Naughty Staff


A company with 1,000 Internet users could lose upwards of $35 million in productivity annually from just an hour of daily Web surfing by employees

Non-work related Internet surfing results in up to a 40% loss in productivity each year at American businesses.

On average, office workers spend 21 hours per week online at the office, as oppose to only 9.5 hours at home.

Out of 800 workers surveyed, 21% – 31% admitted to sending company confidential information, like financial or product data, to recipients outside the company by email.

According to a survey by International Data Corp (IDC), 30 to 40% of internet access is spent on non-work related browsing, and a staggering 60% of all online purchases are made during working hours.

Staff Computer and Internet Abuse Statistics

70% of all web traffic to Internet pornography sites occurs during the work hours of 9am-5pm.

58% of industrial espionage is perpetrated by current or former employees.

48% of large companies blame their worst security breaches on employees.

46% of the one thousand largest companies globally will be utilizing IM as a daily communications tool.

64% of employees say they use the Internet for personal interest during
working hours

70% of all Internet porn traffic occurs during the nine-to-five work day.

37% of workers say they surf the Web constantly at work.

77.7% of major U.S. companies keep tabs on employees by checking their e-mail, Internet, phone calls, computer files, or by videotaping them at work.

63% of companies monitor workers Internet connections and 47% store and review employee e-mail.

27% of companies say that they’ve fired employees for misuse of office e-mail or Internet connections, and 65% report some disciplinary measure for those offenses.

90% of employees feel the Internet can be addictive, and 41 percent admit to personal surfing at work for more than three hours per week.

60% of Security Breaches occur within the Company – behind the Firewall

25% of corporate Internet traffic is considered to be “unrelated to

30-40% of lost productivity is accounted for by cyber-slacking.

32.6% of workers surf the net with no specific objective; men are twice
as likely as women.

27% of Fortune 500 organizations have defended themselves against claims of sexual harassment stemming from inappropriate email.

90% of respondents (primarily large corporations and government agencies) detected computer security breaches within the previous 12 months, 80% acknowledged financial losses due to computer breaches, 44% were willing and/or able to quantify their losses, at more than $455 million.

The Bottom Line

Companies that do not conduct policy training or monitor internal messages can be putting themselves at risk. In 2003, oil company Chevron USA paid $2.2 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit over its email content.

Most studies show 70% of companies have had sex sites accessed using their network.

Some estimates reveal that computer crime may cost as much as $50 billion per year.

Around 80% of computer crime is committed by “insiders”. They manage to steal $100 million by some estimates; $1 billion by others.

The average fraud inflicts a loss of about $110,000 per corporate/organization victim, and $15,000 to each individual victim.

Traditionally, employers have been responsible and liable for the actions of their employees in the workplace. However, if an organization can demonstrate a “duty of care” to reduce unacceptable employee activity, then it could minimize it’s potential for liability.


Can you really afford not to monitor your office computers?

Foreign ownership of private security companies is a threat to national security.

The idea that foreign-owned private security companies are a threat to national security emerged in a debate over the recently adopted Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill. Indeed, the private security industry faces various shortcomings. These include the non-registration of personnel and businesses, poor training, inadequate vetting and background checks, the issuing of firearms to persons who are not competent to use them and the failure to pursue criminal or disciplinary action against security personnel who break the law. These are all credible and legitimate reasons for improving regulation.

Currently, there are 445 000 registered active private security ‘guards’ in South Africa. This means that private security officials far outnumber the 270 000 public security officers, a number that includes those working for the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). Given the large number of people that the private security industry employs – many of whom are armed – it is important that it should be well regulated.

The minister also argued that the growth of the private security industry in South Africa ‘has outstripped other countries.’ However, according to a 2011 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) that compares civilian private security services internationally, South Africa is not that different to many other countries. In fact, South Africa’s ratio of private security officers to police officers (2,87:1) did not differ much from that of developed countries (the USA has a ratio of 2,26:1 and Australia 2,19:1). It also compares favourably to other middle-income or developing countries (Honduras has a ratio of 4,88:1, India 4,98:1 and Guatemala 6,01:1).

Less than 10% of the local private security industry is foreign owned

The 2013 draft Green Paper on Policing referred to another threat when it expressed concerns about the private security industry’s ‘ability’ to ‘destabilise any security situation’ in South Africa. This was ostensibly due to the involvement of ‘former military and police officers at management level,’ and the deployment of ‘highly trained, legally armed operatives’ within this industry. However, most of these former security officials are South African citizens, which therefore does little to support concerns relating to foreign ownership.

The Green Paper also alleged that the private security industry is ‘increasingly performing functions which used to be the sole preserve of the police.’ However, the growth of the private security industry is directly linked to high levels of crime and violence, along with public perceptions that police officers are unable to provide adequate security. The Green Paper also contradicts itself by pointing out that private security companies have no special powers beyond those of private citizens. It is therefore difficult to see how these companies can be seen to undermine the state’s law enforcement power.

Once again – as has been the case with the Protection of State Information Bill and the security ministers’ attempted cover-up of the exorbitant amount of public money spent on the president’s private Nkandla homestead – the term ‘national security’ is being used to justify government decisions or behaviour that cannot be properly explained. It is for this reason that Barry Buzan, in his 1991 book titled People, states and fear, says that elites in weak states more readily view various threats as ‘national security threats’ – especially when they seem to have negative implications for the power of those elites.

Similarly, much of what the current administration refers to as national security threats, appears to have more to do with removing the duty to account for political decisions, rather than any real danger to South African sovereignty.

Many businesses in SA have foreign ownership, so why single out private security?

Craig Snyder, in his 1999 book titled Contemporary security and strategy, says that ‘national security’ should be about freeing people from constraints such as poverty, poor education, political oppression and war. This is why, both internationally and locally, there has been a move away from the term ‘state security,’ which often narrowly equated a nation’s security with ‘regime security.’

Indeed, South African policy has largely been in line with progressive understandings of ‘national security.’ For example, the South African White Paper on Defence (1996), states that (in the absence of any external or military threat), ‘the greatest threats to the South African people are socio-economic problems like poverty and unemployment … as well as the high level of crime and violence.’

National security, therefore, can best be described as freedom from external and internal threats, which may manifest as military, political, economic, societal and environmental threats, crime and violence and the threat of anarchy.

It is therefore difficult to see how foreign ownership or majority shareholding of private security companies by foreigners can be a threat to South Africa’s national security. Many businesses operating in South Africa have foreign ownership, including those in the field of information technology, which could be perceived as a potential threat. So why single out the private security industry?

Less than 10% of the local private security industry is foreign owned, and the 445 407 security officers that are registered as active are all South African citizens or have permanent resident status. They do not constitute a coherent, well-organised semi-military force ready for deployment against a particular target. Rather, they’re spread across 9 031 registered businesses, providing more than 20 different categories of security and services as locksmiths, car guards, body guards and armed reaction teams. So, where is the threat?

Surely, limiting foreign investment and the jobs it may bring is more of a threat to our national security than the mere foreign ownership of a small number of companies. Most of these companies are listed on stock exchanges and are therefore subject to rigorous oversight. Unfortunately, given the absence of a rational, evidence-based argument to explain why foreign ownership of security companies is a threat to national security, questions now arise as to the real reason behind the controversial clause in the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill.






– When nobody is in your home, lock all outside doors and windows. Outside, make sure you always put tools away and lock garden gates, sheds and garages.

– Security mark your valuables with your postcode and house number, keep a photo or video of them. If you are burgled, it’ll be easier to identify and recover your possessions and it can help when you make a claim.

– Fit deadlocks and key-operated security bolts to all external doors

– Fit a good quality, approved alarm – look out for British Standard BS4737 – and make sure you activate it, including at night

– Fit key-operated metal locks to all your accessible windows

– Never leave keys in a lock, within view of the door, or in a ‘secret’ hiding place like under the mat as burglars know where to look

– If you don’t already have one in your area, set up a Neighbourhood Watch scheme. That way, the people in your street will all be on the lookout for any suspicious characters.

– Check your boundaries for weak points. You don’t necessarily have to put up big iron gates or fences, as nature can provide the answer. Prickly plants such as blackthorn, hawthorn and holly all provide a powerful deterrent.

– Expose them as they try to sneak on to your premises – security lights and gravel paths will make it very hard for them to go undetected. If they encounter such obstacles, they’re more likely to move on.

When everyone is celebrating- who really wants to be working?

Merry Christmas to all our readers! Human nature is exactly that, “human.” Being human means that we are all prone to make mistakes- in fact the phrase coined, “human error” when something goes wrong is indicative of the condition of mankind.

With that thought in mind we should expect or think it unusual for security staff to be in a Merry little mode as you rely upon them. The idealistic believe is that all would be exactly as promised on the company’s security brochures.

But one would need to think for a moment… What would you do?

I would invite me mates over whilst at work or if I could stay at home and claiming to be at work. The boss is definitely not going to be around so he is not going to know? Therefore the knowingly educated theft would realise today is definitely a Christmas Heyday for stealing and dressed in Santa costume makes a clean getaway for carrying a black bag would definitely not look suspicious.

It is for this reason if your employees knew that they where being monitored they won’t dare to attempt celebrating in working time…this is exactly what Sass Co. aims to achieve- monitoring your employees so you can party without worrying about work…you are entitled to it!


Someone wants to be you!


, ,

Identity theft is when your personal details are stolen and identity fraud is when those details are used to commit fraudulent acts. Nobody ever expects to be victims of such crimes but when fraudsters access your information about someone’s identity such as their name, date of birth, current or previous addresses. Identity theft can take place whether the victim is alive or dead.

It is imperative that one shares their personal information with companies or individuals that have the capabilities to safe guard their data with proper storage or processes. Should your details fall in the wrong hands it could make life difficult for you to obtain loans, credit cards or a mortgage and until the matter is resolved.

Identity fraud can be described as the use of stolen identity in criminal activities to obtain goods or services by deception. Your identity can be used to open bank accounts, order goods in your name, take over your accounts and obtaining genuine documents such as passports and driving licences in your name.

Therefore the next time you give out your details either orally or written – know that you have a right to request where and how your details will be used and stored and for how long? In addition, needless to say but don’t throw your personal documents in the rubbish as many prey on going through your trash hoping to find something that they could pose to be you!

Why do people steal at work?


This is becoming an increasingly significant problem that organizations are facing.  The economic recession has left people feeling desperate and has challenged employees’ ethical decisions. What constitutes stealing at work?  There is the obvious form of stealing, which would involve taking money from the organization.

In most cases, stealing at work begins small and magnifies into a large quantity of theft.  Most people believe taking a pen from work for personal use is not considered stealing.  However, stealing from an organization is taking organizational property for personal use.  After an employee takes a single pen and gets away with it, they may take a pack of pens.  Unless caught, the employee may begin larger forms of theft until someone realizes missing products.

Studies have indicated several different reasons as to why employees participate in theft.  Data supports the notion that many employees engage in theft as a form of counterproductive work behaviors.  Counterproductive work behaviors have several underlying causes such as low satisfaction, a lack of organizational commitment, or conflicts with supervisors.

An interesting reason for theft is often tied to an employee’s salary.  Research has indicated that some employees who feel he or she is not being compensated accurately for their job feel they must make up for the difference.  In stealing from the organization, some employees feel they are getting what they deserve.  I often think of the quote I heard from coworkers at the nursing home kitchen I was employed at in the past, “I can eat the food because I don’t get paid enough.”  Despite the deliberate breaking of organizational policies, these employees truly felt they were entitled to something extra from the organization.

What do you do if you know a coworker is stealing? Most large organizations have hotlines or voicemails for employees to anonymously leave information about such matters.  By reporting theft to an anonymous hotline, an employee takes away the fear of retaliation.  It is never a good idea to keep information about a coworker stealing to oneself.  When the organization discovers the theft and that coworkers did not speak up, it reflects poorly on employees’ loyalty to the organization.

How often do you believe theft in the workplace occurs? Should organizations be concerned?


Employee Theft – a problem solved!




Employee theft may be grouped into four major categories: 1) manipulation of company records either to embezzle money outright or to hide the theft of goods; 2) direct theft of inventory, products, or cash; 3) abuse of power in order to aid and abet thievery by partners; and 4) theft of information for sale to others or for direct use (e.g., credit card theft).

Employees directly involved in financial administration and with access to company cheques and corporate records may engage in forging company cheques for personal use. Creating “ghost payroll entries” and then paying “phantom” employees is another method, sometimes quite elaborate in implementation involving phony time cards. Forged billings by non-existent vendors is another method—with the accounts payable clerk writing cheques to him or herself when paying the fake billing. Employees also destroy paper records so that “lost shipments” cannot be traced—or fake orders to cover items missing from inventory through their own thefts.

Direct Theft
In its simplest form employees simply take cash from cash registers to which multiple individuals have access to dip into petty cash resources generally easily accessible to several employees. Direct theft of valuable products or materials invariable relies upon trust (the employee comes and goes, often with a truck, stashes goods away, is never checked) or opportunity (the employee has access to the warehouse and the warehouse is not effectively guarded).

Abuse of Position
In one form of this abuse, known as “sweethearting,” an employee grants a friend a discount or rings up fewer items than are packaged for taking out—or rings up a cheaper item than the item that leaves the store actually cost. The goods acquired in this manner may later be shared. Individuals taking inventory may abuse this privileged status by counting fewer item than are present and, if this “mistake” is not detected, later personally “adjusting” the inventory by taking the uncounted items home.


As reported more fully in the Computer Crime essay in this volume, an increasing proportion of attacks on computer systems take place from within the company. The target of this type of thievery is protected personal data, such as credit card information, which, in the wrong hands, can be turned into cash. More sophisticated forms of such theft are conducted in order to sell information to third parties.

Signs of Employee Theft
Managers and small business owners need to be aware of tell-tale signs which, when they frequently repeat, may be the tracks of a thief at work inside the company. A useful checklist to keep in mind mentally includes—
Missing records (such as shipping and/or receiving bills).
Company cheques that bounce or someone is surprised that the company is doing business with XYZ and then adds: “Who is XYZ anyway?”
Customer complaints about missing, late, or short deliveries.
Hefty payments made for “miscellaneous” purposes in employee expense claims.


In the well-run small business employees are trusted to be honest but sensible policies and practices will be in place to detect the loss of product and closely to monitor financial and administrative transactions. Some of the tools include the following:

Clear Policy and Good Example. The company will have and will publish its ethical stance and its managers will be seen to adhere to it strictly in spirit and in action, inside and out, with customers, vendors, and employees alike.

Hiring Orientation. Newly hired employees must leave their orientation session fully aware that the company has zero-tolerance for any kind of irregularity—and the dire consequences that will follow pilfering, never mind theft.

Adequate Controls. Controls will be in place so that physical goods are locked up, protected at night, and closely checked on paper. In a small business particularly, where time is difficult to find, the owner will, nonetheless, show a keen interest in accounting details, probe into them occasionally, and not simply let the “number crunchers” drift unsupervised. Financial controls will include some of the following:
Chequebook will be locked up, and access to cash and checks will be given only to authorized employees.

Few individuals will have the authority to write a cheque, by preference one writing and one signing the cheque.
More than one person will have insight into the total finances so that “lone wolf” strategies are forestalled.
Handling of cash will always be accompanied by documentation.
Books will be audited at intervals not necessarily known to accounting people in advance.
Cash will be rapidly and immediately deposited rather than accumulating in cash registers.
All invoices will be formally checked against deliveries before vendors are paid.