Making a case for job abandonment is much easier than proving mere underperformance.
The keylogger isn't strictly necessary. My trade secret: look at authentication counts.
Here in the US, company policy mandates that the employee lock the screen when away from desk and we have timeouts to enforce it (for PCI). Labor law requires 3-4 breaks per shift.
So when arriving at their desk and returning from each break, all employees should have an absolute minimum of 3-4 authentications logged per shift.
Realistically it's going to be way more than that because people get up and do stuff all the time (which is fine, and desirable, since it at least suggests activity), but if someone has less than the absolute minimum number of logins they'd accrue if they were physically chained to their desk, they're either not actually at their desk, they're violating labor law by not taking breaks (while also somehow underperforming), or they installed a mouse jiggler (which I'd then look for and get them for "installing software/hardware to obfuscate evidence of job abandonment").
This is all trivial to do with Defender KQL or whatever SIEM you have. No spyware necessary.
aye. logins to the laptop, SSO hits to access internal sites, number of emails or text (teams, slack, whatever) sent, DNS queries and to which sites, etc.
lots of ways to track this without being invasive, and plenty of endpoint security and business analytics already do.
In general news organisations (Daily Mail, et al) have been doing a poor job sourcing images for minor stories, they frequently assign interns to scour social media for the name and often come up with right name wrong person photos.
I repeat once again, not her face. Not the same shape. Not even a photograph. Not even useful for picking the actual [erson out from a lineup of women of a similar age and build.
1. because it is in Australia where you need good reason to fire someone, and disgruntled people litigate.
2. I don’t like the privacy implications. However it sounds like her litigation was baseless so at least making her visible helps future employers avoid her and risk of litigation.
Why would anyone want to push somebody into homelessness or into permanent reliance on government subsidies because they cannot find work only because they screwed up?
Imagine saying something controversial on social media and having that plastered all over the web.
I don’t want to do any such thing. I want people to stop abusing the judicial system. She didn’t work, she was fired and she sued. I think it’s good if other businesses are aware of her behaviour.
Unless your business is media or heavily linked to public perception, your controversial opinions should be irrelevant to work. This is different to a worker who doesn’t do their work and sues, that is _very_ relevant to future work.
Your premise is also incorrect: there are businesses that are happy to take on extra risk and will happily employ felons or other black sheep. Many people are willing to give a second chance, but they should be aware that they are giving a second chance.
your controversial opinions should be irrelevant to work
That is, unfortunately (or fortunately if you're that kind of person), not how things work for a large amount of jobs. If you have that scarlet letter, you're shut out of a lot of positions, even when that history _shouldn't_ matter.
It doesn't appear to be as simple as that. She worked at the company for 18 years. If she was unproductive and committing fraud for all of the 18 years there, then that is a reflection of how incompetent her managers and the company's processes are.
To be employed by them, for so long, means that she was likely productive for most of her time there (then slacked off at some point) and/or how employees are managed and evaluated at that company is completely dysfunctional.
I honestly think the company being too dysfunctional to be aware of her behavior is more likely than her being a productive employee for more than a decade and then deciding to do no work.
I don’t like the privacy implications. However it sounds like her litigation was baseless so at least making her visible helps future employers avoid her and risk of litigation.
But the privacy implications should not be ignored, and it appears the company and media organizations seek to do further damage and harm, beyond what was required to win the case.
The ability of people to change or their right to seek future employment elsewhere, can't be ignored or purposely inhibited without creating more legal and litigation issues.
Well, they did get a legal case thrown at them about it. Probably easier and cheaper to stockpile more hard evidence than is likely needed than risk having too little when the court cases come around.
Comments
Question 1: Why did her employer need a keystroke monitor to build a case to fire her, when she was clearly not meeting expectations?
Question 2: why does this news story need to plaster her face all over the article multiple times?
Making a case for job abandonment is much easier than proving mere underperformance.
The keylogger isn't strictly necessary. My trade secret: look at authentication counts.
Here in the US, company policy mandates that the employee lock the screen when away from desk and we have timeouts to enforce it (for PCI). Labor law requires 3-4 breaks per shift.
So when arriving at their desk and returning from each break, all employees should have an absolute minimum of 3-4 authentications logged per shift.
Realistically it's going to be way more than that because people get up and do stuff all the time (which is fine, and desirable, since it at least suggests activity), but if someone has less than the absolute minimum number of logins they'd accrue if they were physically chained to their desk, they're either not actually at their desk, they're violating labor law by not taking breaks (while also somehow underperforming), or they installed a mouse jiggler (which I'd then look for and get them for "installing software/hardware to obfuscate evidence of job abandonment").
This is all trivial to do with Defender KQL or whatever SIEM you have. No spyware necessary.
A wild ethical-sysadmin appears! That's a nice and fairly non-invasive solution.
aye. logins to the laptop, SSO hits to access internal sites, number of emails or text (teams, slack, whatever) sent, DNS queries and to which sites, etc.
lots of ways to track this without being invasive, and plenty of endpoint security and business analytics already do.
Re 2:
* It's barely a 'news' publication, it's the UK LadBible social media network of schlock.
* Not her face unless there's some heavy heavy filters doing the lifting. See:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/exclusive/article-12387247/...
for a possible 'correct' image.
In general news organisations (Daily Mail, et al) have been doing a poor job sourcing images for minor stories, they frequently assign interns to scour social media for the name and often come up with right name wrong person photos.
Image is lifted from linkedin profile.
I read the credits in the LadBible piece, as I said above that's not her face, at best it's an artifact of heavy filtering.
See the Daily Mail piece for a realistic image of a person more likely to be who the story is about.
I repeat once again, the image is lifted from a person of the same name, at the same company linked in profile.
I repeat once again, not her face. Not the same shape. Not even a photograph. Not even useful for picking the actual [erson out from a lineup of women of a similar age and build.
Thanks for the education. I feel enlightened now with this knowledge.
1. because it is in Australia where you need good reason to fire someone, and disgruntled people litigate.
2. I don’t like the privacy implications. However it sounds like her litigation was baseless so at least making her visible helps future employers avoid her and risk of litigation.
Why would anyone want to push somebody into homelessness or into permanent reliance on government subsidies because they cannot find work only because they screwed up?
Imagine saying something controversial on social media and having that plastered all over the web.
I don’t want to do any such thing. I want people to stop abusing the judicial system. She didn’t work, she was fired and she sued. I think it’s good if other businesses are aware of her behaviour.
Unless your business is media or heavily linked to public perception, your controversial opinions should be irrelevant to work. This is different to a worker who doesn’t do their work and sues, that is _very_ relevant to future work.
Your premise is also incorrect: there are businesses that are happy to take on extra risk and will happily employ felons or other black sheep. Many people are willing to give a second chance, but they should be aware that they are giving a second chance.
That is, unfortunately (or fortunately if you're that kind of person), not how things work for a large amount of jobs. If you have that scarlet letter, you're shut out of a lot of positions, even when that history _shouldn't_ matter.
She was caught committing timecard fraud. Had this ended there, sure, have empathy.
Instead of taking responsibility for it, she played the victim card and filed a lawsuit in bad faith. She does not belong in any workplace.
It doesn't appear to be as simple as that. She worked at the company for 18 years. If she was unproductive and committing fraud for all of the 18 years there, then that is a reflection of how incompetent her managers and the company's processes are.
To be employed by them, for so long, means that she was likely productive for most of her time there (then slacked off at some point) and/or how employees are managed and evaluated at that company is completely dysfunctional.
I honestly think the company being too dysfunctional to be aware of her behavior is more likely than her being a productive employee for more than a decade and then deciding to do no work.
Depression can hit anybody at any time, even the most productive. Burn-out is also something quite a few people suffer from.
But the privacy implications should not be ignored, and it appears the company and media organizations seek to do further damage and harm, beyond what was required to win the case.
The ability of people to change or their right to seek future employment elsewhere, can't be ignored or purposely inhibited without creating more legal and litigation issues.
to inspire feelings based on the person's face instead of the actual happening. the face is irrelevant to the story.
Well, they did get a legal case thrown at them about it. Probably easier and cheaper to stockpile more hard evidence than is likely needed than risk having too little when the court cases come around.
2. Blonde girl image click bait