Return to the office

[SueEllen]

Oh hell!

https://www.theguardian.com/business...king-from-home

[vetran]

Oh hell!

https://www.theguardian.com/business...king-from-home

Well they failed to secure her calls properly.

[ladymuck]

He earwigs and thinks it's ok to go shopping. She does the right thing by reporting it and gets the sack. He deserved the divorce and the resulting charges from the SEC. Utter breach of trust.

[vetran]

He earwigs and thinks it's ok to go shopping. She does the right thing by reporting it and gets the sack. He deserved the divorce and the resulting charges from the SEC. Utter breach of trust.

failing to secure her calls is the employers problem IMHO.

Maybe this will raise the bar!

[hobnob]

failing to secure her calls is the employers problem IMHO.

You've said that twice, but I'm not sure what you expect the employer to do. Nobody was tapping the phone line, and encrypting the VoIP data wouldn't have made a difference, because someone was standing outside and listening through the door. Are you suggesting that the employer should have built some kind of soundproof room that she could use to work from home?

[WTFH]

In situations like this it is the employee/contractor’s responsibility to ensure that their communication is secure.
The employer will set standards, including password complexity and the use of headsets when making calls.
The employer will also have things like NDAs which will also mention things like making sure so one else can eavesdrop on a call.
And they will also make sure that their definition of insider trading includes close friends and family.

If someone is stupid enough to make all calls on a speakerphone, it’s the equivalent of leaving their computer unlocked.
I suspect the employee realised that if she didn’t speak up, she could have faced criminal proceedings if her husband was caught.

[Fraidycat]

failing to secure her calls is the employers problem IMHO.

Maybe this will raise the bar!

It is not the employer who lost the 1.8million, so no real incentive to raise the bar, unless they are going to get charged or fined..

[vetran]

In situations like this it is the employee/contractor’s responsibility to ensure that their communication is secure.
The employer will set standards, including password complexity and the use of headsets when making calls.
The employer will also have things like NDAs which will also mention things like making sure so one else can eavesdrop on a call.
And they will also make sure that their definition of insider trading includes close friends and family.

If someone is stupid enough to make all calls on a speakerphone, it’s the equivalent of leaving their computer unlocked.
I suspect the employee realised that if she didn’t speak up, she could have faced criminal proceedings if her husband was caught.

This. At least now the companies will think about it.

[hobnob]

If someone is stupid enough to make all calls on a speakerphone, it’s the equivalent of leaving their computer unlocked.

The Guardian article doesn't mention speakerphones, nor does the SEC press release:
SEC.gov | SEC Charges Husband of Energy Company Manager with Insider Trading
So, it's possible that the husband just got the gist of the conversation by listening to her half of it.

I agree with your general point about the company writing a code of conduct. In security terms, this would be an administrative (management) control rather than a technical or physical control.

[Fraidycat]

Nothing the company can really do. If a husband wants access to his wife's work PC, he will get it while she is sleeping, and get the 2FA from the phone. How many men dont know their wifes phone pin? Maybe you dont know your wifes work login password but that can discovered with a bit determination as well