Court rules against man in child-porn at work case

[Grimmlok]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A Montana man who used his work computer to access child pornography does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that would bar a search of the machine, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

Jeffrey Ziegler had argued that his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures should prevent the government from using evidence that he had viewed many images of child pornography at work.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco cited similar past cases and found that even if some people lament the lack of privacy at work, the law was against Ziegler.

"Social norms suggest that employees are not entitled to privacy in the use of workplace computers, which belong to their employers and pose significant dangers in terms of diminished productivity and even employer liability," Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for a three-judge panel.

"Employer monitoring is largely an assumed practice, and thus we think a disseminated computer-use policy is entirely sufficient to defeat any expectation that an employee might nonetheless harbor."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/09082006/...work-case.html

[KD]

Good, perverted son of a bitch.

[Aella]

Hold on a sec, he tried to slither out of CHILD PORN charges by invoquing privacy invasion?

Boo-fuckin-hoo. Hope he enjoys being made some big hairy prisonner's bitch.

[KD]

^Yup. Peverted son of a bitch. I believe the "woe is me" defense.

[Sojiita]

What a pervert and idiot. Of course they have the right to check his work computer. Almost all companies have policies that state that fact when you are hired. Not only is he a sicko he is a twit as well. Toss him into some ghastly hellhole and throw away the key.

[yanna]

I wonder whether anyone could claim to have accessed something like this by mistake. I was googling for a word once (I'm a translator) and ended up on NAMBLA. Not a good experience but I don't think my employers would hold it against me

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by yanna

I wonder whether anyone could claim to have accessed something like this by mistake. I was googling for a word once (I'm a translator) and ended up on NAMBLA. Not a good experience but I don't think my employers would hold it against me

Well it did say he had 'viewed many images' so I think it would be different than accidentally stumbling across a website. (I did the same thing that you did though..googling burqas to find some funny pics and accidentally got on a pedo site! scary stuff!)

[Sojiita]

Originally Posted by lalaland

I would like a list of things he plugged into the search engine that "accidentially" got him a shit load of child porn.

Yeah I agree. Also if you get on one of those sites accidentally, you do not "view many images'..you get the hell off of it real quick!