 |
Show Transcript
The Legal Perspective
December 18-22, 2006
Guest Speaker - Marc Zwillinger, Partner
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP - www.sonnenschein.com
Monday, December 18, 2006
The recent attention generated by Hewlett-Packard’s leak investigation is a useful reminder of the care that must be taken when conducting internal investigations, especially with regard to electronic communications. In today’s highly-networked world, investigations nearly always lead to searches of email servers, laptop hard drives, cell phones, blackberries, Treos, and other communication devices. Because these devices may or may not belong to the corporation and may contain commingled personal and corporate data, companies should create policies that spell out exactly when and how an individual’s use of these devices can be reviewed and monitored. Such policies help set employee expectations and provide appropriate flexibility for internal investigations.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
When conducting internal investigations, it is inevitable that you will find that employees have used office computers for personal activities. A forensic examination of the data stored on these computers can be very helpful in finding deleted data, ferreting out evidence of potential employee misconduct, and uncovering additional leads that can be pursued -- such as email addresses, myspace pages, and blog posts. This type of data analysis is nearly always permissible based on employment policies and applicable law. The use of the information that is discovered during these investigations is another matter. The ability to access an employee’s personal accounts using passwords or other login information found on the office computer is not the same as the legal right to do so.
Friday, December 22, 2006
When an investigation leads outside the office, a company may be tempted to turn to "undercover" methods designed to obtain information from third-parties under a false pretext. Pretexting, or social engineering, as it used to be known, raises legal risks when someone makes affirmative misrepresentations about their identity to get access to information intended to be confidential to a specific person or entity. Other methods, however, such as posing to be a general member of the public without disclosing a specific company affiliation may, in many cases, be permissible. Mastering the nuances of the legality of different investigative options really does require the assistance of well-trained professionals. Simply following “your gut” as to the scope of permissible conduct may not be sufficient to face the scrutiny that can follow these types of investigations.
Choose a link below to find out more:
|
This Week 
2006