Accounting
Taxes
Tax Tips
Tax Forms & Pubs
Services
Payroll Services
Bookkeeping
News & Info
Retirement Plans
Important Dates
Resources
Ministers & Church
Tax Tables
Technology
Record Retention
Financial Calculators
Business Planning
Glossary of Terms
FAQ's
About Us
Staff
Our Location
Contact Us
Privacy
Technology & Computers

Reprinted from ZDNet.com

Commentary--Employers are quite concerned about the legal and financial risks caused by inappropriate employee electronic communications. In fact, they are firing employees who violate workplace computer policies.
I recently wrote about how employers face considerable challenges figuring out to handle employees' electronic communications, such as blogging and instant messaging.

According to the 2006 Workplace E-Mail, Instant Messaging & Blog Survey by the American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute, 26 percent of employers have fired employees for misuse of e-mail. Another 2 percent have terminated workers for inappropriate instant messaging chat; while yet a further 2 percent have dismissed employees for offensive blogging content, including content posted on employees' personal home computers.
 
Why are employers fighting back so hard against their own employees? The AMA and the ePolicy Institute believe that this backlash follows a wave of lawsuits caused by employee e-mails. The survey points out that 24 percent of companies have been served with subpoenas for their employees' e-mails. About 15 percent of companies have gone to court to battle lawsuits triggered by e-mails from their employees. The failure by employees to retain certain e-mails, as required, has led to significant financial sanctions in some cases.

Why are employees causing so much trouble for their employers? Unfortunately, there's a downside to the same benefit offered by the ease and speed of electronic communications. It is so easy to interact with others quickly by way of e-mail, instant messaging and blogging, that some employees treat these communications like verbal chatting. They easily forget that the electronic communications are saved and can be distributed to others. What a given employee might want to say verbally one-on-one to another person in private very well might not be the type of communication that should be preserved as an electronic communication.

Also, some employees cling to the mistaken belief that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects all forms of their speech, including their electronic speech. Not so. The First Amendment does not allow employees to enter into communications, electronic or otherwise, that defame their employers or improperly harm other employees. It also doesn't protect communications that compromise the trade secrets and intellectual property of their employers, as just a few examples of non-protected speech.

Employees must understand that the law does not necessarily consider their workplace electronic communications as private and does not embrace communications that are adverse to the interests of their employers. Many employees are employed "at will," which means that they can be terminated without any reason by their employers. Even employees who have contracts that say they will not be terminated but for "good cause," may provide the good cause needed by employers if they engage in offensive electronic communications.

On top of all of this, many employers have employees sign company business equipment policies that make plain that workers have no privacy interests in their workplace communications and that provide the do's and don'ts of communications. However, while 76 percent of employers have policies that address workplace e-mail usage and content, only 2 percent of employers have educated their employees with respect to blogging.

Moreover, even though 35 percent of employees use instant messaging at work, only 31 percent of employers have IM policies in place. As technology develops and further means of communicating come to the fore, employers need to be proactive in training their employees.

While 34 percent of surveyed companies have in place written e-mail retention/deletion policies, fewer than 34 percent of employees understand the difference between e-mails that must be saved and insignificant e-mails that should be purged. This can come back to bite employers, especially regarding destroyed e-mails that should have been saved--a company could be charged with destroying evidence relating to matters at issue in legal proceedings--which could lead to substantial financial sanctions.

So, yes, it is understandable that under certain circumstances employers may have no recourse but to terminate employees who are causing trouble with their electronic communications, especially after having been warned. But employers should be sure to be ahead of the curve in teaching their employees about how to properly use information technology.


biography
Eric J. Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris. His focus includes information technology and intellectual property disputes. To receive his weekly columns, send an e-mail to ejsinrod@duanemorris.com with "Subscribe" in the subject line. The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect those of Sinrod's law firm or its individual partners.
   

 

To sign or not to sign?

By James Ambrosio ٠ Bankrate.com

For as long as credit cards have been in use, it has been standard operating procedure for issuers to urge cardholders to sign the back of new cards as soon as the plastic arrives in the mail.

But in an era when credit card companies promote "zero fraud liability," online transactions are commonplace and point-of-purchase card readers and self-checkouts at retail stores essentially remove clerks from even handling the card, let alone looking at the signature, does it really matter if you do?

"There is very good evidence that signing the back of your card is meaningless anymore," says Paul Mason, assistant dean of the University of Kansas School of Business. Mason is a certified fraud investigator and CPA who has been teaching courses on fraud for the past eight years and is writing a textbook on the topic for college-level instruction. "I can tell you that in the Midwest, where I live, it is most unusual to have a clerk look at the back of the card. They usually swipe it and hand it back."

Check ID
In truth, there is a large segment of the card-carrying public that simply refuses to sign their cards, believing it helps protect them from fraud if their cards are lost or stolen. Mason is one of them. Instead, he writes "Check ID" on the signature panel. Should a shopkeeper look at the back of his card, he says that phrase should prompt a request to see a driver's license or other form of ID.

Another proponent of the "Check ID" practice is David Dixon, a telecommunications consultant from Kansas City, Kan., who says he travels over 100,000 miles each year. His rationale is simple: "If I'm out on the road and I lose my credit card, I want to make it as difficult as possible for thieves to use it," Dixon says. "The only thing I have signed is my driver's license. I don't sign the back of my cards, period -- with one exception. I did sign my Bank of America card because it has my picture on it. I don't know why every credit card company doesn't do that. There are people that resemble you, but the chance of them stealing your card is remote. To me, not signing the card just makes good sense. Anything to make it more difficult for thieves."

Lest you wonder, this "don't sign your card" is not a phenomenon unique to Kansas residents. The Web site ScamBusters.org wrote a piece in 2004 listing 21 steps to protect yourself against card fraud and instructed readers to sign their cards. The site was inundated with mail from people around the country who subscribed to the same theory as Mason and Dixon.

Prankster John Hargrave relates stories on his Web site, Zug.com, of using increasingly wacky signatures to see if anyone would ever notice if it looked like the one on his credit card. For example, he paid for an order at a Krispy Kreme franchise by signing the receipt "Dunk 'N Donuts." At a local aquarium he signed his card receipt "Shamu" and drew a picture of a whale. Both were accepted without question. His conclusion: "Who checks the signature? Nobody checks the signature."

In his experience, Dixon says, few merchants bother to verify signatures. The one exception he's encountered in recent years: the U.S. Postal Service.

The issuers reply
What does the credit card industry have to say about it? Jay Hopkins, who represents Visa, says that merchants are supposed to verify signatures when accepting Visa's cards and that failing to do so could possibly make the merchant liable for fraudulent purchases.

As for the idea that not signing your card makes you less vulnerable to ID theft, Hopkins says simply that the practice is "urban folklore. If you write 'See ID' in your signature panel, the card is not considered valid and merchants are not supposed to accept it. If cardholders want to write that with a marker on the back of the card, that's all fine and dandy, but they should still sign the card."

MasterCard's Web site instructs merchants that "the back of the card must be signed, and the signature should reasonably compare to the cardholder signature on the sales receipt. Check to be sure that it has not been taped over, mutilated, erased or altered in any suspicious manner. The word 'Void' on the signature panel indicates that the signature panel has been tampered with."

Fight that fraud
Despite increased credit card commerce, fraud rates have actually declined in the past 15 years. According to The Nilson Report, a credit card industry publication, losses from credit card fraud in 2004 amounted to about five cents for each $100 in transactions, versus a peak of 16 cents per $100 in 1992, a decline that happened against a backdrop of huge increases in transaction volumes.

Obviously, given the billions of dollars in credit card transactions conducted each day, six cents for every $100 in sales still adds up to a lot of fraud, which explains why the card companies focus on combating it through more technologically sophisticated techniques than old-fashioned signature verification.

A common means of stealing credit card numbers is "skimming." In a skimming scheme, a crooked waiter or clerk swipes the card through an inexpensive device that records the information encoded on the magnetic strip. It can be stored for later use for purchases or sold to organized theft rings. Customers generally won't know their card number was stolen until they start seeing unusual charges on their bills.

Of greater concern, says Mason, is that "skimming can lead to identity theft. I'm much more concerned about that than credit card fraud."

To combat such schemes, the card companies use what they describe as a "layered" approach to combating fraud. The techniques include analyzing spending patterns to detect odd purchases that might indicate fraud, requiring holders to first enter their ZIP code as a top-level address-verification tool at point-of-purchase terminals, or asking online purchasers to input the unique three- or four-digit codes imprinted on cards that are separate from embossed account numbers.

These days you can check out by yourself in large retail stores and grocery chains. Self-service gas pumps with built-in card readers make it unnecessary for the purchasers to interact with the merchants in completing the transaction. And if the card never leaves the cardholder's hand, it should be more secure.



Back to Top

 

 

Reprinted (with permission) from WinXP News
 
How Long Before We're All Forced to be Micro-Chipped?
 
We've talked about microchipping here before, and when we have, readers have responded with everything from "the end is near" to "you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist." Since the last time we discussed the topic almost two years ago ("Chipping Away at your Rights," May 2, 2006), the march of technology has gone on.

At that time, RFID tags in livestock was already routine and many people were starting to get their pets "chipped." Voluntary chip implants in humans were available and being used by bars and private clubs for payment, and a few companies were experimenting with chipping their workers who needed access to secure facilities.

Last week, microchips made the news again in a big way when the Daily Mail reported that the London Metropolitan Police will be implanting chips in all police officers so administrators can monitor their movements. It's being touted as an officer safety measure, but it's not making all officers feel safer. Officers are already tracked by GPS devices in their radio headsets, but under-the-skin implants will take that to a whole new level. Some have raised concerns that the terrorists and other bad guys will be able to hack into the devices despite encryption, and know exactly where the cops are at any given moment. http://www.wxpnews.com/NBR84Q/080415-Police-Chips

Maybe it's because I was once a cop that this particular implementation of microchipping hits home so hard. In the U.S., if you've been a police officer (just as if you've been in the military) your fingerprints are on file with the FBI forever. That seems intrusive enough, but cops accept it as a price that has to be paid if you want the job. If (or should I say "when"?) microchipping becomes mandatory for the police on this side of the big pond, will American cops accept that with no more than a few grumbles, or will they protest? I suspect we would see a few resignations and the rest would go along.

At this point, the chipping can still be seen as "optional." If Met police officers don't want it, they can always quit their jobs and do something else. Of course, for folks who have been cops all their lives and don't know how to or want to do anything else for a living, that's not really much of an option.

For governments that are ultimately determined to exert maximum control over their citizens, it makes sense to start with their own employees. But it's hard to believe the trend will stop with government workers. After all, if chipping can increase officer safety, then wouldn't it also increase the safety of those in other high risk groups? And who's at higher perceived risk than children - especially with all the media attention these days on pedophiles and similar predators?

Of course, once you chip all the little ones, all you have to do is wait for them to grow up and you have a chipped population. There's really no need to force the microchips on adults who might be resistant. If kids grow up with the technology from the beginning, it will seem as natural and normal to them as computers do to today's children.

When we read "1984" as kids, such a future seemed far away and/or impossible in the free world in which we lived. Perhaps we didn't realize was that 1984 does not suddenly come into full blown fruition at midnight on New Year's Eve of whatever year; the elimination of privacy and the domination of Big Brother are part of a gradual process. Like the frog placed in the pan of water with the heat turned up a little at a time, we accept small and incremental steps toward that Brave New World without thinking about where it's all leading - until finally the water is boiling and we're all cooked.

Or not. The other side of the argument says all the fuss over this new technology is an overreaction of Luddites who are just afraid of anything new or religious fanatics who see the chip as the mark of Beast. And it's true that most people, especially as they get older, are uncomfortable with new and unfamiliar technology, even if it's beneficial. The telephone, television, automobiles - all were condemned and/or resisted by many when they were introduced. Space travel was looked upon with disapproval by some folks, often on religious grounds.

And there's no denying that the technology can be useful. Scientists just recently created a device that uses an implanted RFID chip to locate tumors and detect radiation levels in chemotherapy patients. http://www.wxpnews.com/NBR84Q/080415-Tumor-Tracking-Implants

Still, some states are concerned enough about the prospect of forced implants that they've passed laws prohibiting it. In 2007, California passed SB 362 outlawing mandatory implantation of RFID chips and the governor signed it into law in September of that year. Wisconsin and North Dakota had already passed similar laws. New Hampshire is currently considering such a law in conjunction with other regulations governing RFID products.
http://www.wxpnews.com/NBR84Q/080415-RFID-Tagging

http://www.wxpnews.com/NBR84Q/080415-RFID-Ban

http://www.wxpnews.com/NBR84Q/080415-RFID-Debate

Tell us what you think. Are mandatory microchip implants inevitable? Is it just a matter of time? Is what's good for the family dog also good for the rest of the family (chipping pets is already required by law in some countries)? Should more states pass laws prohibiting forced chipping? Or are those who fear misuse of the chips just making a mountain out of a molehill? Do the advantages outweigh the dangers? Would you refuse to be chipped if it meant losing your job? Send us your opinions to feedback@wxpnews.com.

If you have feedback or wish to write to the editor, write to us at feedback@wxpnews.com

Sunbelt Software
33 North Garden Avenue
Clearwater, Florida USA 33755

 


Back to Top


 

   
 
DAF Associates, Inc. | 121 Goff Mtn Road | Cross Lanes (Charleston), WV  25313-1434
Phone: (304) 776-4011 - Fax: (304) 776-9210
Copyright © 2007. DAF Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.