Re: co-worker spy annoyance
From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 11/27/03
- Next message: Dave Korn: "Re: [OT] Port6346 traffic"
- Previous message: Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- In reply to: Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Next in thread: Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Reply:(deleted message) Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:16:50 GMT
In article <bq56vk$hog$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>, roberson@ibd.nrc-
cnrc.gc.ca says...
> In article <MPG.1a2fccf17395d574989e8c@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
> Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
> :Since you are working for a company, using a company computer, what
> :difference does it make - they have the RIGHT to monitor you in the US,
> :as it's their hardware, their network, their system.
>
> US law is not as clear as you make it out to be, Leythos.
> "Their hardware, their network, their system" is a reference to
> "Property Rights", but "Property Rights" are not the only kind
> of rights that exist. In particular, in the US, "Civil Rights"
> exist and offer -some- privacy protections.
>
> There have been several important test cases in the USA, and
> they have been decided in a variety of ways; none of the cases
> I can recall hearing of have gone to the Supreme Court so in theory
> a near identical case could be decided different ways in different
> parts of the USA. The cases have tended to favour Property Rights
> over Civil Rights, but Civil Rights arguments have won in some of the
> cases.
>
> As a -rough- guide to a complex legal subject: Clearly publicised
> monitoring for work-related reasons is usually safe, for a
> fairly generous interpretation of "work-related"; unannounced
> hidden monitoring that has no good work-related reason is usually
> NOT allowed.
>
> Some of the classic borderline cases involve monitoring of bathrooms.
> According to what you wrote, since a bathroom is "their hardware, their
> [plumbing] network, their system", unlimited monitoring of bathroom
> usage should be allowed. In one case, hidden monitoring of bathroom
> usage -was- allowed -- provided that the monitoring remained focused on
> the wash-up area for the limited purpose of catching the person(s) who
> had been deliberately plugging up the sinks, and the tapes were
> promptly destroyed after review. In another case, hidden monitoring of
> bathroom usage was NOT allowed, as the monitoring had been started on
> the hypothesis that some of the cashiers/clerks were deliberately
> wasting time in the bathroom in order to avoid working; the courts
> ruled that there were other ways of monitoring employee attendance that
> did not violate the high "expectation of privacy" that people have in
> bathrooms.
I was almost with you until you went off track and posted about video
and the expectation of privacy. In a company, you should not have an
expectation of Privacy when using the company network (I didn't say
anything about the bathroom).
I don't think you'll find any references to where a monitoring of
network activity by a company of it's own network was ruled incorrect.
-- -- spamfree999@rrohio.com (Remove 999 to reply to me)
- Next message: Dave Korn: "Re: [OT] Port6346 traffic"
- Previous message: Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- In reply to: Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Next in thread: Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Reply:(deleted message) Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
