3 ms·
One of the most awful forensic engagements (that didn't involve the threat of bodily harm) I ever worked was for a company who called me in to image the drives
by m0nastic 15y ago
One of the most awful forensic engagements (that didn't involve the threat of bodily harm) I ever worked was for a company who called me in to image the drives for an entire video production department.
Apparently, they discovered that one of their employees, in his spare time, had used one of the editing stations to edit video for his church. When they disciplined him about it, he stated that "everyone else was doing the same thing", which made them panic and decide to treat the whole department as a forensic incident.
I can't think of a more innocuous use of resources than "editing church video in my spare time", but they were all freaked out about it. You'd be surprised what companies worry about.
I had the envious task of imaging ~ 35 workstations (and 2 big-ass RAID arrays) in the middle of the night before employees were supposed to be back in the office the next morning.
- rmc 15y agoThey were probably worried that some other employee was making sexually explicit videos, or even worse, videos of child sexual abuse. If that was happening, it might come out eventually. If it came out that the company was also aware that employees were making personal videos, then that's potentially bad PR for them.
- m0nastic 15y agoCorrect, they were specifically worried about the appearance of them condoning whatever content was produced if it was publicly known. The result from this was for them to just dissolve that entire department, and then outsource any future video production that they might need.
- jeffool 15y agoWhich, to me, is an insane concern. Who wouldn't understand, in the rare instance of such abuse, "we trust our employees to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. This person misused our trust, etc."
- m0nastic 15y agoI thought it was insane rather than to deal with issues like that on a case by case basis, they decided to just fire ~ 30 people. But then again, I'm not a corporate muckety-muck, so what do I know.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jeffool 15y agoAhah, you poor soul. I guess the thrust of my argument is that... Employees are trusted with those resources while under employer supervision. ("Supervision"; not that their bosses are over their shoulders, or in some cases even know how to operate it themselves.) But the second that the intent is not approved of, suddenly that employee is suspected of having destroyed everything with an errant keystroke. It's funny, is all.
- m0nastic 15y agoI agree. My boss at my previous employer somehow managed to convince the higher-ups that we needed a lab full of about 20 ridiculously well-spec'd desktops with high-end video cards (and this was well before you could argue for their use in things like CUDA). This was our Counterstrike lab.