And one never knows if the BOSS might see it. So the boss has no right to know that you're transferring company owned intellectual property to a competitor? Or to put it another way, it's unethical for the boss to "spy" on you, yet you ignore the cameras placed everywhere and you think it's ethical to lie to him... I think you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

0

Thanks all, I am one of three with Admin properties. 'There isn't anything built in that lets you watch it in real time, but you can certainly view their sent and received items easily without the user know you are there.' How do I do this? Wouldn't I need the user’s password to see their sent\received? FYI - It’s the companies Email so nothing that it sent to received is "private" and can be view by Senior Management at any time. They even own the PC, so what you’re browsing can also be scrutinized. Some people think cucumbers taste better pickled.

0

If you are the Exchange Admin, you do not need to know their password. In Outlook, you can go to File | Open | Open Other Users File, and then enter the name of the target users Inbox. In Outlook Web Access (OWA), log in as you, then add the user name to the end of the URL in OWA after you log in. So if you want to look at jsmith's mailbox, after you log into OWA add /jsmith to the url and her Outlook will open. As for quapo - if I asked you to do something for me, and you told me it couldn't be done and later I found out it could, it would prove you were either lying or incompetent. Either way, it shows you don't know what you are talking about. There is a difference between spying and administering. Someday if you ever become an administrator you might understand it.

0

lwcomputing and Glen: Win or lose, job or no job, I don't care what the boss does but I wouldn't let him or anyone else put me in an adversarial position with another employee. That just divides us and that division makes our work harder than it has to be. I would do all I had to do in order to avoid being put into that position. At the same time, I have been asked to check on someone but I was an outside contractor, not an employee and the paranoid senior partner didn't trust the junior partner. I worked for the senior partner for years before he ever had a partner. There were two store fronts. The networks were connected by a second subnet (wireless). I knew that the junior partner was an honest guy but I went into his router and the machines on the his network. I knew I wouldn't find anything and that put it all to rest. In that case, I was hired as an investigator. Had I been an employee and asked to investigate another employee, the answer would have been NO.

0

Guapo - If you object to a request on ethical grounds then you should simply say no, I refuse to do that. Otherwise, you put yourself and others in bad positions.

0

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I hope the original poster does that or whatever else is necessary to remove himself from that situation.

0

guapo - it seems that your loyalty is in question. You would lie to your employer (he pays you to do a job, which you agreed to do by accepting the position)and you would protect a peer or subordinate - who given the chance would likely hang you out to dry, without batting an eye. As an employer I would fire imediately. For the following reason; 1) you have no loyalty 2) you lied to me and 3) appear and are likely incopetent in your assigned position.

0

Señor Martinez de Peru: You are correct. The boss would be paying me to do a job but the original poster's job wasn't as an investigator. When I was hired to investigate, I did. (Post of June 6th) I'm not a young guy. I've been a boss many times and I always built a trust with the workers. Apparently, the boss in question didn't do that. You couldn't fire me because I would never work for you.

0

guapo - this thread has digressed from its original point - You have taken this as a pesonal attack, how ever you still seem to completly miss the point. The employer owns the network, the computers and ALL access to them. He is well within his right to monitor HIS network. The employee (the original poster) has the duty to perform his JOB. Monitor the email account as directed, if he or you wish to object to that assignment, then it's time to re-evaluate your career. To reply to each post with "I wouldn't work for you" is not a valid response to the point. By definition a Network Administrators' duties INCLUDE keeping track of network activity - yes that includes email as well as internet usage. That's not the same as INVESTIGATING. From the original post, we don't know if the employee is supected of sending a confidential price sheet to the competition or sending out resumes to prospective employer's. None of which is relevant. Jimmyg68 merely wanted to know if and how he could accomplish his ASSIGNED DUTIES. By the way I find it odd that you make numerous references to spying being un-ethical, yet you have attempted to do so with my information. A proposito non provengo dal Peru. The point is that if you have entered into a contract with your employer (you accepted the position and have gladly cashed your paychecks) you need to fulfill your obligation, to perform your your duties per your job description. Conclusione della storia

0

Yes, the employer owns the network and he has the right to monitor it but I wouldn't do his dirty work and it's not necessarily part of the job. That's all debatable and it can go on forever. For the last time, I would have no part of it. I'm not going to say it again. If the employee is doing the worst of the worst, it could end up in court. Then they would want me to testify against him. That would make me a target. The difference between me and the rest of you is, I'm very street wise and you're not. By the way, all my responses are valid. If everyone can say they would fire me, why can't I say I wouldn't work for them? Why are their responses valid and mine isn't? How did you become the god of responses?

0