5 ms·

Yes, creepy sexists need our protection and it's exactly the same thing as playing farmville on the bathroom.

Quekid5 7y ago
You know, it's quite possible for multiple people to be "wrong" in a given situation. It's possible both the employee and the sysop to be wrong.
- yaseer 7y ago
  I agree, - but morality is sticky and complex. It was obviously wrong to be the creepy sexist. In the abstract sense, it is wrong to invade privacy. But then, if in your invasion of privacy you uncover a wrongdoing, the right thing to do is report it. It would be wrong to read the CFO's email inbox, and probably illegal. But then if you uncover they are committing fraud, you need to report it to police, as well as confess your own crime. Unfortunately, there's never easy rules for these things.
  - WBrad 7y ago
    I get what you're saying here but: >In the abstract sense, it is wrong to invade privacy. You have no real expectation of privacy when using company owned equipment. This was almost certainly spelled out to the employee in question in the acceptable use policy he agreed to upon being hired. Companies have to operate this way so they can investigate computers if compelled to by court or law, and so they can recover important information off computers when the user exits the company. If he was using a BYOD computer I'd have a different opinion on the matter.
    - yaseer 7y ago
      You make a compelling point. The key is 'acceptable use'. Acceptable use is cracking passwords in an investigation with just cause. Acceptable use is a script to automate the checking of weak passwords, and notify users. Unacceptable use is an admin browsing cracked passwords, without just cause. I personally think acting on the information obtained afterwards is acceptable, but some would disagree. Remember even in some courts, evidence obtained by police illegally cannot be submitted for trial. I maintain these moral problems are hard ones.
    - Quekid5 7y ago
      The definition of acceptable use (and expectations of privacy) differs a lot between different countries. For example, in the EU, I believe that any personal email received on a work account is actually considered "beyond reach" of your employer. I don't know, but I imagine that such considerations could easily extend to your password. Btw, how did the sysop know that what he recovered was the actual password? I mean, it's unlikely, but at least theoretically possible that it was a false positive. The password hashes in those days were pretty weak... Just a thought; I don't think it realistically was a false positive.
      - WBrad 7y ago
        That is true, there are stronger privacy protections in the EU in general. I don't consider the actions here morally justifiable, just legally. As far as it being the actual password, a false positive AND the fact he had been creeping on a coworker at the same time seems extraordinarily unlikely to me.
        Quekid5 7y ago
        Agreed about the false positive, btw. It was just a hypothetical, but court cases ("beyond reasonable doubt") have a very high standard of proof.
  - ben509 7y ago
    > It was obviously wrong to be the creepy sexist. It's not obvious as we haven't heard his side of the story.
  - Quekid5 7y ago
    You said "... but morality is ..." and just agreed with me, I think? Ultimately, I think it's a case-by-case on this type of thing. Btw, I find it very interesting that e.g. most EU courts will consider "tampered-with" evidence, but obviously take into account that it may have been tampered with and so accord it much less weight than "pristine" evidence. Whereas US courts will[0] absolutely throw out anything that's shown to be even mildly "tampered-with". I don't know what the right answer is, but it's an interesting question to ponder. [0] Maybe this is wrong; I'm not a US-ian, so I may not have perfect insight into the court system :|.
    - yaseer 7y ago
      I agreed. I just wanted to take it a stage further and emphasise the definition of 'wrong' is always complex in moral discussions.
      - Quekid5 7y ago
        Noice :). I apologize for the somewhat aggressive/sarcastic tone at the start of my reply. Reading it back, it sounded so much "more" (in every way) than I intended.
- parliament32 7y ago
  It's one of those "everyone sucks here" situations.
- lilyball 7y ago
  It is possible, but that's not what happened. sysop was in the right here. Stop defending someone's right to be extremely creepy on company equipment over the well-being of the creep's coworkers.
AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
Yes, a person alleged to be a creepy sexist deserves some protection and due process.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > Yes, a person alleged to be a creepy sexist deserves some protection and due process. I agree with this. Everyone deserves due process. It sounds in this situation like they got their due process. (HR didn't fire them based on the password report, but rather used diligence and due process to investigate/corroborate and only then terminate them.)
michannne 7y ago
Cool, false equivalence seems to be the norm on HN nowadays
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. That only makes this place even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
coldtea 7y ago
If people could read your thoughts (or private messages) I'm pretty sure they could find at least 5 things to fire you and/or publicly whip you at a pillory in the central square of your city. So don't be so arrogant about someone being "creepy" when they are not mentioned as doing anything specific in public...
dang 7y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
behringer 7y ago
Yep you got it right.
rukittenme 7y ago
Please provide to me all of your personal details. Don't be alarmed. This is standard procedure. We just want to make sure you have the correct moral character to participate on this forum. Browser and search history, email passwords, diaries, and a list of medical professionals that I can contact to vouch for your mental stability should suffice. We will reach out in the next few days to conduct a character assessment review. Thank you for your cooperation! If you have any questions, do not hesitate to fill out a form with the Health and Safety Commission offices. Our hours are 10 AM to 3 PM every other Tuesday of every other month. Remember, your health and safety is important to us.

You know, it's quite possible for multiple people to be "wrong" in a given situation. It's possible both the employee and the sysop to be wrong.

yaseer 7y ago
I agree, - but morality is sticky and complex. It was obviously wrong to be the creepy sexist. In the abstract sense, it is wrong to invade privacy. But then, if in your invasion of privacy you uncover a wrongdoing, the right thing to do is report it. It would be wrong to read the CFO's email inbox, and probably illegal. But then if you uncover they are committing fraud, you need to report it to police, as well as confess your own crime. Unfortunately, there's never easy rules for these things.
- WBrad 7y ago
  I get what you're saying here but: >In the abstract sense, it is wrong to invade privacy. You have no real expectation of privacy when using company owned equipment. This was almost certainly spelled out to the employee in question in the acceptable use policy he agreed to upon being hired. Companies have to operate this way so they can investigate computers if compelled to by court or law, and so they can recover important information off computers when the user exits the company. If he was using a BYOD computer I'd have a different opinion on the matter.
  - yaseer 7y ago
    You make a compelling point. The key is 'acceptable use'. Acceptable use is cracking passwords in an investigation with just cause. Acceptable use is a script to automate the checking of weak passwords, and notify users. Unacceptable use is an admin browsing cracked passwords, without just cause. I personally think acting on the information obtained afterwards is acceptable, but some would disagree. Remember even in some courts, evidence obtained by police illegally cannot be submitted for trial. I maintain these moral problems are hard ones.
  - Quekid5 7y ago
    The definition of acceptable use (and expectations of privacy) differs a lot between different countries. For example, in the EU, I believe that any personal email received on a work account is actually considered "beyond reach" of your employer. I don't know, but I imagine that such considerations could easily extend to your password. Btw, how did the sysop know that what he recovered was the actual password? I mean, it's unlikely, but at least theoretically possible that it was a false positive. The password hashes in those days were pretty weak... Just a thought; I don't think it realistically was a false positive.
    - WBrad 7y ago
      That is true, there are stronger privacy protections in the EU in general. I don't consider the actions here morally justifiable, just legally. As far as it being the actual password, a false positive AND the fact he had been creeping on a coworker at the same time seems extraordinarily unlikely to me.
      - Quekid5 7y ago
        Agreed about the false positive, btw. It was just a hypothetical, but court cases ("beyond reasonable doubt") have a very high standard of proof.
- ben509 7y ago
  > It was obviously wrong to be the creepy sexist. It's not obvious as we haven't heard his side of the story.
- Quekid5 7y ago
  You said "... but morality is ..." and just agreed with me, I think? Ultimately, I think it's a case-by-case on this type of thing. Btw, I find it very interesting that e.g. most EU courts will consider "tampered-with" evidence, but obviously take into account that it may have been tampered with and so accord it much less weight than "pristine" evidence. Whereas US courts will[0] absolutely throw out anything that's shown to be even mildly "tampered-with". I don't know what the right answer is, but it's an interesting question to ponder. [0] Maybe this is wrong; I'm not a US-ian, so I may not have perfect insight into the court system :|.
  - yaseer 7y ago
    I agreed. I just wanted to take it a stage further and emphasise the definition of 'wrong' is always complex in moral discussions.
    - Quekid5 7y ago
      Noice :). I apologize for the somewhat aggressive/sarcastic tone at the start of my reply. Reading it back, it sounded so much "more" (in every way) than I intended.
parliament32 7y ago
It's one of those "everyone sucks here" situations.
lilyball 7y ago
It is possible, but that's not what happened. sysop was in the right here. Stop defending someone's right to be extremely creepy on company equipment over the well-being of the creep's coworkers.

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago

Yes, a person alleged to be a creepy sexist deserves some protection and due process.

sokoloff 7y ago
> Yes, a person alleged to be a creepy sexist deserves some protection and due process. I agree with this. Everyone deserves due process. It sounds in this situation like they got their due process. (HR didn't fire them based on the password report, but rather used diligence and due process to investigate/corroborate and only then terminate them.)

michannne 7y ago

Cool, false equivalence seems to be the norm on HN nowadays

dang 7y ago
Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. That only makes this place even worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

coldtea 7y ago

If people could read your thoughts (or private messages) I'm pretty sure they could find at least 5 things to fire you and/or publicly whip you at a pillory in the central square of your city. So don't be so arrogant about someone being "creepy" when they are not mentioned as doing anything specific in public...

dang 7y ago

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

behringer 7y ago

Yep you got it right.

rukittenme 7y ago

Please provide to me all of your personal details. Don't be alarmed. This is standard procedure. We just want to make sure you have the correct moral character to participate on this forum. Browser and search history, email passwords, diaries, and a list of medical professionals that I can contact to vouch for your mental stability should suffice. We will reach out in the next few days to conduct a character assessment review. Thank you for your cooperation! If you have any questions, do not hesitate to fill out a form with the Health and Safety Commission offices. Our hours are 10 AM to 3 PM every other Tuesday of every other month. Remember, your health and safety is important to us.