>>>>>In a sense, it was an act of war.
>>>>
>>>>Peter, it was not an "act of war". That is a ridiculous thing to say. She felt bullied, so she did something dishonest and PETTY! It would be nice to say that we are all professionals here, and all being in the IT trade we know what is right and what is wrong technologically, and this was wrong. There is no excuses or gray area... It is black and white WRONG!
>>>
>>>Let us suppose you and I are colleagues in the same company and we are less than friends, to put it mildly. Actually, I have accused you of many things and have even tried to persuade our chief to fire you. You have discovered this and feel offended by me. Even more, you have the feeling that I am talking about you behind your back with others. Our desks are in the same room and you notice that my computer is still unlocked. You know I won't be back within an hour.
>>>
>>>Will you, or won't you try to have a look in my Inbox and Outbox of Outlook?
>>
>>
>>Isn't the definition of integrity doing the right thing even when no one is looking?
>
>What would YOU do? Or should that be clear to us all.

If I were Michel? First I would remove Naomi's moderator credentials for a period of time, which has apparently already happened. Then I would directly address the questions about privacy and security that have been raised here ---

1. Who has access to private UT messages?
2. How and when can moderators edit posted messages?
3. What safeguards are in place for financial data communicated to the UT?