As part of the computer age a new form of communication brought a mixed bag of delight and threats. Public forums like Facebook and Twitter opened the opportunity for very " ordinary" people to have their say on anything from their personal gripes to comment on world events. Just about any imaginable subject was open slather for a " Tweet " !
Unfortunately, there was a dark side to this world wide web. When relationships soured a partner with malicious intent could post salacious pictures on the net to inflict hurt and the innocent party had difficulty getting them removed. That was usually a lengthy process and by the time they succeeded - the damage was done !
Social media is such a new phenomenon that just how the law applies to it is uncertain. Laws are now in place to punish people who post offensive material without the consent of the person depicted in any photograph or other form of image and the media proprietors must respond promptly to legitimate " take down " requests. The protocols in place are being steadily tightened.
Now a new form of attack has burst onto the social media scene. A correspondent who it is claimed is the CEO of a trading company has revealed damaging financial information on the inner workings of that company. The matter revealed includes the margins in place to deliver profit and even the arrangements with individual clients. This is precisely what the courts would consider " commercial confidential " and slap on a restricted access notice if it emerged in a court case.
The instigator certainly was not that firms CEO. Someone used that persons identity to create a Twitter account and it seems that this was part of a determined plan to harm the integrity of that company. As fast as these tweets are taken down, new ones appear, purporting to come from other senior company members. It seems to be a case of mass identity theft.
It is also apparent that the nature of the disclosure makes it certain that the information is coming from an internal source and of coursed the company is desperate to learn just who is responsible. Twitter refuses to reveal that information, unless ordered to do so by a court. The company's lawyers have sought a court order to uncover the tweeters name, IP address, phone number, email address and location. It is also requested that such information also apply to accounts linked to that same email.
No doubt this disgruntled tweeter will be unmasked, but that will open a new can of worms. This was not a blackmail attempt. There was no threat of further disclosures unless a ransom was paid, hence this disclosure was not a crime. It is quite possible that simply disclosing information that its owner would prefer to keep secret breaks no law. In fact, some people will claim that it is fully justified in the interests of " whistleblower " protection.
Perhaps this opens a new hazard for company management. The unnerving prospect that a low level employee with access to critical company information may become aggrieved because of being passed over for promotion and decide to take revenge on the company by divulging sensitive information on public media. It also opens an avenue of discontent that may arise if management needs to discipline an employee for shoddy work. It delivers an entirely new aspect on the risks companies face in maintaining good internal security and staff loyalty.
It seems that the advance of science is a double edged sword !
No comments:
Post a Comment