Re: co-worker spy annoyance
From: Walter Roberson (roberson_at_ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca)
Date: 11/27/03
- Next message: Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Previous message: SpamLover: "Are Viruses Good?"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Reply:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 27 Nov 2003 17:52:54 GMT
In article <MPG.1a2fed0097ea2027989e91@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
: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).
You said "their hardware, their network, their system". Is there
something special about computers such that owning a computer
gives a company more legal monitoring rights than over any other
kind of equipment such as photocopiers, staplers, jig-saws,
microwave ovens, phones, or bathrooms? If the legal basis is solely
"Company owned so the company has a right to monitor" then that
same principle applies to bathrooms and showers as well. Either
there is a counter-principle in law that gives privacy protections
in some cases, or there is not.
There -is- such a counter-principle, and it is called
"reasonable expectation of privacy". When a company clearly announces
monitoring (of whatever equipment) then any *expectation* of privacy
is destroyed... but if monitoring is not announced, then sometimes
-under the circumstances-, privacy might seem reasonable.
: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.
Leythos, you are thinking engineering and knowledge industries. Think
about small businesses, and retail, and industrial, where people don't
think about using the computers much. In places like that, there might
never have -been- any computer-related policy and the employees might
not have any idea that it is even -possible-. [The owners might not
know about the possibility either -- they might literally be taking
computer advice from the next-door neighbour who only knows what s/he
got spammed about.]
Circumstances make a difference. Announce a monitoring policy
in the USA and you're probably clear. But if you don't announce
one and you don't have a computer-literate employee base and
you don't have any history of monitoring other things, then
employees might not have any reason to expect monitoring, and
Property Rights don't always win in those situations.
-- Studies show that the average reader ignores 106% of all statistics they see in .signatures.
- Next message: Walter Roberson: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Previous message: SpamLover: "Are Viruses Good?"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Reply:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: co-worker spy annoyance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
