Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Deleting Files is a Crime? 510

cemaco writes "A former employee of International Airport Centers, who is currently embroiled in a legal dispute with them, returned his company laptop as required. Hoping to find incriminating evidence, I.A.C. attempted to retrieve deleted information from the laptop in question with no success. This employee had beaten them to the punch. He had used 'secure delete' software, in order to make sure nothing could be recovered. He is now being charged with a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Deleting Files is a Crime?

Comments Filter:
  • by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:37PM (#14895179)
    It's the *company's* information. Just as if you took out your file folders and TPS reports before you quit work and burned them, it's a violation of law.
  • Re:Whoa! (Score:5, Informative)

    by infolation ( 840436 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:44PM (#14895255)
    It's not an uncommon data-deletion policy to encrypt all archived data/backups, then to later delete the corresponding key to any data that needs to be securely wiped. It would be pretty easy to end up in the same situation as this employee if your data was archived in this way and you decided to delete your keys when you left your job.
  • by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:47PM (#14895272) Homepage
    RTFA - "Citrin pointed out that his employment contract permitted him to "destroy" data in the laptop when he left the company. But the 7th Circuit didn't buy it"
  • by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:57PM (#14895352) Homepage Journal
    I read most of -- maybe 95% -- of the original article, but I did NOT read the court papers nor try to look for them.

    So, this is on the assumption that he SELECTIVELY deleted files and didn't delete day-to-day financials, IT-installed AV software, IT-installed firewall and logger software..

    But, since he used a secure delete:

    -- HOW does IAC know WHAT he deleted?

    -- WHY be such specious pieces of shit and sue him for something they cannot prove/trying to prove the unknowable?

    If he once had a company proposal, but then had his own ideas and prototyped them, but left the company-bound original in place then the stuff he made for himself is HIS HIS HIS! Not the company's "just because he put it there".

    If he put a pic of his family, they'd deleted it without a second thought. But, because it may be or they FEEL it's in their "sphere of interest", of course they'll want a copy. But, too bad. If they had a plan to expand and didn't include him, and liked his ideas but said, "See ya, we don't need ya", and he felt they we're using HIS ideas (which, if he's smart, can be reconstructed by any MBA observing the business potential, studying the companies and entities involved, and using some wit and imagination...), then if they didn't have them in their meetings minutes, they're stupid.

    Now, IF he produced the stuff on COMPANY time FOR the company and it was stuff they TOLD him to make as an in-process and end-product set of information, then he shouldn't have deleted it. But, if he, for instance, installed (say, with their permission) his own licensed software and produced data for them, but say, deleted their data, then they have NO damn business expecting to keep "evidence of his Corel (or whatever) copy". He could have had Maya, Alias, ACAD, who knows. And, if they had ACAD, but he drew floorplans of an office he intends to have fitted out, THAT, TOO is none of their goddam business.

    Sour grapes. Sometimes, some COMPANIES just don't get it. Same goes for those companies whic hire programmers and and then "compensate" them to intentionally embed, encrypt and then claim as "their own intellectual property" some GPL/GNU software they goddam didn't create, and then adamantly pass off and defend as their own and expect smarter employees to sign NDAs and Non-Competes over stuff the company didn't create.

    I hope that guy is smart, has a smart lawyer and that he actually IS in the right. But, unless we actually see the court transcripts, get our own forensics team on the hard drive (assuming the company didn't distrub the 1s and 0s any more than the ex-employee did), then it's going to be hard for any geek/nerd on this site to say much of anything meaningful without laying out some reasonable scenarios. I guess....
  • Re:Wrong law (Score:2, Informative)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:59PM (#14895370) Homepage Journal
    Was there a legal investigation going on when the employee returned the laptop?

    No.

    He quit and returned the item.

    THEN they began digging for dirt.

    That makes all the difference in the world.
  • by Em Ellel ( 523581 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @08:28PM (#14895561)
    Unless the company's written policy was "you cannot delete files from this laptop we've given you" then I can't see where there is a problem. If they really needed those files, they should have taken possession of the laptop BEFORE the fit hit the shan rather than cry foul after the fact.

    From what I understand of the courts opinion - his fault is NOT in deleting files on laptop in itself, but in deleting the files AFTER he terminated his contract. Termination of the contract made his access of laptop unauthorized and destroying data on machine you are not authorized to access is a crime, leading me to think that he would have been ok if he deleted the files PRIOR to terminating his contract. They are treating it as if he, after quitting his job, connected to his former employer's network and deleted files on their servers.

    -Em
  • by servognome ( 738846 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @08:36PM (#14895613)
    There are laws and/or company policies that dictate what documents need to be retained. If he is in violation of those, then yes deleting files is illegal. This is no different than illegal shredding of documents as part of a cover-up (eg Enron)
  • Re:Two-way crime (Score:5, Informative)

    by blibbler ( 15793 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @09:00PM (#14895741)
    > Then he could have been able to argue "You can't have it - returning it to you would be self-incrimination."

    That is bullshit. If that were true: a company could argue that the government can't look at their financial records because it would incriminate them; a murderer could deny police access to their premises because they would find a body in her freezer that would incriminate her.
    Self incrimination is when you are used directly as a source of evidence such as through a confession, or affidavit, and only applies to a criminal case.
  • by Rudolf ( 43885 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @09:56PM (#14895967)

    The main thing that bothers me is, what if I delete some JPGs that were stored on the computer? I may have a good reason for not wanting anyone to see them, and since they were mine, there should be nothing wrong with deleting them.



    Don't store stuff you don't want people to see on any computer but your own. Why would you store something on your employer's computer if you didn't want to them to see it?

  • Re:What Rights? (Score:3, Informative)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @10:00PM (#14895984)
    When I left my last job, the hard drive was being wiped as I walked out the door. I wasn't concern that the company would find any incrimating stuff on my computer (there was none). I was more concern that my manager might try to plant incrimating stuff on my computer to give me a bad reputation since I was leaving because of the manager and everyone knew it. That's a bit hard to do when the computer can't find the operating system. As for all my work-related files, they were stashed away on the network drive.
  • CVS (Score:3, Informative)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @10:08PM (#14896020) Homepage Journal
    It seems to me that the company in question is arguing that the ex-employee deleted business related materials with intentions to use these materials for his own financial gain. If this is the case, the company should revisit its business policies, they should enforce a rule, that all business related materials must be committed to a source repository. Maybe they should even install software on the laptop, that duplicates all files that are created, but does it quitely, encrypts the files, and stores them in a local protected database, and syncs with an online repository when it can.

    This also means that the company probably should use a different tactic - they should simply sue the former employee for breach of contract and not play these silly games with the deleted files.
  • Re:WTF... (Score:3, Informative)

    by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @10:32PM (#14896121) Homepage
    The problem is that it is illegal to destroy materials that are the subject of discovery and/or subpeona. I think this can extend pretty easily to being illegal to destroy materials that you have any reason to believe might be the subject of a future subpeona.

    This means if you have information that says you did something wrong, you can screw yourself further if you get rid of it. Finding a "secure delete" program on a computer is pretty much clear-cut evidence that you were trying to hide something. What, exactly, might you have had that warranted such behavior? Well, since they can't find that you better hope there isn't anything at all that is even remotely incriminating. Because if there is even a hint that you did actually destroy evidence, the judge is going to make your life hell.

    The instructions to the jury can go something like "Since we don't actually know what happened to the evidence, or if the evidence would have proven the defendent is guilty, but we do know there was such evidence and that it disappeared, it is your duty to consider that this evidence did exist and was intentionally destroyed by the defendent. This may be taken as further evidence of guilt."

    Spoilation of evidence is what it is called in both criminal and civil matters. You do not want to run afoul of this.
  • by cmholm ( 69081 ) <cmholmNO@SPAMmauiholm.org> on Friday March 10, 2006 @11:09PM (#14896256) Homepage Journal
    It would seem we're missing some context. Did Citrin wipe the entire disk, or did he merely make sure to overwrite some word processing docs? In many companies, including my employer, you're REQUIRED to encrypt working files and delete-by-overwrite files no longer required when taking laptops off site.

    Having RTFA, it looks like Mr. Citrin's problem was that he resigned first, THEN handed back the laptop. The judge ruled that Citrin's right to issue commands of any sort on the system ended upon resignation. If I'm reading that correctly, the solution for other soon-to-be-former employees or contractors seems simple: delete, then quit.

    More than anything, use head main ting when separating from a company. 1) get your personal gear out of the office; 2) delete email and files relating to personal business (or that might reflect especially poorly on you); 4) clear your browser history and cache; 5) securely overwrite all free sectors on disk; 6) log out and power down; 7) resign. It looks like Mr. Citrin may have gone overboard and nuked all of the company data on the laptop, which is of value and use to the company and their next person to fill his position, and made it look like he had something to hide.

  • Re:Two-way crime (Score:5, Informative)

    by penguinrenegade ( 651460 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @11:18PM (#14896287)
    Believe it. If you are not a publicly traded company, you can refuse the IRS' audit request on 5th Amendment grounds. The IRS has no right to search your records and interrupt your business. A murderer CAN deny police access to their premises and strictly shut the door in their face. A warrant can override this but you cannot be compelled without one.

    Similarly, if the police EVER pull you over and ask you if they can search your trunk or vehicle during a routine stop, you can refuse. I have done so, with no recriminations. I didn't have anything to hide but I take exception to the police searching without what I call a valid reason. I was stopped for expired tags, and after a 12-hour shift and 1 hour commute each way I was fully exhausted. Bloodshot eyes and the whole bit. Refused IMMEDIATELY and asked why they asked me. They told me that it was due to the bloodshot eyes and how I was obviously tired. I asked if they wanted me to pull over to sleep, they said no. I asked if they had any further reason for detaining me and again, they had to answer no, so I stated I would leave then. I already had the ticket in my hand - bing bang boom gone.

    You don't have to incriminate yourself, and this guy will easily get out of it on appeal.

    A better solution would be to ghost the hard drive when you get the laptop at your new job. Returning the computer to them in EXACTLY the same condition that it was given to you (data-wise) would then be trivial. How can they punish you for that? They can't. In fact, you can even prove that it IS in the same condition!
  • by Tom_Yardley ( 587588 ) on Friday March 10, 2006 @11:51PM (#14896374)
    . . . but the Judge is not. If one reads what the court wrote, http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/R31AIRTM.pdf [uscourts.gov] , then it is pretty clear that the court understood how machines work. If I put a $10,000.00 database on a laptop and give it to a guy to use and he erases it, how is that any different from hacking into my network and erasing the same data base? This is a short (7 pages) and clear opinion. Perhaps one should read it before declaring the sky is falling.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, 2006 @11:57PM (#14896393)
    I can't find it now, but a federal court judge once made the comment that people need the ability to delete files and have courts recognize them as "destroyed".

    You're probably talking about Judge James M. Rosenbaum (United States District Court for the District of Minnesota). "In Defence of the Delete Key", The Green Bag, 2D Series, Vol3, No4, Summer 2000.

    Here's the HTML Introduction [greenbag.org] and here's the actual PDF [greenbag.org].

  • Re:Two-way crime (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pendersempai ( 625351 ) on Saturday March 11, 2006 @01:43AM (#14896748)
    While corporations do get a lot of the constitutional protections that humans have, they cannot plead the fifth to avoid self-incrimination.
  • by tygt ( 792974 ) on Saturday March 11, 2006 @05:55AM (#14897287)
    1. If you do work on the company's property, the work belongs to them.
    2. If you do work on the company's time (they're paying you), the work belongs to them.
    3. If you do work on the company's computer, regardless of the above two, the work done on that computer belongs to them.

    That's in California. In some other states and countries, it's quite possible that any work done by you in the general field of commerce engaged by your employer belongs to them, regardless of when, where and how you did it.

    Thus, they certainly have a right to be looking for evidence on the computer that he'd done competitive work on it - that would belong to them. They looked, closely, and found.... nothing at all. Probably, just a clean, sanitized system (just like I always leave at the end of a job :]). So what? Sure, it's suspicious, but I'd say "too bad"; they certainly can't prove that he threw away anything useful.

    I'm sure that any lawyer worth his salt can call any number of expert witnesses who can show that secure-deletes are not hacking, and are absolutely required in many instances.

    He'll get off, but sure it's a pain.

  • There are ways (Score:3, Informative)

    by eneville ( 745111 ) on Saturday March 11, 2006 @10:02AM (#14897854) Homepage
    There are ways to get the information back if you look at the traces of magnetic distortion left on the surface of the disk from each write. Rather expensive equipment and much time is required to make it work.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...