1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Last saved by

Discussion in 'Windows & Other Software' started by valerian, 14 Apr 2010.

  1. valerian

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 8 Feb 2006

    Posts: 1,866

    Location: Stafford

    hi all
    a friend has been accused of trying to hide the fact he altered a document at work, the rationale being, the last saved by tab was not checked in the privacy part of word 2003,
    however the document he wrote, and amended ( he has not denied this) has had this tab unticked from when he first wrote it, would there be any reason that IT would untick this box and he has just unwittingly used word, as it was set up this way?

    cheers
     
  2. Azuse05

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 24 Apr 2009

    Posts: 1,950

    Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

    I don't understand why anyone would accuse someone of hiding something they're freely admitting :S Are you sure this is a problem with software :)
     
  3. valerian

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 8 Feb 2006

    Posts: 1,866

    Location: Stafford

    surprising as it may appear this person has been sacked over this for falsification of records,
    they are trying to say that they tried to hide they had amended the document by unchecking this tab??
    ps this is not a joke
    im trying to establish why it would be unchecked in the first place
     
  4. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Jul 2003

    Posts: 13,786

    I didn't know you could remove that tick box. Anyway, surely they'd have to prove it was him that did this?

    Sounds like they were just after any reason to sack him, if they have a proper IT infrastructure and backup routine they should be able to go back X days or week and find a version which is unedited and compare the two. He isn't denying altering it though, so I don't see why it's an issue.

    I'd find it difficult to believe a tribunal would uphold a sacking over something like that.
     
  5. theheyes

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Jan 2007

    Posts: 8,945

    Location: Manchester

    I don't see how they could sack him based on what seems to me like an absence of evidence, which is circumstantial at best.

    Unfortunately I don't have a copy of 2003 to hand, however I suspect the default is to save this property. What about other machines? Are they unchecked too? To be honest, if they consider this such a serious breach, they should have either enforced this technically or specifically stated it in a written policy not to change this setting. There are much better auditing systems - it sounds to me like they're clutching at straws if this is their only rationale.

    However, surely the fact that he has admitted it makes it all moot anyway?
     
  6. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Jul 2003

    Posts: 13,786

    Even if he admitted it I can't see how it's cause for dismissal.
     
  7. valerian

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 8 Feb 2006

    Posts: 1,866

    Location: Stafford

    he has got to wait 10days to see if they uphold the sacking, then tribunal if they do

    the document wasnt altered anyway, it just had draft removed from it!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  8. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Jul 2003

    Posts: 13,786

    That is altering it..
     
  9. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Jul 2003

    Posts: 13,786

    Only time I've seen something happen like this, in other words a petty IT issue being blown up into a huge deal has been when management have messed up and are looking for a scapegoat to pin it on. Either they forgot to implement a data protection policy, released a document without checking it or they didn't bother with some sort of internal audit.

    I think your mate needs to do some digging.
     
  10. valerian

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 8 Feb 2006

    Posts: 1,866

    Location: Stafford

    you arent wrong
    altering i meant the watermark draft was removed,
    this person was authorised to alter it anyway , he wrote it

    im trying to establish why the last saved tab was unticked anyway, as he didnt do it