felix220
01-17-03, 05:14 AM
Dear Aunt Polly,
I have a reasonable size client who has many brands and sites covering a wide range of online endeavours. I offer and deliver a 'managed' service for this client, and as a result of having a contact address on most of his servers etc, I often get questions directly from clients who have a problem of one kind or another.
This week I was fairly hammered by one of these clients who felt that my customer had done something quite nasty to his PC via spyware or a trojan etc.. and so I exchanged a few emails suggesting things he could do to get his PC back to normal..
I subsequently discovered that he did indeed encounter this problem [spyware] from downloading something from my client, and while in very poor taste, it's not illegal or uncommon..
Should I spend time interfering in this further, or just mind my own business and ignore the poor sod, considering he actively, although unwittingly, caused the problem for himself, through choosing a particular option that he needn't have.
I hate the concept of intrusion like this and now have a dilemma.
This is only a small issue, but I'm wondering what other people think about imposing one's own views of things like this in a 'ToS' or acceptable use policy?
I have a reasonable size client who has many brands and sites covering a wide range of online endeavours. I offer and deliver a 'managed' service for this client, and as a result of having a contact address on most of his servers etc, I often get questions directly from clients who have a problem of one kind or another.
This week I was fairly hammered by one of these clients who felt that my customer had done something quite nasty to his PC via spyware or a trojan etc.. and so I exchanged a few emails suggesting things he could do to get his PC back to normal..
I subsequently discovered that he did indeed encounter this problem [spyware] from downloading something from my client, and while in very poor taste, it's not illegal or uncommon..
Should I spend time interfering in this further, or just mind my own business and ignore the poor sod, considering he actively, although unwittingly, caused the problem for himself, through choosing a particular option that he needn't have.
I hate the concept of intrusion like this and now have a dilemma.
This is only a small issue, but I'm wondering what other people think about imposing one's own views of things like this in a 'ToS' or acceptable use policy?