[qbnkelt]

I don't believe that you can be charged with ANYTHING simply for receiving a photo. Transmitting it is another matter...

You can be charged for possession of child pornography without distributing it.

In the case described the person who is on a corporate issued phone can be found in breach of the agreement he entered with the company by receiving photographs if they were not part of his job to receive those photographs.

In my agency, receiving materials not inherently tied to his job, on a job issued device that he has given to someone else to use, is a breach of the agreement for use of the device.


Sent from my AWESOME gold 64G iPhone 5s via Tapatalk

[qbnkelt]

How are you to know what's in an attachment without opening it? One could send compromising photos to thousands of random numbers. and they'd all be guilty? Of what exactly? Just like in the OP, deleting it is the proper thing to do. Possessing it or transmitting it would be required for any sort of charges.

In my agency, an attachment from an unknown source should not be opened to begin with. It should be reported, unopened, to the employee's management and security.

Deleting is not the correct thing to do. Reporting an unknown document from an unknown source is the correct thing and it's what we stress when we hand out devices and when the employee signs the use agreement. There are plenty if dangers from social engineering and phishing scams without getting into the complications of pornographic materials. The picture was described a being questionable in nature. To me that says pornography. The police were involved, that means it was more serious than someone passing around naked Kardashian pics.



Sent from my AWESOME gold 64G iPhone 5s via Tapatalk

[MobileMadness002]

I don't believe that you can be charged with ANYTHING simply for receiving a photo. Transmitting it is another matter...

May not be able to be charged with it but could you imagine for a second someone in a secure company getting questioned on the reception of illegal materials. How would the company handle this.

Yes Mr Smith did receive child porn but was his 17 year old son using his company issued device. This has no bearing on the son having access to company confidential documents.

I would not even have a discussion, he would be immediately terminated for allowing someone to use company property who is not authorized.

Posted via CB10

[qbnkelt]

I am completely flummoxed as to why the company would have been received a tongue lashing in this scenario. The employee is the guilty party here and not the company at all. Why would the police be upset at all with the employee? Why would the police have anything to say to the company? The police don't get involved in business misdeeds, they deal with individuals.

Something is odd here.


Sent from my AWESOME gold 64G iPhone 5s via Tapatalk

[co4nd]

That's why all companies should go BYOD, because in that situation the device is not there's and neither is the liability.

[crazigee]

That's why all companies should go BYOD, because in that situation the device is not there's and neither is the liability.

The ownership of the device isn't really relevant. Neither is the brand of device. Regardless of whether it was a BlackBerry or an iPhone nothing changes.

Posted using my Z10 via CB10

[Branta]

So your company pulled your BES, trashed out legacy devices, either allowed BYOD or handed out corporate iphones etc and they are not locked down.....big cheer by all. Well hang on. What I am about to tell you is why BlackBerry will be successful going forward, and why BES10 is a great solution.

This is a factual event. A corporate device issued to Employee A was being allowed to be used by his teenaged son. The son was sent a compromising photo. Thankfully the kid deleted it, but the police did trace the path and the corporation received a tongue lashing so to speak of its liability. This is a small example of how corporations can be hurt, even if paperwork was in place.

That is why BES10 is so important in combination with BB10 devices. You have the locked down work side, then the personal side drawing a defined line in the sand. You can't allow employees or circumstances to choose the boundaries. Corporations who stop taking security measures and carry the new BYOD and carefree attitude will learn the hard way.

Posted via CB10

Maybe I should make a summary of the "facts" from the OP:
1. An employee allowed a family member to use a corporate issue smartphone of unspecified brand. (At worst, a violation of workplace rules)
2. The family member was using the device when it received an inappropriate photo. (Possible offense by the sender. No offense disclosed against any part of the recipient stream unless the photo was actively solicited by the user)
3. The photo was deleted from the recipient device
4. Somehow law enforcement considered this as grounds to reprimand the corporation owning the recipient device. (At best, abuse of authority and consequent misconduct by the LE officials involved).
5. The OP considers this sequence of alleged events to be evidence in favor of corporate issue BlackBerry devices.

In reality the OP's somewhat implausible story is a better supporting scenario for BYOD which would entirely exclude the employer from any liability. The supposed offending device would have no discernible links to the employer, and any attempt by the employee to implicate the corporation could be rebutted simply by pointing out that it is a privately owned device being used by a third party.

[crazigee]

Still don't know what any of this has to do with BlackBerry or how this is a scenario that results from the company moving away from BlackBerry.

Quote frankly the whole story seems exaggerated, or made up.

Posted using my Z10 via CB10

[TheScionicMan]

You can be charged for possession of child pornography without distributing it.

In the case described the person who is on a corporate issued phone can be found in breach of the agreement he entered with the company by receiving photographs if they were not part of his job to receive those photographs.

In my agency, receiving materials not inherently tied to his job, on a job issued device that he has given to someone else to use, is a breach of the agreement for use of the device.


Sent from my AWESOME gold 64G iPhone 5s via Tapatalk

I was referring to the part where you said an "unlawful act" had been performed. That is completely different from unauthorized use.

[qbnkelt]

I was referring to the part where you said an "unlawful act" had been performed. That is completely different from unauthorized use.

Willfully granting someone access as the father did to a company's system (in this case email) without the company's approval is an unlawful act. The unauthorised person has received unauthorised access into a company's system.

The use of the device by the son is unauthorised use.


Sent from my AWESOME gold 64G iPhone 5s via Tapatalk

[Playbook007]

Some say this never happened, or its hard to believe, well it did, and it is more than plausible. Some say BES10 wouldn't help, well it would. On BES10, the company can lock it down, set blacklists, white lists, etc. They can force password access to the corporate side. Some say the company isn't liable. Well perhaps legally they are not.....but according to the Police they are responsible for content on their cell devices/computers. But here is the real catch......if they parents had decided to press charges, and the company name gets into the media......what would the headline read? At that point what does it matter who is really at fault? There are countless media prosecutions everyday.....front page news. And where are the retractions, small print buried in the paper, fine print and years later.......Companies do need to take security seriously.

Posted via CB10

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Some say this never happened, or its hard to believe, well it did, and it is more than plausible. Some say BES10 wouldn't help, well it would. On BES10, the company can lock it down, set blacklists, white lists, etc. They can force password access to the corporate side. Some say the company isn't liable. Well perhaps legally they are not.....but according to the Police they are responsible for content on their cell devices/computers. But here is the real catch......if they parents had decided to press charges, and the company name gets into the media......what would the headline read? At that point what does it matter who is really at fault? There are countless media prosecutions everyday.....front page news. And where are the retractions, small print buried in the paper, fine print and years later.......Companies do need to take security seriously.

Posted via CB10

Regardless of your stories merits, or anyone ability to believe it.

I still fail to see it as a advertisement for BES. Only way BES makes this better is if the device was BYOD and it had a Workspace Container that was the companies - as the BES Worksapce doesn't have Texting in it, their would have been no "compromising photo" in the company controlled container. And as the device was not company owned, and the photo had not traveled via their network.... it would be difficult to find them at fault.

For BES or any other MDM solution to prevent this, the device would have to be so locked down that it would be useless as a communications device. (Blacklisting and Whitelisting phone numbers)

Very good example of a case for BYOD!