police pressing charges

Evilm

So she creates a website during her employment with him under his instructions? And then she password protects it and leaves refusing to give him the password?

Sorry, it was done whilst working for him - regardless of the pay issue - and therefore its his property so she cannot deny him access to it.

It also wouldn't be her responsibility for the images being uses illegally. The 'correct' thing to do is to cover her !!! and get it in writing that HE decided to use these images even though he knows they are copyrighted and shouldn't be used. Then the responsibility rests with the company and him and he can't rebound it to her claiming he didn't know their sources/legality issues.

dizzyrascal

Evilm wrote: »

So she creates a website during her employment with him under his instructions? And then she password protects it and leaves refusing to give him the password?

Sorry, it was done whilst working for him - regardless of the pay issue - and therefore its his property so she cannot deny him access to it.

It also wouldn't be her responsibility for the images being uses illegally. The 'correct' thing to do is to cover her !!! and get it in writing that HE decided to use these images even though he knows they are copyrighted and shouldn't be used. Then the responsibility rests with the company and him and he can't rebound it to her claiming he didn't know their sources/legality issues.

No I think it would be the owner of the website (or the organisation) not the member of staff. You can be prosecuted even if you believed you had used the images in good faith. (say you thought that they were not copyright images)

Evilm

dizzyrascal wrote: »

No I think it would be the owner of the website (or the organisation) not the member of staff. You can be prosecuted even if you believed you had used the images in good faith. (say you thought that they were not copyright images)

I meant the company/organisation actually rather than him personally - apologies, lazy writing.

The main thing is to cover that she has 'proof' in case he tries to twist it against her in the future. Wouldn't be the first time its been tried!

Errata

Why are the police involved? Nothing has been stolen. An unknown password is simply that, and I would guess could quickly be discovered by an IT expert.

Gilbert2

Evilm wrote: »

So she creates a website during her employment with him under his instructions? And then she password protects it and leaves refusing to give him the password?

Sorry, it was done whilst working for him - regardless of the pay issue - and therefore its his property so she cannot deny him access to it.

But her actions are essentially preventing an illegal or unlawful act, I'm none too sure what she could be charged with, criminally.

Due to that fact I'd say the CPS wouldn't pursue and if there was a civil action it would get thrown out.

agrinnall

Errata wrote: »

Why are the police involved? Nothing has been stolen. An unknown password is simply that, and I would guess could quickly be discovered by an IT expert.

In fact, reading the garbled mess that is the first post it appears that may well have happened already:

"the boss got into the site and made it live"

keith_t_3

Hello trickywicky, the reason i have not answered the replies is i have to work, so just got back after 2_10 shift and you think i`m a troll lol. She was told by the police that her ex employer has pressed charges against her because she put a password on a website she was making for him. When she left due to non payment of wages she didn`t give him the password for 2 reasons 1st she hadn`t been paid, and 2nd the site wasn`t ready to be put on the web because he had told her to put pictures on it from another site just so he could see what it would look like. now this is illegal you have to use stock pictures for a website , so my wife locked it each day until it was ready . we are still not sure what is going to happen on saturday at the police station, as i`ve mentioned my friend is a police officer and he tells me it`s very strange . And as someone mentioned before the only thing he could think of was it may come under the 1990 computer misuse act (no i`m not a troll lol) but until she gets interviewed saturday we will not know. Like i said early on , even the police officers who called round said they weren't sure if it was a crime , but have to follow up any complaint. hope this clears some of the questions up. thanks for reading and getting back to me anyway.
keith

szam_

I have to agree with what someone else said, sounds like there is more to it than meets the eye.

In regards to putting a password on something, if it was maliciously done (which, by the sounds of it, was the intent and her former boss knows this as i assume that's what he had been told) then yes, he probably will pursue (just from the sounds of the guy as you have portrayed him to be), although I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to achieve if he got in anyway, i work in IT myself and can tell you, it really isn't that difficult, no real damage was done, is he seeking damages for maybe paying £70 for an IT Tech to unlock what he needed access to? If so... what's the point?

If she had put a password on and left without mentioning anything, i think (but don't quote me on this) that she wouldn't have had to have told him the password, or been in contact with him there-on out; especially if she was never paid.

walter_wobblebottom

Take him to the small claims court for the wages,he will either not turn up,or turn up and you will win but he won't pay you a penny,thats when you send in the debt collectors.;)

Blackpool_Saver

Maybe Keith is typing on a phone and can't see the full screen?

Keith?