🚀 go-pugleaf

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (exuptr@exu.ericsson.se) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.161638.3832@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:

>>I'm glad we're in agreement that Wang should get his just comeuppance; I
>>hope we can agree that the employee has something coming too, whether
>>prosecution for rights violation(s) or discharge for incompetence.

>>-JTT

>The only problem I've got with this one is it sends a message to others:
>"Even if people are using their account to steal corporate secrets or 
>consortwith other employers, leave them alone."

No.  It means that you leave them alone without what the shysters call
"probable cause".  Remember too that a man is innocent until proven
guilty.  Having violated the rights of others, the guilty lose their own
rights (unless you take politicians seriously); then it would be acceptable
to go into their email [to check for evidence of additional crimes].
In the case above, there's no satisfactory explanation of how deleting a
mail account necessitated reading any remaining messages.  If the employee
meant to save them in a file in case they were requested by the account
holder, but hit "Print" instead, and then _read_ what came out, he screwed
up in one or both ways I mentioned.

-JTT