Therefore the use of other procedures should be preferred

The employee is often, by malice or negligence, the weak link in the informational heritage protection. Famous examples in the case of Valeo, a Chinese student had exported its personal computers of the confidential information, reason for which she was sentenced, on December 18, 2007, for breach of trust. An engineer of Michelin, held in May 2010, had as his collected strategic information for resale to a competitor. In addition, the National Agency for the security of information systems (ANSSI) has listed on a year loss, by employees, close to 4,000 computers laptops and 600,000 mobile phones. If the majority of these cases are flights of ordinary crime, 20 of them concern facts of economic espionage. This demonstrates the need to establish a modus operandi internal security of the information goods to carefully combine with the social law.

The first defensive part lies in the non-competition clause, which must be limited in time and space, and be proportional to the interests protected in the level of qualification of the employee. Finally, since 2002, this obligation not to do should receive financial compensation. The contract of employment will include also the specific clauses of secrecy, and others stating the computer tools that are entrusted to the employee with the provisions relating to their use (login, password, etc.) and their conservation. More broadly, in the interests of staff awareness, the employer will introduce a computer Charter to govern the use of digital resources in the enterprise.

Finally, regarding the monitoring of employees, in addition to information to the CNIL, always necessary, article L 1222-4 of the Labour Code stipulates that "no information personally about the employee cannot be collected by a device which has not previously brought to his knowledge."

However, the review of the traceability is a measure of control a posteriori as the exploration of the history of the computer. The employer can access the computer of his subordinate, excluding folders and e-mail messages marked "personal" when well even the employer would have prohibited the use for personal purposes. To do this, it must be an order authorizing a bailiff to proceed in the presence of the employee to the investigations authorized by the judge.

It was established that an infringement of the informational heritage justifies a dismissal for misconduct. However, this failure does not compensate for the leak of information. Therefore, the use of other procedures should be preferred. The action for unfair competition to turn against the recipient of the disclosed secret, as in the case of an employee who operates the benefit of the information acquired for his employer. Moreover, if it is established, the courts punish the poaching of employees by a competitor severely

In respect of the protection of the trade secrets in industrial matters, article l. 1127-1 of the Labour Code stipulates that "the fact that a Director or an employee, reveal or attempt to reveal a secret of manufacturing is punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years and a fine of 30,000 euros."

With regard to computer theft, after having been hostile to this qualification to the extent he did y not loss of the property in the patrimony of the deceased, a turnaround was operated in 2003 by the Court of cassation, which retained the head of prosecution.