I cannot believe this is happening. . . .

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

skynet99

New Member
5+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2017
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am a graduating resident, and things have suddenly took a very devastating, unexpected turn. I was logged into my personal gmail account on a work computer, and I forgot to actually log off. A couple days later, another person brought up Google drive on the work computer, and Google already had me logged on. Needless to say, I had some NSFW images and private documents on my drive that the individual saw, and reported me for looking at explicit images while at work (which I never did. I would never open my drive myself at work). Now, IT is investigating, and I have been suspended. I remotely logged out of all of my Google accounts when I found someone had opened my drive, and deleted any unsafe for work images. However, will IT be able to see what was on my Google drive when it was pulled up on the work computer? Can they actually fire me from this accident when I am so close to being done? I'm anxious about losing my career, embarrassed and disappointed. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Thats unforunate. Get a lawyer asap. Sometimes i wonder if misclicks/ads on the phone connected to wifi can be used as ammunition to create an issue out of nothing too
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
1. Lawyer stat.

2. Talk to no one, including HR. Have a lawyer respond to HR inquiries. Everyone is now your enemy.

3. You are now the essential scapegoat, and the hospital will have to fire someone to save face. You are the path of least resistance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You definitely need a lawyer. They can definitely fire you over something like this. You need to be ready to fight back hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
goddamn that blows. god speed, mate
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I am a graduating resident, and things have suddenly took a very devastating, unexpected turn. I was logged into my personal gmail account on a work computer, and I forgot to actually log off. A couple days later, another person brought up Google drive on the work computer, and Google already had me logged on. Needless to say, I had some NSFW images and private documents on my drive that the individual saw, and reported me for looking at explicit images while at work (which I never did. I would never open my drive myself at work). Now, IT is investigating, and I have been suspended. I remotely logged out of all of my Google accounts when I found someone had opened my drive, and deleted any unsafe for work images. However, will IT be able to see what was on my Google drive when it was pulled up on the work computer? Can they actually fire me from this accident when I am so close to being done? I'm anxious about losing my career, embarrassed and disappointed. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

It should be reasonably simple for IT to look at the timestamp associated with you logging into mail.google.com and then see that there was no access of drive.google.com on the same day. If the only actual access of your drive account was on the day that the reporting person opened it up, they have absolutely no reason to believe you were looking at inappropriate images at work.

If they want to fire you because you have porn on your drive account, they can probably do that, but actually proving that you didn't open your drive account at work shouldn't be difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
... why do you have NSFW pictures on your usual public gmail account? Are you related to Hillary Clinton?
 
Yes, you are correct, this is bad and could lead to any number of problems for you. So I agree that taking it seriously is critical.

Unfortunately, whether you actually looked at images at work or not is immaterial to the discussion. You left these images out in public. Leaving your google drive open and leaving a computer is just like leaving a folder of pictures lying around at work. Whether you were looking at them doesn't matter. You left them there, and someone else found them. These images shouldn't be at work at all. If you have images like that in your drive, then you shouldn't be logging into it from work computers. I'm not telling you all this to make you feel bad, simply so that you don't make the mistake of trying to explain it this way.

You certainly can get a lawyer. But people often misunderstand what a lawyer can do for you. The advice above that you shouldn't talk to anyone and refer them to your lawyer won't work. You're an employee there. If I'm your PD and I want to talk to you, you talk to me. In my office. Alone, no lawyer. If you refer me to your lawyer, I fire you for not coming to meet with me. You have no legal right to have your lawyer present, nor to force me to deal with them. So, at this point, a lawyer is for advice.

You have a choice to make. One option is to be fully open, admit to what happened, apologize profusely. Chances are, your program will "do something". They might extend your training further. They might require some sort of ethics / professionalism remediation. They might fire you. It's hard to say. Or, you could keep quiet. Don't say anything. See what the investigation actually can find / prove. In that case, if they can't prove anything, you walk away scott free. If they do find the issue, then apologies at that point will be much less effective, and the punishment (might) be greater.

If you actually get fired, then a lawyer is a must. At that point, you want to make sure that they actually followed due process. Do their policies actually allow them to fire you for this? Have they followed all of the appropriate steps? You'll grieve the decision, ask for a fair hearing. But if it comes to this, your entire career is on the line.

One of the hardest parts of this type of process is the timeline. In medicine, we're used to emergencies getting a rapid response and resolution. The legal process is very, very slow. And there's often no clear timeline -- you likely have no idea how long this will take, and when you'll get an answer.

Last, make sure you take care of yourself. This will be very stressful, regardless of the outcome. Make sure you have support through this process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
APD, he has already been suspended. Suspension itself is an adverse action, is it not? If so, that would grant him certain grievance/appelate rights even at this stage. At this stage, anything he says can and will be used against him as he is under formal investigation.

I think as an aPD, you may be unique among other PD's in that you seem to genuinely have your residents's best interests at heart and would give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think it is fair to say that many other PD's are not like you (perfect example in the assault thread you just posted in).

I think OP needs to protect himself more aggressively.

I say all of this respectfully and I don't mean to disagree with you directly.
 
Last edited:
Agree and disagree with the two above posters.

OP needs a lawyer immediately because he has been officially suspended.
However, most lawyers will not recommend going the silence route until it is absolutely necessary.

Your lawyer will most likely ask you to play very very nice and try to get away with nothing or a slap on the wrists.
When this does not work, your lawyer should have read the handbook cover to cover, and built a case defending you and prepare you completely for any tribunals.
Ie. when the program doesn't wanna talk to you anymore and has made a negative final decision, then that is when your lawyer completely steps in and takes over.

Until then, play nice.

And I know its tough because you have been jipped.
Anyone could have clicked some NSFW ad and opened something NSFW at work... What can you say but unlucky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
No worries about disagreements @Light at end of tunnel. This isn't the type of question with a right/wrong answer. Discussion is useful.

Suspension is not necessarily an adverse action. At my institution, if a resident has an incident that suggests a serious problem, they are suspended with pay while the event is investigated. If no concern is found, they are returned to work, get full credit for the time, and no mention is made in their record. If a problem is found, then we proceed with whatever the issue is. A good example would be substance use -- if you show up and I am seriously concerned you are impaired, then you are suspended, removed from work, and get tested in Occ Med. If your test comes back clean, then you get my apologies, back to work, full credit, no issues. Suspension can be an adverse action if it's punitive for some offense. So it depends.

Now it's my turn to disagree, with @bannie22. The OP was not "jipped" nor unlucky. They made a very poor decision. This is a major professionalism violation. They essentially brought NSFW items to work and left them lying around. Sure, maybe they got caught where someone else might have just closed the account and not reported it. But their actions are unacceptable. Perhaps in today's world we are used to having all of our "stuff" in the cloud and instantly accessible. But if you're going to keep a collection of NSFW items, then they can't come to Work. Hence the NSFW.

What would I do in such a situation? First, it might not be my call - HR might decide and leave me no choice. But often I get quite a bit of leeway. If the person initially admitted to the problem and apologized to the people affected (if they knew whom), then I would not fire them nor extend training, as both seem unhelpful and overly draconian. I would require an apology to the person/people affected (forwarded anonymously), would require some sort of ethics / professionalism review (either they would present something to their peers about this topic, or they would take some class / workshop), and it would be included in their credentialing documentation as an event that didn't fit their prior professional performance.

If they tried to hide it / hid behind a lawyer / argued that they were "jipped" and that everyone does this and they just got caught, I would either fire them or extend their training for 3 months. Not for the NSFW event, but for the lack of ownership and insight into the issue.

If the material was offensive enough, termination might be the only option. But that adds a huge amount of subjectivity into the process, hence I'd probably avoid that road, if possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
No worries about disagreements @Light at end of tunnel. This isn't the type of question with a right/wrong answer. Discussion is useful.

Suspension is not necessarily an adverse action. At my institution, if a resident has an incident that suggests a serious problem, they are suspended with pay while the event is investigated. If no concern is found, they are returned to work, get full credit for the time, and no mention is made in their record. If a problem is found, then we proceed with whatever the issue is. A good example would be substance use -- if you show up and I am seriously concerned you are impaired, then you are suspended, removed from work, and get tested in Occ Med. If your test comes back clean, then you get my apologies, back to work, full credit, no issues. Suspension can be an adverse action if it's punitive for some offense. So it depends.

Now it's my turn to disagree, with @bannie22. The OP was not "jipped" nor unlucky. They made a very poor decision. This is a major professionalism violation. They essentially brought NSFW items to work and left them lying around. Sure, maybe they got caught where someone else might have just closed the account and not reported it. But their actions are unacceptable. Perhaps in today's world we are used to having all of our "stuff" in the cloud and instantly accessible. But if you're going to keep a collection of NSFW items, then they can't come to Work. Hence the NSFW.

What would I do in such a situation? First, it might not be my call - HR might decide and leave me no choice. But often I get quite a bit of leeway. If the person initially admitted to the problem and apologized to the people affected (if they knew whom), then I would not fire them nor extend training, as both seem unhelpful and overly draconian. I would require an apology to the person/people affected (forwarded anonymously), would require some sort of ethics / professionalism review (either they would present something to their peers about this topic, or they would take some class / workshop), and it would be included in their credentialing documentation as an event that didn't fit their prior professional performance.

If they tried to hide it / hid behind a lawyer / argued that they were "jipped" and that everyone does this and they just got caught, I would either fire them or extend their training for 3 months. Not for the NSFW event, but for the lack of ownership and insight into the issue.

If the material was offensive enough, termination might be the only option. But that adds a huge amount of subjectivity into the process, hence I'd probably avoid that road, if possible.

What would you do if someone was logged into the computer under their user id.
and while surfing the net accidentally clicks on a nsfw popup.

someone else sees it. and reports it.

just like in this case.

the user has no intentions at all of sharing any of this material yet was reported by some trigger happy colleague

you see celebrity phones hacked/stolen/sent for repairs and photos shared throughout the internet. and i think the key here is that OP has no intentions of sharing his material with anybody. but someone took the opportunity, morally and ethically incorrect, of clicking around his open google drive.

if anything, the person who reported seems to be more concerning to me, freely accessing someone else's open email/drive is not an honorable, and extremely unprofessional, thing to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
What would you do if someone was logged into the computer under their user id.
and while surfing the net accidentally clicks on a nsfw popup.

someone else sees it. and reports it.

just like in this case.

the user has no intentions at all of sharing any of this material yet was reported by some trigger happy colleague

you see celebrity phones hacked/stolen/sent for repairs and photos shared throughout the internet. and i think the key here is that OP has no intentions of sharing his material with anybody. but someone took the opportunity, morally and ethically incorrect, of clicking around his open google drive.

if anything, the person who reported seems to be more concerning to me, freely accessing someone else's open email/drive is not an honorable, and extremely unprofessional, thing to do.

Good point. What happens to the snooping/eavesdropping gossip queen that likely violated a law or two in her quest for glory?

I mean, at the end of the day, any one of us can be found to have NSFW material on our phones, iwatches, laptops, zip drives, white coat pockets, etc.
 
I don't think the OP's situation is equivalent to accidentally clicking a NSFW link while browsing the web. This was not purely bad luck. By logging into your Google account you are accessing your full G Suite (Gmail, Docs, Drive, and Cal). Regardless of the OP's intention, the NSFW files were made available to others in the workplace when he did not log out. This is similar to not logging off of the EMR and having someone accidentally place orders under your name. You would be partially to blame if there was an adverse event as a result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Now it's my turn to disagree, with @bannie22. The OP was not "jipped" nor unlucky. They made a very poor decision. This is a major professionalism violation. They essentially brought NSFW items to work and left them lying around. Sure, maybe they got caught where someone else might have just closed the account and not reported it. But their actions are unacceptable. Perhaps in today's world we are used to having all of our "stuff" in the cloud and instantly accessible. But if you're going to keep a collection of NSFW items, then they can't come to Work. Hence the NSFW.
I disagree. Are you familiar with how the intarwebz work? He didn't essentially bring NSFW items to work. Simply logging into a Google account doesn't transfer the contents of one's Google Drive onto the local computer. That doesn't happen until someone actually clicks on a link to one of the files. The OP did not place NSFW materials onto a hospital computer, nor transmit them across the hospital network.

That's why saqrfaraj's analogy isn't quite apt. There's tons of NSFW content on the internet. The NSFW content that was made available by the OP's Google account is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of other NSFW links anyone could have clicked on. The issue here is that it sounds like the hospital network is one of these systems that uses a generic Windows login account. If everyone had to use his own Windows account, the OP's login would have timed out, whoever else used the computer later would have had to login to Windows as themselves, and wouldn't have been able to access his Google account.

The OP was certainly foolish to forget to log out of his Google account, and to leave the box that says "Remember me" or whatever checked when logging in, especially when he knows he has NSFW files in his Google Drive. But he should get at most a slap on the wrist for this.

OP, as to whether IT be able to see what was on your Google drive when it was pulled up on the work computer, that depends on whether they capture all network traffic and how long the keep it around for. I have heard that some IT departments capture all traffic, but given the massive amount of data storage needs that would create, there's no way they keep it around forever. The problem is that in order to take disciplinary action against you, they don't have to meet the evidentiary standards of a criminal trial (i.e., the prosecution having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you did it.) They probably can't, but since it's a private, internal matter, they can be a lot more lax with what they base their decision on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sounds to me like the only one who accessed NSFW content from a hospital computer was whoever reported you. They should be under investigation, not you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Lots of healthy disagreements here. That's good for discussion. I'm open to other viewpoints, and to changing my own.

What would you do if someone was logged into the computer under their user id.
and while surfing the net accidentally clicks on a nsfw popup.

someone else sees it. and reports it.

just like in this case.

the user has no intentions at all of sharing any of this material yet was reported by some trigger happy colleague

That's unlikely to happen at my institution as we have a very robust filter. Clicking on any site with questionable content yields a blocked message. Some would argue that it's sometimes too restrictive.

But, let's assume for discussion that there's no block, and it's possible to open any link. Let's say someone does this by accident and it gets reported. What happens? Assuming that the story is as described (clicked on link in an email that looked legit (for example), someone sees and reports), I'd do nothing other than review the danger of clicking on emailed links (for viruses and other issues). This would not be a professionalism issue. But I think what the OP did is a much bigger issue.

I do disagree with your comment that this was reported by a trigger happy colleague. NSFW material does not belong at work. Perhaps the material was particularly offensive to the person who saw it. Perhaps they have something in their background which made this material particularly hurtful to them. Nevertheless, employees have the right to come to work and not be exposed to this type of material. Perhaps it's no big deal to you -- that's fine, that's your opinion. But other opinions matter also.

I disagree. Are you familiar with how the intarwebz work?

Actually, yes. On the side I create web based solutions to problems I see in my program. I run a LAMP stack in AWS. I use MySQL on the back end, ColdFusion (actually Lucee since I like open source / free) as middleware, and then jQuery on the client end. It's been awhile since I learned Unix, but it's come in handy with my Linux server. I've also set up my own DICOM server to manage my program's POCUS images including all of the IP configurations and ports including SSL tunnels to get the machine to communicate with the server. So, yes, I'd say I know how the intarwebz work. Now on to the rest of your question.

He didn't essentially bring NSFW items to work. Simply logging into a Google account doesn't transfer the contents of one's Google Drive onto the local computer. That doesn't happen until someone actually clicks on a link to one of the files. The OP did not place NSFW materials onto a hospital computer, nor transmit them across the hospital network.

That's why saqrfaraj's analogy isn't quite apt. There's tons of NSFW content on the internet. The NSFW content that was made available by the OP's Google account is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of other NSFW links anyone could have clicked on. The issue here is that it sounds like the hospital network is one of these systems that uses a generic Windows login account. If everyone had to use his own Windows account, the OP's login would have timed out, whoever else used the computer later would have had to login to Windows as themselves, and wouldn't have been able to access his Google account.

The OP was certainly foolish to forget to log out of his Google account, and to leave the box that says "Remember me" or whatever checked when logging in, especially when he knows he has NSFW files in his Google Drive. But he should get at most a slap on the wrist for this.

OP, as to whether IT be able to see what was on your Google drive when it was pulled up on the work computer, that depends on whether they capture all network traffic and how long the keep it around for. I have heard that some IT departments capture all traffic, but given the massive amount of data storage needs that would create, there's no way they keep it around forever. The problem is that in order to take disciplinary action against you, they don't have to meet the evidentiary standards of a criminal trial (i.e., the prosecution having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you did it.) They probably can't, but since it's a private, internal matter, they can be a lot more lax with what they base their decision on.

So, I agree in part, and disagree in part.

Yes, the OP didn't transfer material onto the hospital network. Had they actually done so (i.e. sent inappropriate material via their work email account, for example), then my response would be different -- they would be fired for that. But they didn't do "nothing" either. They created a situation where someone else, either by mistake or perhaps on purpose (more below), was able to access their drive content which was NSFW.

My example above explains the way I see this. If someone likes looking at NSFW images in the privacy of their own home, that's fine with me. But let's say someone brings some images with them to work. They are in a folder, in their computer bag. They brought them because they were going to do something with them after work. They forgot them in their bag -- they meant to leave them in their car or locker. No big deal, they are in a folder, in their bag, no one should see them. But someone gets confused and thinks the bag is theirs. They open it, see the folder, and think "Huh, what's that?". They open it and see the material. I see the person who brought that material to work responsible for this situation. Sure, they didn't mean for anyone to see the material (and that's important and a mitigating factor). But nevertheless, they are responsible for this problem they have created.

I see the OP's situation as very similar. They "brought the material to work" by opening their google drive on a work computer. They left it open by mistake. Someone else saw it. I doubt any robust hospital has computers where people use a generic login -- I expect (and I think the OP described) that they logged into their windows account on a public computer, and then forgot to log out. That also raises another problem -- our EMR uses your Windows credentials to log you in directly. If their system is similar, then leaving a computer open with your login basically allows anyone to access the EMR in your name -- and as mentioned above, if that happened, the OP would be fully responsible for any HIPAA issues, etc.

Part of the issue here is that we all have our online storage of life stuff, which we are accessing all the time. It's super handy, and it's unreasonable to tell people don't access your personal google drive while at work. But I think we all need to be aware that if there is stuff in your drive that you don't want other people seeing (whether it's NSFW, or your taxes), then you should either secure it somehow (not sure if you can lock drive folders with a password), or have a separate drive for stuff you might need at work, etc.

Now, as to the person who actually poked around in the OP's google drive. I agree that there may be a professionalism issue here too. Not in reporting the NSFW material, but in actually poking around. In my example above, the person thought the bag was theirs, opened it, and found the material. Completely a mistake, just like clicking on an NSFW link. But if someone saw a google drive left open, and says "gee, let's see what's in here", that's like searching around in someone's house because they left it unlocked. That's not OK. But it all depends upon the details. And if it's reported anonymously, there's no way to hunt it down.

So:
If someone truly mistakenly clicks on an NSFW link and it's reported, I'd talk to the person about it, but nothing more would come of it.
If someone causes NSFW material to be displayed to others mistakenly, but it's because they somehow brought the material to work / created a situation where others were exposed to it, then we'd remediate it.
If someone knowingly brings NSFW material to work, on purpose, to share / use / distribute, then they get fired.
I'm interested to hear the whole story before determining what happens next, there could be mitigating factors that might change the outcome.

I think that trying to assess the "severity" of the material is difficult. There's no scale, and no one will agree. Institutions should have a clear policy on materials that should not be at work. But it's certain to happen anyway, because there is a grey area / slippery slope. Hence why any complaint should be investigated. Not everything that someone finds offensive is a serious professionalism issue.

Come to work in a MAGA / I'm with Her hat, someone complains. Perhaps a violation of dress code. Result: informal discussion about how you're free to have your own political beliefs, but perhaps not good to advertise them at work. If violation of dress code, point that out.

Come to work in T shirt with an image of HRC and DJT shooting each other with the caption "I'm gonna get you sucka!". Result: Formal meeting with resident and documentation of issue in file. Clear message that this is unacceptable dress at work. Perhaps more remediation depending on whether investigation / review determines that this is a one time event, vs the worst of a history of lower level issues.

Come to work in a T Shirt with an image of DJT doing something unspeakable to HRC with the caption "Take this B****". Your employment comes to an end. Have a nice day.

There's going to be issues that fit between these, or things that people disagree upon. That's fine. That's why we make these decisions as a group, sometimes including HR. And how the resident responds to the event in the short term would definitely play a role in my assessment of the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Lots of healthy disagreements here. That's good for discussion. I'm open to other viewpoints, and to changing my own.



That's unlikely to happen at my institution as we have a very robust filter. Clicking on any site with questionable content yields a blocked message. Some would argue that it's sometimes too restrictive.

But, let's assume for discussion that there's no block, and it's possible to open any link. Let's say someone does this by accident and it gets reported. What happens? Assuming that the story is as described (clicked on link in an email that looked legit (for example), someone sees and reports), I'd do nothing other than review the danger of clicking on emailed links (for viruses and other issues). This would not be a professionalism issue. But I think what the OP did is a much bigger issue.

I do disagree with your comment that this was reported by a trigger happy colleague. NSFW material does not belong at work. Perhaps the material was particularly offensive to the person who saw it. Perhaps they have something in their background which made this material particularly hurtful to them. Nevertheless, employees have the right to come to work and not be exposed to this type of material. Perhaps it's no big deal to you -- that's fine, that's your opinion. But other opinions matter also.



Actually, yes. On the side I create web based solutions to problems I see in my program. I run a LAMP stack in AWS. I use MySQL on the back end, ColdFusion (actually Lucee since I like open source / free) as middleware, and then jQuery on the client end. It's been awhile since I learned Unix, but it's come in handy with my Linux server. I've also set up my own DICOM server to manage my program's POCUS images including all of the IP configurations and ports including SSL tunnels to get the machine to communicate with the server. So, yes, I'd say I know how the intarwebz work. Now on to the rest of your question.



So, I agree in part, and disagree in part.

Yes, the OP didn't transfer material onto the hospital network. Had they actually done so (i.e. sent inappropriate material via their work email account, for example), then my response would be different -- they would be fired for that. But they didn't do "nothing" either. They created a situation where someone else, either by mistake or perhaps on purpose (more below), was able to access their drive content which was NSFW.

My example above explains the way I see this. If someone likes looking at NSFW images in the privacy of their own home, that's fine with me. But let's say someone brings some images with them to work. They are in a folder, in their computer bag. They brought them because they were going to do something with them after work. They forgot them in their bag -- they meant to leave them in their car or locker. No big deal, they are in a folder, in their bag, no one should see them. But someone gets confused and thinks the bag is theirs. They open it, see the folder, and think "Huh, what's that?". They open it and see the material. I see the person who brought that material to work responsible for this situation. Sure, they didn't mean for anyone to see the material (and that's important and a mitigating factor). But nevertheless, they are responsible for this problem they have created.

I see the OP's situation as very similar. They "brought the material to work" by opening their google drive on a work computer. They left it open by mistake. Someone else saw it. I doubt any robust hospital has computers where people use a generic login -- I expect (and I think the OP described) that they logged into their windows account on a public computer, and then forgot to log out. That also raises another problem -- our EMR uses your Windows credentials to log you in directly. If their system is similar, then leaving a computer open with your login basically allows anyone to access the EMR in your name -- and as mentioned above, if that happened, the OP would be fully responsible for any HIPAA issues, etc.

Part of the issue here is that we all have our online storage of life stuff, which we are accessing all the time. It's super handy, and it's unreasonable to tell people don't access your personal google drive while at work. But I think we all need to be aware that if there is stuff in your drive that you don't want other people seeing (whether it's NSFW, or your taxes), then you should either secure it somehow (not sure if you can lock drive folders with a password), or have a separate drive for stuff you might need at work, etc.

Now, as to the person who actually poked around in the OP's google drive. I agree that there may be a professionalism issue here too. Not in reporting the NSFW material, but in actually poking around. In my example above, the person thought the bag was theirs, opened it, and found the material. Completely a mistake, just like clicking on an NSFW link. But if someone saw a google drive left open, and says "gee, let's see what's in here", that's like searching around in someone's house because they left it unlocked. That's not OK. But it all depends upon the details. And if it's reported anonymously, there's no way to hunt it down.

So:
If someone truly mistakenly clicks on an NSFW link and it's reported, I'd talk to the person about it, but nothing more would come of it.
If someone causes NSFW material to be displayed to others mistakenly, but it's because they somehow brought the material to work / created a situation where others were exposed to it, then we'd remediate it.
If someone knowingly brings NSFW material to work, on purpose, to share / use / distribute, then they get fired.
I'm interested to hear the whole story before determining what happens next, there could be mitigating factors that might change the outcome.

I think that trying to assess the "severity" of the material is difficult. There's no scale, and no one will agree. Institutions should have a clear policy on materials that should not be at work. But it's certain to happen anyway, because there is a grey area / slippery slope. Hence why any complaint should be investigated. Not everything that someone finds offensive is a serious professionalism issue.

Come to work in a MAGA / I'm with Her hat, someone complains. Perhaps a violation of dress code. Result: informal discussion about how you're free to have your own political beliefs, but perhaps not good to advertise them at work. If violation of dress code, point that out.

Come to work in T shirt with an image of HRC and DJT shooting each other with the caption "I'm gonna get you sucka!". Result: Formal meeting with resident and documentation of issue in file. Clear message that this is unacceptable dress at work. Perhaps more remediation depending on whether investigation / review determines that this is a one time event, vs the worst of a history of lower level issues.

Come to work in a T Shirt with an image of DJT doing something unspeakable to HRC with the caption "Take this B****". Your employment comes to an end. Have a nice day.

There's going to be issues that fit between these, or things that people disagree upon. That's fine. That's why we make these decisions as a group, sometimes including HR. And how the resident responds to the event in the short term would definitely play a role in my assessment of the situation.

I still disagree simply because your email could have NSFW spam. If you had left it open, and someone had seen it accidentally, would you be subject to the same rigors you are recommending for this resident?

I agree if he was to spread and disseminate. Yes, then there should be disciplinary action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I still disagree simply because your email could have NSFW spam. If you had left it open, and someone had seen it accidentally, would you be subject to the same rigors you are recommending for this resident?

I agree if he was to spread and disseminate. Yes, then there should be disciplinary action.

I think it depends. If the OP knew that his inbox contained tons of NSFW content (spam or otherwise) he should not be accessing it at work. If someone sees it and reports it, he should be held responsible. It's a different situation if a random NSFW spam email pops into your inbox during the day that someone sees before you delete it. I would not fault the OP for that.

The key factor for me is that the OP knowingly accessed a Google account that he knew contained NSFW material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think it depends. If the OP knew that his inbox contained tons of NSFW content (spam or otherwise) he should not be accessing it at work. If someone sees it and reports it, he should be held responsible. It's a different situation if a random NSFW spam email pops into your inbox during the day that someone sees before you delete it. I would not fault the OP for that.

The key factor for me is that the OP knowingly accessed a Google account that he knew contained NSFW material.

What if say you had just your personal email open. At some point in the past, your significant other sent you some explicit images via email. You leave your personal email logged in while you go do something, someone who knows you comes and searches for emails from your s/o, and they find emails containing those images. Is that the same situation, and if not why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What if say you had just your personal email open. At some point in the past, your significant other sent you some explicit images via email. You leave your personal email logged in while you go do something, someone who knows you comes and searches for emails from your s/o, and they find emails containing those images. Is that the same situation, and if not why?
It would be the same to the extent that you would be at fault and should have consequences. Why would the type of NSFW material or sender matter? If you know it's there then you should be accessing your email from your phone or not at work at all. If you access it on a hospital computer and leave it unattended then you have no excuse.

That said, logging into Google Drive and immediately coming face to face with someone else's NSFW content is different than actively searching through someone's email. Your hypothetical situation does not match the OP's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
It would be the same to the extent that you would be at fault and should have consequences. Why would the type of NSFW material or sender matter? If you know it's there then you should be accessing your email from your phone or not at work at all. If you access it on a hospital computer and leave it unattended then you have no excuse.

That said, logging into Google Drive and immediately coming face to face with someone else's NSFW content is different than actively searching through someone's email. Your hypothetical situation does not match the OP's.

excuse or not, you are suggesting that something as innocuous as checking a personal email, that will infrequently receive work related mail etc such as a powerpoint on google drive, and leaving it accidentally unattended, is tantamount to extending a residency duration or even getting fired.

i can see how he should feel bad for accidentally leaving his email account open naively believing that his colleagues would not do something nasty like roam around his drive or email. consequences? sure. i think he should be reminded to close out of his accounts and maintain his own privacy. any more than that is draconian and just a reminder of the field we work in where we preach empathy but none for our own.

rather than bemoan op, i emphatize with him, emphatize that he was never trying to disseminate any nsfw material. and if anything, completely jipped because some douche came behind him, and decided to roam around his drive and take the time to write him up. you do realize thats quite a bit of work right? to look around a drive that is not yours, find some material, confirm its nsfw, then put together a report.

heck, filling out all the boxes for a report takes so much time that most real residents dont do it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
excuse or not, you are suggesting that something as innocuous as checking a personal email, that will infrequently receive work related mail etc such as a powerpoint on google drive, and leaving it accidentally unattended, is tantamount to extending a residency duration or even getting fired.

i can see how he should feel bad for accidentally leaving his email account open naively believing that his colleagues would not do something nasty like roam around his drive or email. consequences? sure. i think he should be reminded to close out of his accounts and maintain his own privacy. any more than that is draconian and just a reminder of the field we work in where we preach empathy but none for our own.

rather than bemoan op, i emphatize with him, emphatize that he was never trying to disseminate any nsfw material. and if anything, completely jipped because some douche came behind him, and decided to roam around his drive and take the time to write him up. you do realize thats quite a bit of work right? to look around a drive that is not yours, confirm its nsfw, then put together a report.

heck, filling out all the boxes for a report takes so much time that most real residents dont do it.
I don't disagree with you. I haven't proposed any specific consequences in this thread (let alone something as extreme as extending training or being fired). What did I say that suggested that the consequence should be that severe? My position remains simple: The OP is at fault and consequences would not be unreasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't disagree with you. I haven't proposed any specific consequences in this thread (let alone something as extreme as extending training or being fired). What did I say that suggested that the consequence should be that severe?

Apologies. My prior post which you responded to was in response to aProgDirector, so I had incorrectly assumed that you took the same position as him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So Bahnson shoves OCP's down residents throats, tells his residents that they are "too indian" for him, throws objects at others in the operating room...AND he gets...wait for it...commemorated by Ohio State. Man is it nice to be white and in power in healthcare.

Hoping for the best here, but something tells me things won't pan out as favorably for OP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Apologies. My prior post which you responded to was in response to aProgDirector, so I had incorrectly assumed that you took the same position as him.
No problem. I certainly empathize with the OP and hope that the consequences aren't career-damaging. We should all be cautious when accessing personal material in a public space.
 
So Bahnson shoves OCP's down residents throats, tells his residents that they are "too indian" for him, throws objects at others in the operating room...AND he gets...wait for it...commemorated by Ohio State. Man is it nice to be white and in power in healthcare.

Hoping for the best here, but something tells me things won't pan out as favorably for OP.

where does this thought come into play in this thread. but i am guessing you are not white!
indian? lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
excuse or not, you are suggesting that something as innocuous as checking a personal email, that will infrequently receive work related mail etc such as a powerpoint on google drive, and leaving it accidentally unattended, is tantamount to extending a residency duration or even getting fired.

i can see how he should feel bad for accidentally leaving his email account open naively believing that his colleagues would not do something nasty like roam around his drive or email. consequences? sure. i think he should be reminded to close out of his accounts and maintain his own privacy. any more than that is draconian and just a reminder of the field we work in where we preach empathy but none for our own.

rather than bemoan op, i emphatize with him, emphatize that he was never trying to disseminate any nsfw material. and if anything, completely jipped because some douche came behind him, and decided to roam around his drive and take the time to write him up. you do realize thats quite a bit of work right? to look around a drive that is not yours, find some material, confirm its nsfw, then put together a report.

heck, filling out all the boxes for a report takes so much time that most real residents dont do it.

Fully agree. The jackoff who started snooping around the OPs google drive is a piece of $hit. And then to get their panties in a wad and go through the specific trouble of writing them up is truly nuts.

Where I am at, we made the switch from the old microsoft outlook to the newer version in the last several months. There was an initial glitch where peoples accounts didn't completely log off and it was not uncommon to open up into somone elses email account. Heck, an attending accidentally sent an email from another attendings account because of this which led to some temporary confusion.

Speaking to aProgDirector, there are still a fair amount of "kiosk" workstations that don't require a specific log in. They are logged in through a generic log in and then users log into the EMR etc. This is not a podunk place either. They are slowly being phased out but when there are thousands of PCs that need to be changed, not uncommon to see this set up still out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Fully agree. The jackoff who started snooping around the OPs google drive is a piece of $hit. And then to get their panties in a wad and go through the specific trouble of writing them up is truly nuts.

Where I am at, we made the switch from the old microsoft outlook to the newer version in the last several months. There was an initial glitch where peoples accounts didn't completely log off and it was not uncommon to open up into somone elses email account. Heck, an attending accidentally sent an email from another attendings account because of this which led to some temporary confusion.

Speaking to aProgDirector, there are still a fair amount of "kiosk" workstations that don't require a specific log in. They are logged in through a generic log in and then users log into the EMR etc. This is not a podunk place either. They are slowly being phased out but when there are thousands of PCs that need to be changed, not uncommon to see this set up still out there.

Can someone make this guy a moderator??

Awesome.
 
Apologies. My prior post which you responded to was in response to aProgDirector, so I had incorrectly assumed that you took the same position as him.

Just so we're clear, if an event like this happens and the person takes responsibility, I'm not suggesting extending training or anything draconian. In fact, after this discussion, I'd probably alter my stance and would consider not including this in credentialing documentation.

We should all be cautious when accessing personal material in a public space.

Perhaps I should delete all of my previous posts, and just repeat this statement.

The jackoff who started snooping around the OPs google drive is a piece of $hit. And then to get their panties in a wad and go through the specific trouble of writing them up is truly nuts.

Again, details matter. Perhaps they weren't "snooping", perhaps it was accidental. They thought they were in their g-drive. The details are critical to making an informed decision.

Several posters have mentioned that it's crazy to "write them up", and that people are being vindictive. That's possible. My experience is that usually, the person has some history that amplifies the issue. For example, I'm jewish. If something similar were to happen (although I wouldn't poke around in someones drive, I'd close it and send them an email reminding them to be more careful, but for discussion...) and I saw pro-Nazi / Holocaust denial crap, I'd likely get quite upset and probably report it. Perhaps some other content would upset me less, and I wouldn't.

Speaking to aProgDirector, there are still a fair amount of "kiosk" workstations that don't require a specific log in. They are logged in through a generic log in and then users log into the EMR etc. This is not a podunk place either. They are slowly being phased out but when there are thousands of PCs that need to be changed, not uncommon to see this set up still out there.

We have those also, so I misspoke / wasn't clear. In that case, the OP would have only left their drive open, and not left an opening into the EMR. That's fine - in fact it's better.

But the basic issue remains: If you access your personal information on a work machine, you need to be careful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
In regards to access to GMail vs logging into the computer, my hospital is a little weird. On a lot of the computers (including the ones in the resident work room), internet cookies are specific to the computer. So if I log into Gmail and log out of the computer (but not Gmail), the next person who logs in will still have access to my Gmail despite being logged into the network under their own ID and password. Of course this makes it easier to find out who was snooping, but you shouldn't be giving them a chance to snoop in the first place.
 
I see the OP's situation as very similar. They "brought the material to work" by opening their google drive on a work computer. They left it open by mistake. Someone else saw it. I doubt any robust hospital has computers where people use a generic login -- I expect (and I think the OP described) that they logged into their windows account on a public computer, and then forgot to log out. That also raises another problem -- our EMR uses your Windows credentials to log you in directly. If their system is similar, then leaving a computer open with your login basically allows anyone to access the EMR in your name -- and as mentioned above, if that happened, the OP would be fully responsible for any HIPAA issues, etc.

Speaking to aProgDirector, there are still a fair amount of "kiosk" workstations that don't require a specific log in. They are logged in through a generic log in and then users log into the EMR etc. This is not a podunk place either. They are slowly being phased out but when there are thousands of PCs that need to be changed, not uncommon to see this set up still out there.
Yes, where I trained, we had a system which may be similar to what Siggy just described. It's not that users actually entered the username and password of a generic login. Rather, when booted up, the computers all somehow automatically logged themselves onto a generic Windows account, but then there was some additional, 3rd party security layer to which you had to log in, with your own username and password (or fingerprint,) that would actually unlock the computer. That layer had an auto-lock feature after about 5 minutes just like Windows. If someone else then came along and logged in, the EMR was linked to it, so they would then be logged into the EMR under their own credentials. But whatever desktop programs like MS word or a web browser the previous user had left open would still be open, in the same session.

Also, the OP said this other person who reported him stumbled on his Google drive "a couple days later." I don't care how busy an area of the hospital it's in; in the span of several days, there's inevitably going to be some window of time, say at 3AM, when no one touches the computer for 5-10 minutes, long enough for it to go to the lock screen.

The OP has not returned to clarify anything, and I think people are making some assumptions. First, from the wording of some replies, it seems some people are assuming the person who stumbled into his Google Drive and reported him is a fellow resident. But the OP did not say that it was, nor what kind of setting this computer was located in (e.g., a resident workroom.) It could have been a nurse's station or anywhere else, and the person could have been a nurse, PT, RT, secretary, or anyone who works in the hospital. Second, there's a lot of speculation as to what penalties he might face, or whether he might be found to have done something wrong. But nobody seems to know who exactly would be applying such penalties or establishing such a finding. Are we talking about his residency program, or the hospital's HR department? Given the report the person made, and the IT department investigation, I'm inclined to think it's the latter. In which case the result is out of his PD's hands. His PD might earnestly just want to give him a talking-to and let him graduate on time with no blemish on his record. But if the hospital HR has some stupid "zero tolerance" policy, he's SOL.
 
Also, the OP said this other person who reported him stumbled on his Google drive "a couple days later." I don't care how busy an area of the hospital it's in; in the span of several days, there's inevitably going to be some window of time, say at 3AM, when no one touches the computer for 5-10 minutes, long enough for it to go to the lock screen.
There's plenty of hospitals that have computers just logged into windows with no need for a network username/password... ever. I work at four hospitals right now, and of them two have all the computers at nurses stations/etc always logged in. You only need a username/password to get into the EMR itself or some specific workstations.

I recently rotated at one of them (a >600 bed community hospital, so not some podunk place) and did find a specific workroom I liked that usually wasn't so crowded (it was within the medicine department office). My rotation wasn't too busy, so I did do some web-surfing during downtime, including things like checking my email, SDN, and Facebook. My preferred habit when doing websurfing on a public computer is to simply use incognito mode (thus closing the browser immediately clears all cookies), but their IT has incognito mode blocked off completely, so I had to remember to clear cookies manually at the end of any browsing session. Apparently, my last day on this rotation, I forgot to do that.

Two weeks later, one of my cofellows was on the same rotation and sends me a text message that she opened the browser in that workroom and I was still logged into Facebook. She didn't do anything with the access, logged me out, and just lets me know.

Now, I have nothing inappropriate on my Facebook. I mean, there's some pictures of me having a drink or two, but I'm certainly of-age, and I even have various attendings and relatives as friends. But imagine if I had some private photos saved that only myself and someone else could see, or had some illicit messages in messenger. Based on what this thread is telling me, it would somehow be reasonable to suspend or even fire me for that?

That's absurd. Chastisement with a reminder to be more careful clearing cookies? Sure. Chastisement with a reminder that maybe I shouldn't be using Facebook at work? Sure. I should be reading more journal articles anyway. But unless the OP was pulling up the NSFW photos, printing them out on a hospital computer, and posting them in the workroom, I see no reason for him to be suspended or fired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Unfortunate mistake. I hope it gets handled as painlessly as possible. In any case, if you happen to follow up on this thread at work, OP, don't forget to log out


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
My example above explains the way I see this. If someone likes looking at NSFW images in the privacy of their own home, that's fine with me. But let's say someone brings some images with them to work. They are in a folder, in their computer bag. They brought them because they were going to do something with them after work. They forgot them in their bag -- they meant to leave them in their car or locker. No big deal, they are in a folder, in their bag, no one should see them. But someone gets confused and thinks the bag is theirs. They open it, see the folder, and think "Huh, what's that?". They open it and see the material. I see the person who brought that material to work responsible for this situation. Sure, they didn't mean for anyone to see the material (and that's important and a mitigating factor). But nevertheless, they are responsible for this problem they have created.

I have been trying to figure out how I see the OP's behavior as different from the behavior in your example. I have realized it comes down to this: what happened to the OP is something that I could easily imagine happening to myself, while your example is not. Whatever the similarities, the key difference is that I know that I would need to silence several internal alarms to put printed, obscene material in a bag that I was bringing to work. You might say that the bag is sealed, and that no one would see it, but I would have loud cautionary voices in my head warning me that that was a bad idea. On the other hand, browsing my gmail, I could easily imagine myself having no awareness of the fact that my drive was now also open, or that someone could theoretically get into it if I were to walk away from my computer.

I don't specifically keep NSFW material on my G-drive (or anywhere) but I know myself well enough to know that I don't have the best understanding of the ever more interconnected online tools that I use or what embarrassing things you could learn about me online, and I know my colleagues well enough to know that I'm not even in the bottom 50% of technical savvy.

That's the sniff test that I apply to all accusations: if I feel like 'there but for the grace of God go I', then I am rooting for the accused. If I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have ever done something similar to the acccused (like the guy bringing printed obscene materials to work) then I think that some kind of consequences might be reasonable. Unless there is something OP is leaving out I don't see this as passing the sniff test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Yep. I get that. And I access my google drive from work all the time. And I could imagine myself making this same error. And I feel bad for the person involved.

But I don't think that changes the situation. The cloud based world we live in has blurred the privacy line, and we're still coming to grips with that. There are plenty of threads here on SDN telling people to sanitize their facebook accounts before applying to school / residency, for fear that something posted there will cause them problems at work. When your private material -- whether on facebook or an open google drive or any other resource -- ends up publicly exposed, it's a big problem if it's NSFW. Perhaps that's unfair, but it's the way it is now.

As mentioned before, details matter. If you left your drive open, someone mucked around in it, found your SDN username, searched your posts, and found an NSFW post, then I would do nothing about that (other than point out that you shouldn't keep your drive open). The person mucking in your stuff is much more in the wrong here, and wouldn't have been exposed to the material if not digging for dirt. If you left your drive open, and there's a folder front and center that says "PORN!!!!11!!!1!!!", someone clicks on it, and then someone standing behind them sees it and reports it, that's a more serious issue.

And let me be clear again, so this doesn't get blown out of proportion. If this happened at my program, we'd investigate to get the details. Assuming it's as described and the resident took ownership of the problem, all that would happen is a serious talk with the resident, perhaps some education about the issue. and a note in their internal file. No one would get fired over this -- it was unintentional and an oversight. My initial post mentioned putting it in their final credentialing paperwork -- I've changed my mind. (See? It happens!).

Any talk of firing someone or anything more draconian than that is only if this is a pattern of behavior, or if material was being stored on work computers or shared using work resources. Or, if the resident doesn't at least accept responsibility for their part of the problem. If they just blame it on the person who mucked around in their drive, they are missing the point -- and then the issue is more about accepting responsibility when a choice you make goes badly, even if it was an honest mistake.

As mentioned above, people need to be very careful with their personal online material while at work. If you have NSFW material there, even more so. Interestingly, there is no way (that I can see) to add a password to a google drive folder, which seems like it could be a nice feature. Password recover couldn't be via Gmail of course -- someone with illicit access to your drive can also access your mail, so that would be dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Agree and disagree with the two above posters.

OP needs a lawyer immediately because he has been officially suspended.
However, most lawyers will not recommend going the silence route until it is absolutely necessary.

Your lawyer will most likely ask you to play very very nice and try to get away with nothing or a slap on the wrists.
When this does not work, your lawyer should have read the handbook cover to cover, and built a case defending you and prepare you completely for any tribunals.
Ie. when the program doesn't wanna talk to you anymore and has made a negative final decision, then that is when your lawyer completely steps in and takes over.

Until then, play nice.

And I know its tough because you have been jipped.
Anyone could have clicked some NSFW ad and opened something NSFW at work... What can you say but unlucky.

It's "gypped" and is derived from negative stereotypes regarding gypsies. Probably shouldn't use the term unless you're the type to say that someone "jew'd" you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
And let me be clear again, so this doesn't get blown out of proportion. If this happened at my program, we'd investigate to get the details. Assuming it's as described and the resident took ownership of the problem, all that would happen is a serious talk with the resident, perhaps some education about the issue. and a note in their internal file. No one would get fired over this -- it was unintentional and an oversight. My initial post mentioned putting it in their final credentialing paperwork -- I've changed my mind. (See? It happens!).
But you're speaking as a program director, saying that in that capacity you wouldn't fire someone in this situation. That's great, but, while this might just be my petty self being overly literalistic, what I'm more interested in, and what I think the OP has to worry more about, is whether he violated the hospital's policy about the use of the internet on work computers. If his PD wants to chastise him for accessing an account in which he keeps NSFW materials from work, or tell him it's unbecoming of a doctor to ever look at inappropriate materials at all, fine. But the OP said someone reported him for "looking at explicit images at work," and now IT is "investigating," indicating there's a question as to whether he violated the hospital's rules against using the internet for obscenity or whatever. That's what he's likely in more danger of facing serious consequences for. But, according to his side of the story, he did not in fact look at explicit images at work, and I don't think IT/HR/whoever should consider him to have done so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So if I dont like someone at work I can create a throwaway email account, email a nude pic to their work email, then when they access their email anonymously report them?

Because that situation is no more bull**** than the OPs
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
So if I dont like someone at work I can create a throwaway email account, email a nude pic to their work email, then when they access their email anonymously report them?

Because that situation is no more bull**** than the OPs

To be honest, if I were OP, I would go for the whole "I've been framed angle". Because you may have.

Are you SURE you didn't log out?
 
This stuff is scary. Not this particular situation, but the fact that not logging out can have such adverse consequences. Can anyone truly say they have never forgotten to secure their login? There are multiple cases of docs losing their careers because someone used their accounts to access med records illegally.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
1. Lawyer stat.

2. Talk to no one, including HR. Have a lawyer respond to HR inquiries. Everyone is now your enemy.

3. You are now the essential scapegoat, and the hospital will have to fire someone to save face. You are the path of least resistance.
If you tell your PD to talk to your lawyer, things probably wont go well.

Sent from my SM-N910P using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Something which hasn't been addressed is what type of NSFW content was on the google drive.

If it was something legal and ubiquitous like pornography this seems like an overreaction (to me at least). On the other hand if the content reflected poorly on the OP's character or judgment (racist or sexist comments or drug use) then I can understand the reaction.
 
Can anyone truly say they have never forgotten to secure their login?
Of course, and I doubt I'm alone. So many bad things can happen if you don't log out and you don't have a good excuse that the hospital will care for, as OP is finding out.
 
So Bahnson shoves OCP's down residents throats, tells his residents that they are "too indian" for him, throws objects at others in the operating room...AND he gets...wait for it...commemorated by Ohio State. Man is it nice to be white and in power in healthcare.

Hoping for the best here, but something tells me things won't pan out as favorably for OP.
Let's not go overboard. There are plenty of minority attendings that can get away with even more than that because they have both the attending and minority cards to play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Something which hasn't been addressed is what type of NSFW content was on the google drive.

If it was something legal and ubiquitous like pornography this seems like an overreaction (to me at least). On the other hand if the content reflected poorly on the OP's character or judgment (racist or sexist comments or drug use) then I can understand the reaction.
The OP said that someone reported him for looking at "explicit images." While I suppose he could mean an extremely clear and detailed graphical representation of a swastika or the word "n!gger," "explicit images" has a pretty commonly accepted meaning.

Also, while this is mostly irrelevant today, it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that pornography is legal. Most of the obscenity laws by which pornography prosecuted as illegal >50 years ago are still on the books. They're simply unenforced, or courts have become much more lax in their standards about what constitutes "obscenity." The only reason porn is "legal" is that society has decided to pretty much stop prosecuting it, not that the laws have changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Potentially, but things aren't going well for OP regardless. What would you recommend at this point?

Your advice to everyone always seems to be to lawyer up. Lawyers are not always a good thing, and can really escalate a situation.

It is fine to run it by a lawyer to get advice behind the scenes, but it would be a mistake to play the lawyer card to your program at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Top