Legality of snooping on a logged in account?

[TheLegendOfMart]

My second cousin has been suspended from work pending an investigation. The letter they gave him said "Gross Misconduct - Accessing illegal websites during working hours".

He isn't the sharpest tool in the box so didn't take in any information in the initial meeting where he told he was being suspended. They wouldn't let him take in a family member, which they have the right not to, but took the work colleague aside just before the meeting telling the colleague he could come in but wasn't allowed to speak.

He came to my house to seek advice and while on the phone with the HR person she said that he had logged into his personal Gmail on the "work system" and walked away while leaving it logged in. I don't know much more about it but I assume that someone else at his work must have started snooping into his logged in account and saw that he accesses porn and torrent sites who then reported it.

He is a carer which is why I assume they suspended him instantly pending investigation. He says he has never logged into a "work system", he doesn't have a work issued computer, laptop, phone or otherwise. He starts work at 7 and all of his rota is in paper form and he goes straight out to supporting the disabled people till the end of the work day.

I'm not sure I believe that he has never logged into a work computer but do they have any right to just snoop into his emails or even fire him for websites he accesses out of work time?

I assume they saw all this dodgy internet history and are trying to construct a narrative to dismiss him.

 

[Jokester]

None of this makes sense.

How can they have access to his internet history if he doesn't use their network or equipment?

Has he been caught actually watching porn during work on his own device, this sounds the more plausible case and would be gross misconduct?

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Tell me about it... He is 60 and doesn't have all his mental faculties about him. He barely understands how computers work. All he got out of HR was that he logged into his gmail on the "work system" and then left it logged in. I actually heard HR say this over speakerphone but they wouldn't let me speak.

He protests a little too much about not having access to a computer in the main office but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he was caught then they wouldn't be investigating the 'allegations'.

He is out of the office all day at the houses of disabled people. He can't just leave and go back to the office and if he did he would have had to sign into the building.

 

[Hades]

I'm not clear whether he is being accused of accessing questionable sites on work equipment, or whether they read his logged in gmail and found evidence from it that he was accessing what they deem illegal sites outside of work?

 

[Deleted member 77746]

1; "Gross Misconduct - Accessing illegal websites during working hours".
Illegal = "contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law". (Porn isn't illegal by law unless it was underage).

2: No, they wouldn't be allowed to go into his emails even if he had left himself logged in.
3: "Took the work colleague aside just before the meeting telling the colleague he could come in but wasn't allowed to speak" (He is allowed a voice) can speak.
4: I dare say he's been caught watching some filthy site at work, which is probably the reason.

Ask what he has been accessing outside of work (if anything illegal) and if there is something going on deeper that they have seen during work hours.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

HR said that there had been an allegation. Which could mean he was caught doing it on his phone but then I heard HR on speakerphone say he logged into a 'work system' and left it logged in and walked away.

 

[Hades]

For you to be able to give him any meaningful advice, other than recommending he take legal advice, you need to understand exactly what he has been accused of, when, where and what evidence has been presented to him.

 

[mmj_uk]

I think you need to ask for more detail as to why he has been suspended, GMail isn't illegal and any emails he might have in his inbox doesn't equate to "Accessing illegal websites during working hours". It also begs the question if there was anything illegal in his inbox why didn't they call the police?

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

He has a solicitors meeting on Tuesday he just wants me to write down a list of things to run by the Solicitor.

 

[Nasher]

Even on a work network people have some privacy rights and admins can't "stalk" them. If they went and read his emails, then THEY have breached data protection laws. Which now comes with massive fines...

If they don't want people using certain sites then they need to block them. Not leave everything open and punish people for using them.

 

[Jokester]

Would depend what it stated in his contract.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Surely snooping on his private emails without consent is illegal? Even if it is in his contract that they can surely they would have to get consent first?

I get that this is hard to pin down because there is so little information to go on. He doesn't have the brains to connect any device to their network which is why all of this is so confusing.

From what I can understand they are saying he logged into the "work system" and walked away. Someone else came along and started looking at his emails and browsing history who then reported it to their boss.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Sounds like the accused has used a shared terminal (not a personally allocated computer) to check his Gmail and walked off without locking the terminal.

This might be against his employer’s IT policy.

If another employee then went browsing through the accused party’s Gmail using said terminal, this employee would also be in the brown and smelly at any company I ever worked for as they have also breached privacy and IT policy.

 

[smokedog]

He is 60 and doesn't have all his mental faculties about him. He barely understands how computers work.

Yet, he's accessing torrent sites.

 

[mmj_uk]

Which work system? it's no good trying to guess.

He could have logged into email and what was in the history was from someone before him. I think you need to ask for some written detail.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

Yet, he's accessing torrent sites.

His kids showed him how to do it. I'm forever having to go down and wipe virii and shout at him but he never learns.

 

[Rroff]

Assuming the more innocent explanation that he logged into a personal account on work computers (assuming this isn't against the company IT policies) and within his account details was information about his browsing history/activity outside of work then anyone accessing that information without permission would be in a dubious legal place - if there was evidence there of illegal activity such as child porn, etc. then they should immediately take that to the police (anything else will likely go down very poorly against the company at a tribunal, etc.).

If he has been browsing said sites from a work PC then they are within their rights to monitor what sites are being accessed from their network and take action according to the company IT policies.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

That's what confuses me. They specifically said he logged into his email and left it logged in not that he had been browsing websites. I know the suspension letter says Gross Misconduct accessing illegal websites but to the computer illiterate someone could see his browsing history on his personal time and assume he has been browsing at work.

I guess I will find out after the next meeting after the solicitor. I just wanted to know if it was illegal to snoop into a logged in account. So I can write up some questions and other stuff so he can give to the solicitor as I doubt he would be able to explain the situation to them.

 

[Hagar]

If work has a 'guest' login which is monitored and logged, I assume any device accessing the work network through wifi would also be logged and may be flagged up. This could be what happened. It may not be illegal to view these sites, but most companies would consider it as misconduct at least.

 

[mmj_uk]

I think you need to either find out exact details or wait for the results of the investigation, it's mostly speculation at this point.