Re: Client from Hell redux

Subject: Re: Client from Hell redux
From: "Jeanne A. E. DeVoto" <jaed -at- jaedworks -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 19:55:06 -0700

At 4:12 PM -0700 6/7/2000, Michele Davis wrote:
>It seems to me that what Andrew did was proactive. He got the job done, that's
>what he was supposed to do. Why would you get lawyers involved? Lawyers should
>only be involved if he was distributing secure information, but it appears he
>wasn't.

Well, doing such a thing without specific authorization *is* a crime in
most jurisdictions. Getting lawyers involved doesn't seem out of line when
a contractor does something criminal, even in pursuit of the job.

The client might take the fairly sane position that "No harm, no foul" in
this case, as long as no security damage was done - although pulling a
stunt like that can easily cause an inadvertent security breach - but
they'd have every right to press charges if they wanted to. By way of
analogy, if he wanted information he needed for the job on a weekend, and
broke into the building to get it, the company might or might not sic the
cops on him - might not even fire him, depending - but there'd certainly be
a chat with lawyers and "Don't do that" would be clarified for him and/or
an agency he was working through.

--
jeanne a. e. devoto ~ jaed -at- jaedworks -dot- com
http://www.jaedworks.com






Previous by Author: Re: ALT 2, Brute'?
Next by Author: Re: Legal issues
Previous by Thread: Re: Client from Hell redux
Next by Thread: Re: Client from Hell redux


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads