Tracy,
>Even so, the issue it not whether or not Naomi was abusing her employer's time by spending too much time online. There is learning that occurs by researching issues and her employer would have benefited from that as well. The whole issue can be argued ad naseum. It is still, and always was, between Naomi and her ex-employer.

I definately agree abount the possibility further arguing - other points may be if it was the straw that borke the camels back or definate rules on internet access might have been not followed. No info, just a wide range of possibilities.

>What is important is how anyone in this community feels it is okay to make that judgment call and be judge and jury by informing on their fellow developer to his/her employer.

Judge and jury ? The decision to fire was made by her companies managment. Still, the "informant" part has a bad taste from my current take on things.

>That is just plain wrong period. They had no business doing that and that behavior cannot be condoned. Who will be next?

While I definately (from my current level of info) think that writing such a letter was not called for during some electronic cat fight which seems went on even after the login-info abuse, the response in italics in the letter is quite glib to my ears. Assumptions usually not worded by me: not researched if such a response was actually made, assuming it was, leaning to the assumption that such a response was not carefully goaded out of N. Dunno if the "during working hours" or the *supposedly* dropped login topic was more important, but guessing the working H matter as long as N. had no security related roles in the company.

As I am paid by the hour I am VERY meticoulus if I post during hours I am billing for - default behaviour is not to have a browser open. If I am researching bugs or asking on specific problems this is with prearranged ok and sometimes I even cc the questions / results.

>What have you or anyone else done that they may feel your employer or your wife needs to know about?

Since personal contact is missing, much of the information supplied by posture, tone and mimics is lost. Therefore more caution of how a message MIGHT be interpreted is called for and also how rabid the unseen others might be (*not* making a statement on my take on Akron residents here, I am guessing he was either under- or overworked and seriously pi$$ed with N and life in general at that moment...).

Somebody seriously pi$$ed off might have acted this way, rationalizing "HER again - ok, she really asks for it, I make it my (taxpaying) business". There was a thread on a thief sending a picture of him posing to a bulletin board with the stolen mobile. I certainly won't put any info on the net about it or tell/write it to somebody - not even in confidence - especially if there were scuffles before. Think back to that official OPSEC drilling and the less official lessons on misinformation I am sure you were tought.

my 0.000000002 EUR

thomas