over the IT guys shoulder reading the personal emails. Unless you're the boss, or the IT guy with the power.. bet your butt your words are being read at will.

Crystal clear in our company handbook that the company has the right to monitor all activity and read anything on their servers. That's their job.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) i was drunk last night i'm soryr Some of the greatest threads in Soxtalk history start out with drunk posting.

LMAO..

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) If we are talking electronic devices, and other high dollar, lighter product, it is going air. There just is no justification when you can fill a plane and have it here tonight to wait 6-8 weeks. The justificaton from suppliers to their customers, and onto their shipper and the distribution agent (Bekins, Allied, North American, etc) is just that. More then 75% of our sold goods business arrives in the US on a boat then is either picked up from port, or railed all over the country to local agents to be delivered to stores or homes. Air shipping is almost never used because of the cost. And those willing to pay it are 99.5% of the time household good deliveries (private moves).

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) Couldn't they sue you over this? I would if my employer was a Cubs fan who blocked access to White Sox stuff but allowed access to Cubs stuff. I think it's got to be both ways, either allow everyone access, or allow no one access. Just my 2 cents. Not supposed to be looking at recreational web sites at work anyway. I'd love to see them complain as it would get their asses fired.

QUOTE(Brian @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) I don't think it is a black Spidey outfit, unless there is something in the storyline that says so. I just think the picture is dark and gray. Maybe setting the mood for 3. I like it though. Did you read at the link Brian...? From the official site.. "You may think you’re looking at a black and white photo. Look closely, Spider-Man wears a black suit in Spider-Man 3. Tobey Maguire returns as Peter Parker / Spider-Man in Spider-Man 3. In Theaters 5/4/07"

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) I read a follow up in the Sun-Times this morning. Does look like I was quick to draw conclusions. They didn't mention fake ID's or the alledged 2 million in the article, but rather, only several hundred thousand and other documents which the family corroborated with proof. The channel 2 report stated that the Feds were bothered because he had ID's with several different names.. but the family explained that it was 3 families in on the deal. I guess the gas station was owned by 3 different partners and they were all in on the resl estate deal.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 07:27 PM) You can agree it's fair to assume SOME illegal activity revolved around those individuals. Sounds like he was legal. They are reporting that the checks were linked to a legit real estate deal he was on his way into the city to close.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) I will have to figure out something to add for next year. Maybe redirecting these people to random websites. Maybe to whitesox.com. I will have to plan next years annual event. Our IT department redirected anyone that puts in MLB.Com or Cubs.Com to Whitesox.Com. They turned off internet access to known Cubs fans this morning. They do it every year yet the Cubs fans still scream and holler about it.

Looks cool.. http://spiderman.sonypictures.com/

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) s***, please dont turn off my blackberry. They claim they wont without warning.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 08:52 AM) If the guy was 18, where is the crime? Found it.. http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/St...S_14-202.4.html § 14‑202.4. Taking indecent liberties with a student. (a) If a defendant, who is a teacher, school administrator, student teacher, school safety officer, or coach, at any age, or who is other school personnel and is at least four years older than the victim, takes indecent liberties with a victim who is a student, at any time during or after the time the defendant and victim were present together in the same school but before the victim ceases to be a student, the defendant is guilty of a Class I felony, unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing for greater punishment. A person is not guilty of taking indecent liberties with a student if the person is lawfully married to the student. (B) If a defendant, who is school personnel, other than a teacher, school administrator, student teacher, school safety officer, or coach, and who is less than four years older than the victim, takes indecent liberties with a student as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the defendant is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor. © Consent is not a defense to a charge under this section. (d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) "Indecent liberties" means: a. Willfully taking or attempting to take any immoral, improper, or indecent liberties with a student for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire; or b. Willfully committing or attempting to commit any lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body or any part or member of the body of a student. For purposes of this section, the term indecent liberties does not include vaginal intercourse or a sexual act as defined by G.S. 14‑27.1. (1a) "Same school" means a school at which (i) the student is enrolled or is present for a school‑sponsored or school‑related activity and (ii) the school personnel is employed, volunteers, or is present for a school‑sponsored or school‑related activity. (2) "School" means any public school, charter school, or nonpublic school under Parts 1 and 2 of Article 39 of Chapter 115C of the General Statutes. (3) "School personnel" means any person included in the definition contained in G.S. 115C‑332(a)(2), and any person who volunteers at a school or a school‑sponsored activity. (3a) "School safety officer" means any other person who is regularly present in a school for the purpose of promoting and maintaining safe and orderly schools and includes a school resource officer. (4) "Student" means a person enrolled in kindergarten, or in grade one through grade 12 in any school. (1999‑300, s. 1; 2003‑98, s. 2; 2004‑203, s. 19(a).)

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 06:59 AM) It was interesting that Macha didn't seem to know Frank's plan for Frank. I didn't see anyone else mention that, but it was the one thing that jumped out of the article at me. Shocking, eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_...2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg- RICHMOND, Va. - The two companies warring over the popular BlackBerry device head for a courtroom showdown on Friday, when a judge begins weighing an injunction on the wireless e-mail service. BlackBerry maker Research In Motion Ltd. has argued against the injunction, noting that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is poised to reject all of challenger NTP Inc.'s patents. Indeed, the agency this week rejected the first of five patents closely tied to the court case. U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer previously had said he was unwilling to delay his proceedings while awaiting final word from the agency. But the speedier moves from the patent office have some attorneys wondering whether Spencer will be swayed. "I really feel it's too close to call," said Stephen Maebius, a Washington patent attorney not involved in the case. "I can really see it going both ways." First, some critical news for BlackBerry fans: Those screens aren't expected to go dark. Analysts have said that Waterloo, Ontario-based RIM could still settle at the last minute for as much as $1 billion. And, under the threat of an injunction on U.S. BlackBerry sales and service, RIM has said it would introduce new software that would not violate NTP's patents. How well that software works is another question. Because RIM has released few details, analysts and some companies are concerned. NTP, based in Arlington, Va., sued in 2001, and a year later, a federal jury agreed that RIM had infringed on the smaller firm's patents. The jury awarded NTP 5.7 percent of U.S. BlackBerry sales — a rate that Spencer later boosted to 8.55 percent. Spencer first issued an injunction in 2003 but held off on its enforcement during RIM's appeals. After those efforts largely failed, the case returned to Spencer. It is unclear whether he will rule from the bench Friday. On Thursday, there were several court filings from businesses concerned about any injunction. Ascension Health, which owns dozens of hospitals, said it was worried about the potential health consequences. Its physicians and administrator rely heavily on BlackBerry devices, the St. Louis-based nonprofit said. Science Applications International Corp., a research and engineering firm based in San Diego, said there would be national security implications if communications between the company and its government customers were impacted. "NTP apparently is laboring under the mistaken belief that such an injunction enforced against SAIC would not involve national defense, national security, homeland security or public interest concerns," the company wrote. "These assumptions are flat wrong." NTP has asked Spencer for a permanent injunction. The company has previously noted that RIM users have plenty of alternatives, and that exemptions would be granted to government and emergency workers. (The Justice Department, however, is expected to appear in court to express its concerns.) In a recent court filing, NTP said the injunction would end widespread infringement of its patents by RIM and its corporate customers. "RIM must simply turn those accounts off in the same fashion as when a customer fails to pay its bill," it said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_...DMzBHNlYwM3MDM- UAE Gave $100 Million for Katrina Relief TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 24, 5:32 AM ET WASHINGTON - The United Arab Emirates gave the Bush administration $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina weeks before a state-owned company there sought U.S. approval for its ports deal. Maybe one does have nothing to do with the others.. and I hope that's the case.. but it is amazing at the timing of when this stuff hits the fan.