Ethics much, Charlie???

[mxims]

Was anybody else amazed that Charlie (who is slightly off kilter but, generally, very good hearted) would agree to use private home security footage to prove that Brooke kissed Deacon on New Year's Eve? Charlie himself mentioned that Brooke has always been good to him, so why become mixed in this family squabble that will likely hurt both Forresters and Logans? Not to mention all the moral, legal, and ethical issues that will arise from a Forrester employee hacking into the co-CEO's private security system. What could Charlie be thinking???

[voice of reason]

Charlie's not the only one with ethics issues in fact all characters have this problem.

[Dakotacat]

Charlie is thinking he'd better do what his boss asks. He's hoping Brooke didn't cheat.

[lucario2000]

I agree. Privately owned company, with the boss asking you to do that! Talk about pressure! Poor Charlie at first
thought she wanted him to watch the kids 😂.

[Okee]

Charlie is just reveling in feeling important. The biggest bombshell on that video is going to the the time stamps of when Deacon returned and left, proving that he spent the night. Heads are going to explode. Brooke kissed Deacon, she got drunk and he stayed all night, plus she has been moping around for over a month now. Let the fireworks begin!

[kendallalways]

Charlie's probably wondering about Brooke's lack of ethics given that she spent the night with another man while Ridge was out of town...lol. Though why he's surprised given Brooke's track record.

[SweetJade]

Exactly!! Where are her "ethics" she is asking a child to keep her secret as well, not caring that it is obviously weighing on the child's mind. Where are Hope & Liam's ethics? lol

[B-Hold]

Don't you know Brooke is forever blameless and pure while everyone else involved in exposing her wrong doing is evil and to be blamed.

[AngieB5070]

Not only is it un-ethical, but I would assume it's also illegal (without a warrant). Of course I don't know CA law. I don't think I'd really like a security system that was filming me all the time. Maybe that's why you hardly ever see Brooke or Ridge not dressed and made up, even tooling around the house

[B-Hold]

FC seems to own the security system, so no not illegal. BTW the cameras are on the outside of the house. Not inside.

[agg1105]

All of you that are saying it's illegal are so funny. It's a security system. Not only is Charlie in charge of the business security, he works for the family also. Steffy is the CEO (co) to Forester Creations. I will give a ton of money that the house also belongs to Forester Creations (tax purposes), therefore Steffy who is a Forester can ask for the security check anytime. Even though she is technically spying on her step mommy, she has a right. The only one who could probably override her right is her granddad. Charlie is also loyal to the Foresters because his significant other is the sister to the RIP Stephanie and Brooke has always been an interloper to her family. (all the Logans too.)

[viennagirl]

Not only is it un-ethical, but I would assume it's also illegal (without a warrant). Of course I don't know CA law. I don't think I'd really like a security system that was filming me all the time. Maybe that's why you hardly ever see Brooke or Ridge not dressed and made up, even tooling around the house

I don't know CA law about that either.

_______

But here it seems to be illegal.
I doubt that I can go and just ask to get access to my sister's security system (who has one) or my parents (if they had one) behind their back.

We are family but I am not the client and without any signed permission/ approval, the company who has set up the security system won't give me access. (why should they?)

My brother-in-law is even able to watch the inside of his house whenever he wants via phone (and does it to check up on their dog), but no, they don't want to be watched by others.
They don't have a big brother (TV show) complex.

Sometimes I just wonder if he can even listen in to the conversations at his house, or if it is just video without audio. (A micro would have made sense to check if the dog is barking a lot when nobody is at home).

[soapfiction]

Well, it will serve him right if consequences are made after he so nonchalantly agreed to comit a crime. I get they want to get Brooke and get their family back, but the fact neither felt any degree of hesitant in putting Charlie in that position is ridiculous to me. And I would feel the same way if it was Hope or Liam asking him to do the same. The writing is so predictable. What would be a real twist if Brooke wasn't such a coward and actually told Ridge the truth, but the writers aren't going to let that happen. Oh and I loved that shirt the Steffy character had on.

[steffyalways]

Was anybody else amazed that Charlie (who is slightly off kilter but, generally, very good hearted) would agree to use private home security footage to prove that Brooke kissed Deacon on New Year's Eve? Charlie himself mentioned that Brooke has always been good to him, so why become mixed in this family squabble that will likely hurt both Forresters and Logans? Not to mention all the moral, legal, and ethical issues that will arise from a Forrester employee hacking into the co-CEO's private security system. What could Charlie be thinking???

Charlie is doing his JOB. Period.

[Fightcrab]

Does his job include hacking into private residences?

[B-Hold]

Fightcrab - He DID not hack into anything. He had the password as FC installed the system. System they installed and paid for. Nor were the cameras inside the residence. They were external security cameras on the property.

[creation]

It was obvious that Charlie has no love for Deacon, so I think he genuinely trying to help the family.

[mxims]

Can't believe Charlie thinks he has a right to access the security footage at Brooke and Ridge's house, because he's the person who installed the system! Under that logic, wouldn't security system companies that install cameras in people's houses have the right to access the videos when other family members demanded to see them. There's a legal hornets' nest right there.

[B-Hold]

It seems that as Head of Security ALL security systems are under his authority. So, no it's not illegal. It's no different than an employer having the right to go through your company purchased and owned cell phone or laptop. If Brooke doesn't like it then she should have spent her own money and bought the system herself.

[Mariko]

B-Hold If he was being paid separately by Brooke and Ridge to monitor their private security system, then yes it would be legal. But, he's only being paid by FC to monitor their corporate security systems, therefor it's illegal.

[B-Hold]

Mariko If FC is paying him them it's not illegal. He has the password which means he is an Administrator. He has access. He installed it. ALL points to FC owning the security system. Brooke should have thought of THAT before she agreed to have them installed.
Actually it would be Illegal and Unethical if Brooke and Ridge are making Charlie an FC employee to personal jobs for them. CEO have been fired for this in real life.

[JTDMom]

If Forrester Creations pays for Brooke’s security system they do have the right to access the footage.

[JTDMom]

Mariko, Then your statement is premature.

[Mariko]

RedheadTeacher Even if it was Ridge, it still makes sense that it was paid for privately, and not by FC. This is at a private residence, not a company location, therefore the company would not be paying for it.

B-Hold All that means is Charlie installed it, "we" could mean Charlie and he had Ridge help him. That doesn't specifically mean FC employees installed it and paid for it. As I just said above, it's more reasonable to assume, due to it being at a private residence it was privately paid for than a corporation paid for it. Charlie could have installed it in his off-hours. That's a more logical inference.

[B-Hold]

Doubt it. Charlie was speaking to his employers so "We" means FC. Charlie isn't moonlighting for another company. The security system is accessible through FC. He would have said Ridge and if that I if that was the case.

[dedicatedsoaper]

Charlie was doing what he was told to do by his boss legal or not. His other boss is Ridge, so he might be justifying that he's protecting him..not sure. Maybe he's hoping Steffy is wrong, but Brooke is the one in the wrong. What I am hoping is that they see Deacon leaving in the MORNING...that part hasn't been found out yet, either.

[creation]

That part was found out, at the end of the show.

[dedicatedsoaper]

Oh was it? YAY..I can't wait to watch it!!

[voice of reason]

I just hope that the security system has audio. Hehehe

[JTDMom]

Now that would be amazing!!

[B-Hold]

Was anybody else amazed that Charlie (who is slightly off kilter but, generally, very good hearted) would agree to use private home security footage to prove that Brooke kissed Deacon on New Year's Eve? Charlie himself mentioned that Brooke has always been good to him, so why become mixed in this family squabble that will likely hurt both Forresters and Logans? Not to mention all the moral, legal, and ethical issues that will arise from a Forrester employee hacking into the co-CEO's private security system. What could Charlie be thinking???

Most likely the security system was installed by FC with FC money so there is no violations of ethics. Especially since the Co CEO and a shareholder asked him to.

[Fightcrab]

Does not matter which money. Its a private residence.

[B-Hold]

@Fighcrab - This is no difference from a company paying for an employee's cell phone or computer or car. They, the company has a right to access them and re-possess them at any time. Case Law is on Steffy and Thomas's side.