Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!ll-xn!adelie!infinet!rhorn
From: rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Legal responsibility?  (And a procedure query)
Message-ID: <1031@infinet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Nov-87 14:41:42 EST
Article-I.D.: infinet.1031
Posted: Fri Nov 20 14:41:42 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Nov-87 22:43:41 EST
References: <1043@pbhyd.UUCP> <25092COK@PSUVMA> <6851@ut-ngp.UUCP> <1377@pinney.munsell.UUCP> <25319COK@PSUVMA>
Reply-To: rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn)
Organization: Infinet, Inc.  North Andover, MA
Lines: 25

In article <25319COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) writes:
>A corporation would likely be held responsible for employee actions upon its
>computer systems (you would know much more about this than I).

More than likely.  It is a near certainty.  As in one recent example
from New York:

  Employee X is embezzling money from employer Y.  To conceal this
fact from employer Y, X falsifies income tax returns and bribes
officials.  An audit by employer Y discovers these actions.  Employer
Y notifies police and IRS, presses charges, pays back taxes.  Employer
Y was in turn charged with corporate criminal behavior: falsifying
income tax returns and bribing officials.  Employer Y was *convicted*,
and lost all appeals because as the employer they were responsible for
maintaining proper controls over their employee.  (The defense
counsel for employer Y still don't understand what really motivated
the DA to press charges.)

Employers can be held responsible for almost everything an employee
does on company time or with company facilities.  Usually DA's and
others are reasonable about assigning responsibility, but not always.
-- 
				Rob  Horn
	UUCP:	...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn
	Snail:	Infinet,  40 High St., North Andover, MA
	(Note: harvard!infinet path is in maps but not working yet)