All smart phones I've used have a complete factory reset mode that will delete all data on the device. I've used that on every one that I've given to someone or sold. That still in no way makes that Radio Shack did OK.
So the customer chose to give his business to Radioshack, and in return they go out of their way to sabotage his gainful employment. Funny, Dave mentions on several blogs about how corporations can be clueless when it comes to customer relations and how their actions or inactions can directly affect whether the public gives them their business. Personally, after reading this, anything available at Radioshack locally will be purchased elsewhere.
This might be a stupid move from Radioshack's point of view, but it's a nice lesson for everyone. Don't be too careless with informations in 21st century.
This again proves conclusively that the one thing this planet will never run out of is human stupidity
Both parties involved seem to be beyond clueless
I know it is not a new thing. Best Buy's Geek Squad and others were caught head-handed in the past. What was new for me was that RadioShark actually spend some effort to identify the owner's employer from the pictures of the premise and got him fired for using a recording device on the premise.
This is a bit weird. I've met guys at radio shack that were smart or dumb, helpful or not. I have a hard time imagining any of them putting this kind of effort into screwing you for no apparent reason. Even if the customer was a total dick to the sales guy, that is a weird chain of events to search through the photos, recognize the employer, figure out that the photos were prohibited / confidential, and send them to your boss. Obviously the exact contents of the photos and how well known the victims employer are play a part in how likely this is, but it seems odd.
I would sue radioshack as he obviously took the phone in to have the data transferred to new phone and he would have told them to delete the old phone and they didn't or just burn the radioshack down
I would sue radioshack
Erm, he is suing them that is where the story is from....
This is one of those stories where I think we are just not hearing the full story.
I have done a lot of PC work, and if someone is upgrading and wants to chuck out the old computer, I will always ask the customer if they want the old data on the computer before I erase it. In this case, the company probably is the customer, so I just don't see any problem asking the company.
Now if the employee was taking photo's in the workplace in contradiction to company rules, and for this company it is a sackable offense, then he probably deserved to be sacked. We don't know what was in the photo's. Obviously the company did see the photo's and what they saw was to them beyond acceptable limits. It is possible that this guy did something really bad, like taking inappropriate photo's of colleagues without any permission, or taking photo's of the companies propriety manufacturing methods, processes, etc without management approval. If the guy did wrong, I have no sympathy.
In general, documents, photo's and emails done on a company computer in company time are a valuable property of the company - they paid good money for it. I do not see why a company owned mobile phone should be any different.
If the phone was on a company contract, I do not think Radio Shack did anything other then proper behaviour in asking if data was wanted before erasing it. Good on them. Sure, this guy dropped the phone off at the store, but it is not his phone, and so he could not authorize Radio Shack to delete the data.
Richard.
This is one of those stories where I think we are just not hearing the full story.
So you want to make up your own story? First line of the linked article "Steele bought a new phone" and "Steele’s old phone". Not the slightest indication that the phone belonged to his employer, if it did his employer would have the contract/agreement with Radioshack and Steele would not have any rights for Radioshack to breech.
Whatever Steele did at his work is none of Radioshack's business. They had no moral right to meddle in his private affairs.
This is one of those stories where I think we are just not hearing the full story.
So you want to make up your own story? First line of the linked article "Steele bought a new phone" and "Steele’s old phone". Not the slightest indication that the phone belonged to his employer, if it did his employer would have the contract/agreement with Radioshack and Steele would not have any rights for Radioshack to breech.
If it was the sacked guy's personal phone and not on a company contract, then you are right Radio Shack did wrong. If that is the case, it really surprises me that Radio Shack went to all the trouble of tracking down his employer, and sending stuff. The court documents from the prosecutor describes it as Steel's personal phone, but it is not clear who the phone was contracted to - it may still have been the company for all we know. All I am saying is we are ready to attack RadioShack, and we just don't know the basic facts.
It could have been that someone at Radio Shack had a brain explosion, but if it was Steel's phone on a personal contract, what kind of photo would make it so important that it has to be reported?
Richard.
So the moral of the story is that Radio Shack is a big turd. Was this really new?
This is a bit weird. I've met guys at radio shack that were smart or dumb, helpful or not. I have a hard time imagining any of them putting this kind of effort into screwing you for no apparent reason. Even if the customer was a total dick to the sales guy, that is a weird chain of events to search through the photos, recognize the employer, figure out that the photos were prohibited / confidential, and send them to your boss. Obviously the exact contents of the photos and how well known the victims employer are play a part in how likely this is, but it seems odd.
yeah, i agree. It doesnt quite add up.
I think there is more to the story than we're being told.
This is one of those stories where I think we are just not hearing the full story.
Of course we miss parts of the story. However, the court document states
Plaintiff was fired for having a recording device on him during work hours.
Nothing about any indecent photos. The photos just proved he had a "recording device" with him.
Company phone? I don't think so. The court document doesn't indicate this and why would a company equip employees with phones with a "recording device", aka camera, when it is prohibited to even just carry one around during work hours?
Was Steele working in the medical, Law enforcement or Film industry I can see that under such conditions it might raise concerns about the pictures on the phone.
It is amazing though what people will leave on devices, I purchased a laptop on ebay, when I recieved it the hard drive was full of personal details about a family and bank accounts including log in details, I added up the total in the bank accounts and it came to just over 5.7 million pounds. I reformatted the drive and destroyed all the details but the former owener should have known better especially as they were related to one of the great banking families. They were not the one who sold me the laptop either it was a dealer.