Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OkieTech

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Agreed. This was seeking some objective communal insight and advise on the general scenario to see what was an appropriate feeling, expectation and course of action. Since the replies are sided with the employer I'm trying to ensure an objective outcome by taking the alternate position to achieve the most comprehensive information possible. Your post is appreciated.
  2. I won't get into some of the comments as this is not intended to be an academic paper. I believe the scenario does align with your definition because the vendor is taking an action due to the information/statements sent which are inaccurate (both contents and origination). To elaborate more on your general definiation there are different types fraud and one is looking specifically at computer and identity fraud (not previously explictly stated, apologizes). This scenario is a misrepresentation of a person's identity that was done either by unauthorized access or spoofing then why are those things, outside of employement, something you report to the FTC, Local Law Enforcement, FBI, etc? How does employment change the scenario to make the deception acceptable? (Besides the fact that the company owns the computers, data, vendor accounts and IT services)
  3. The poster is willing to share generalized scenarios with limited information to set the context and ask related questions. The poster is seeking advise and/or recommendations based solely on the information provided, but the poster will provide additional facts and/or details if the poster deems it is appropriate to the questions or necessary for a legitmate answer. At this time the poster does not feel it is necessary to provide an comprehensive report detailing every environment variable to include names, company, data contents or other specific details. The information should serve the intended purpose and allow for respondants to provide practical replies.
  4. HOA is currently overseen by a land developer "Company ABC". They also involve the current home builder, "Company XYZ", who seems more involved with Company ABC than the advisory committe of actual residents is despite their wishes to actually take over the HOA. HOA meetings are only held once a year which is much less than residents prefer and have voiced in writting and in meeting. Can anything be done to enforce more frequent and regular meetings? Company ABC went over budget and then opened floor to concerns. Several residents expressed concerns about the following: 1. Leases are exceeding the 10% limit and have not obtained HOA approval per the CCRs. Leased property is also looking very rough (I.E. dead lawns, overgrown gardens, tall grass, etc). - Company ABC and XYZ explained why they believe leasing started to occur (low price points and decent profit margin). They also explained their method for raising the value and taxes making it no longer feasible to lease future properties but didn't address current leases. It was disclosed by an advisory member that there are several leases that are actually held by Company XYZ (along with some various shell companies admitted during the meeting) who stated leasing wasn't feasible. In the end the HOA rep and builder stated it would involve too much work and oversight and it wasn't a can of worms they wished to open while they maintained the HOA but the residents could later when we took it over. - The Company XYZ and possibly ABC (or a shell of them) stand to profit from these excessive income properties if they allow the rule to be violated which means they are acting in their own best interests not in the neighborhood's best interest. Q: Can they be forced to uphold the CCRs? Can the rep be sued or must the HOA itself be sued? Can the rep be forced to step down due to a conflict of interest and neglect of their position and duties? 2. Residents are concerned about smaller issues like trash cans visible or lawns that have weeds. - HOA rep said they would begin sending reminders regarding those issues. Q: Can they cherry pick which CCRs they enforce? Does there have to be consistency in enforcement? Is there any issues with only choosing to enforce certain things to certain residents at certain times? 3. Residents are concerned with some fencing heights and material along with drive way material. - Company XYZ has made portions of driveways brick and CCR states it must be concrete. - Company XYZ has installed fenced much taller than the CCR allows as well as see thru metal fencing and plastic front lawn fencing (parade of homes houses). - None of this has or is being resolved from Company ABC. Q: Again, can they pick and choose what they enforce and to whom they enforce it to? Is this neglect or abuse of their position by allowing a Company XYZ, who does other business with Company ABC, to ignore rules while residents are forced to follow them? In summary Company ABC has done a decent job in managing the HOA budget and CCRs they've choosen to enforce. Company XYZ also builds very nice homes that are increasing the property value and appeal of the neighborhood although it is slower than preferred. The residents just want an equal playing field and a solid foundation that they can easily build upon when they take over the responsibilities of the HOA management. How far do you push these issues? What are the options? What is the likely outcome?
  5. So again, how does an employee protect themselves from accusations or misrepresentations of events and/or communications that are fraudulent as they were not authored or sent by the actual employee? (Hint - looking for an answer)
  6. So correct me if I misunderstand but you believe that if an employee provides an employee anything then the employee has no reasonable expectation to privacy or protection from misuse? (Same could apply if in T&Cs with service providers.) Specifically the company can read and/or send whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want, as whomever they want without recourse, correct? So how does an employee ensure they aren't accountable for those and/or any emails sent? If multiple people can send as that employee without knowledge or consent, how can one prove or disprove the authenticity of any email past, present or future especially when it comes to data being sent outside the org? In summary it looks like is an employee is sending data out in mass at odd days and times but really its an automated process that is either spoofing the address or accessing the mailbox and sending on behalf. (Spoofing is just sending an smtp message with that as email whereas on behalf of required actual ms exchange permissions) Data misuse and/or mishandling is a fireable offense and is something an employer could sue the employee for if there were losses or damages as a result of data sharing.
  7. It means part of the claim was inaccurate. Thanks for your insight given the information you have available.
  8. I didn't say you said that. I said given that logic it means that a scenario involving Google as the company and gmail as the email service has the same result. Employee or end user shouldn't matter considering there are conditions around both. If you think it does not have the same result, please explain why.
  9. The post is for real legal experience and insight not self assumptions. I think alot of people expect an even playing field where everyone plays by the same set of rules...although it is almost never the case. Summary: Employee is terminated for something they didn't completely do for the reason of distrust and misuse yet others do not receive the same result. The post is here to see if this is expected, ethical, and legal or not and if not is it worth pursuing.
  10. How is that legal and not fraud? That logic means that Google or an employee of Google could send an email from your gmail account acting as you and not face any legal recourse.
  11. So I don't understand what clarification you want because you didn't provide concise feedback and want a detailed background of each phrase. Here is the clearest I can/will make this as to not divulge unnecessary information. An employer sent multiple emails as multiple different employees on at early am hour on a weekend from the employees email addresses. The employees had no knowledge and had not given consent to an email to be sent as them instead of a shared mailbox or a noreply address. Add to it that the emails provided company data to vendors and was not an isolated internal email. Given this information is there anything here besides ethical violations? Are there laws protecting email security for employees? If so, do they protect the employee from fraudulent emails sent by someone else posing as that employee? If so and if this was reported, does the employee have any recourse if the employer fails to fix the issue?
  12. Scenario: email was sent to multiple external vendors containing company data. Emails were send as an individual employee because they were from that employee's email address (multiple employees have experienced this). Employees had no knowledge and had not given approval for IT staff to send an email on their behalf. Is this fraud or something else? Can the employee hold the company liable for any emails past, present or future as a result of this misuse? What happens if proprietary data is disbursed via this same process making it look like an employee but is really an automated IT process? What if the employer has received this report in writing and does nothing to address?
  13. Scenario: employee was accused of using email services to download other employees emails. Employee denies downloading any data but admitted to using system to find only emails that pertained to themselves. No evidence was not provided during termination. Employee's manager and VP have done the same thing to executives and their subordinates in scenario where subordinates reported issues with the manager and VP. Manager and VP also have requested employee complete the accused task in the past. Are there any ways to claim discrimination since that manager and VP are still employed? Are there any ways to claim anything else?
  • Create New...