Re: Packet sniffing problems

From: Thor Kottelin (thor_at_anta.net)
Date: 03/29/04

  • Next message: Thor Kottelin: "Re: Packet sniffing problems" 
    Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:47:38 +0300

    Walter Roberson wrote:
    >
    > In article <40673303.697701ED@anta.net>, Thor Kottelin <thor@anta.net> wrote:
    > :chris@nospam.com wrote:
    >
    > :> The company has every right to monitor the
    > :> use of their computers.
    >
    > :Not in my jurisdiction (Finland). "Employer actions may not jeopardize the
    > :secrecy of the employee's private, confidential messages when using
    > :electronic mail or data networks." - Act on the Protection of Privacy in
    > :Working Life, <URL:http://www.finlex.fi/pdf/saadkaan/E0010477.PDF>
    >
    > It appears to me, Thor, that you have misinterpreted the Act.
    > I refer you to the beginning of the section you quoted, section 9,
    > which clearly establishes that the employer *may* monitor the use
    > of the network and the use of email.

    It certainly does not establish a blanket right to sniff packets with the
    intention to spy on employees. Unfortunately the proposal text to the act in
    question does not seem to be available in English.

    > The sentance you quoted means that
    > the employer cannot look at the content of "private, confidential"
    > messages -- but that doesn't prevent the company from monitoring matters
    > such as which sites were visited for how long and when.
    >
    > Without my checking further, it isn't even clear to me that the sentance
    > you quoted protects employees when they send "private, confidential"
    > messages that violate significant company policies such as sending
    > racist or sexist remarks, or use the networks for illegal purposes,
    > or send confidential data to competitors without authorization.
    > The sentance above what you quoted says,
    >
    > Separate provisions apply to the employer's right to use technical
    > monitoring and control the user of electronic mail and data networks.
    >
    > Before blindly accepting the sentance you quoted, I would want to
    > know exactly what those "special provisions" were.

    If I remember correctly, the text of that subsection means that the act in
    question was not intended to create any rights for employers to monitor
    employees' messaging. Such rights, if any, would therefore arise from other
    legislation, IOW separate - not "special" provisions.

    >From the Government proposal in question (and with apologies to those
    participants who do not understand Finnish): "Lainsäädännöstämme ---
    puuttuvat säännökset, joissa määriteltäisiin --- edellytykset työnantajan
    valvontaoikeudelle. Laissa yksityisyyden suojasta työelämässä ei myöskään
    ehdoteta määriteltäväksi työnantajan oikeuksia työntekijän valvonnassa, vaan
    laissa säädettäisiin ainoastaan menettelytavoista valvonnan sekä sähköpostin
    ja tietoverkon käytön järjestämisessä. Tästä huolimatta työntekijöiden
    luottamuksellisen viestin suoja saattaa edelleen vaarantua." -
    <URL:http://www.finlex.fi/linkit/he/20000075>

    Thor 

    -- 
http://thorweb.anta.net/
  • Next message: Thor Kottelin: "Re: Packet sniffing problems"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Stuck update
      ... Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 ... Hammer of Thor: February 2007. ...
      (alt.os.windows-xp)
    • Re: Content
      ... Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 ... Hammer of Thor: February 2007. ...
      (alt.os.windows-xp)