Slashdot Mirror
UK Employers May Read Employees' Mail
Martin Spamer writes: "The BBC reports that today the UK introduces Controversial new regulations (RIP)
giving employers sweeping powers to monitor their workers' e-mails and Internet activity. Campaigners say the rules, under the new
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, are an assault on personal privacy." I guess I just don't see it. If I was gonna bad mouth my boss, I'd use my domain as the e-mail address, and PGP crypt the message. It's not so simple when you're using, say, a corporate laptop on your couch at home on a Saturday night tho.This bill was passed a while ago - but this is the day it takes effect.
I'm always amazed that people are surprised that an employer is reading their mail. Users need to realize that the computer they use at work belongs to their employer, as does the network, the internet connection, and the service to keep it running.
Given that, I've never been anywhere that just checked everyone's email. The person they check on has been doing other things that make the employer suspect something is up.
But be warned, there are plenty of applications out now that scan email for keywords whether it be naughty words or things that may be confidential to the company.
Yes, but (on your break) do you use company equipment to send email? Is it not their perogative to monitor any usage of equipment they own? Go take a walk to the local library and then send your email, okay?
...employees of backbone service providers? If you send an email badmouthing your boss (you work at, say Sprint or MCI) and it travels through a Sprint or MCI portion of the backbone, even if you sent it from another provider, can they then still read your email, because you work for Sprint or MCI?
Irrellevant. It's UK. The RIP bill actually specifies that taking measures to intervene with decryption for monitoring purposes is a crime. If you are asked for your keys you must hand them off.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
This law doesn't need to be passed in the US. US employers pretty much already have this right. In fact, the law in the United States seems to support business in depriving you of what would otherwise be your civil rights. Some employers already engage in search and seizure of actual persons and personal belongings. Many employers require that you submit body fluids for testing. Video surveillance of employees is rampant (and is often done covertly, just as much as video surveillance of customers is done-- in fact, monitoring one often makes it trivial to monitor the other). Employees seem to be able to deprive you of your ability to sue the company by requiring "mediation" for all disputes. They frequently deprive employees and contractors of their ability to build a career through dead-ending tactics like non-compete clasuses.
I fully recognize that civil rights are about government and not business, in fact that's what I'm complaining about (such a myopic view of rights in modern society), so please, no flames about the semantics!
I do not have a signature
Why, how can you possibly not understand this. The computer is theree, therefore I'm entitled to privacy. In fact, I'm entitled to have my employer provide a computer to use for my personal matters during working hours. Not having one just isn't *fair*.
Furthermore, my employer has absolutely no right to question what I do with its property that it provides me. It's not like it has any right to control the use, nor that it amy get sued for my use of company property.
Why do they think I'm here? to do stuff for *them*???
Furthermore, I demand full privacy screens to protect me from them
monitoring me . . .
*********
Given that the employer has absolutely no obligation to allow personal use, there's no privacy issue. Personal use is only permitted on these terms. Don't like them?--demand your money back.
hawk, esq.
Because RIP is not the only new legislation bearing on this matter.
It's going to take a fair bit of fighting in the courts to establish what takes precedence - this aspect of RIP, or either of...
- The latest cut of the Data Protection Act, under which it's a criminal offense for the employer to monitor personal communications without the consent of both parties, so long as there's sufficient evidence that the communication is personal (e.g. "[personal]" in the subject), and..
- The Human Rights Act, which (at last!) gives us, amongst others, the right to Privacy, and to private personal communications in the workplace.
As was in fact mentioned in the (broadcast) BBC reports on this story this morning on Radio 5. Just before their loopy debate on whether email actually serves any useful purpose whatsoever.TomV
>If someone is in an office, and receives an email from their doctor,
>giving them information about an appointment, that information should
>be private, as it is none of the company's business (at least in most cases).
1) then don't get it at work.
2) if it's just the time to come, and you go during office hours, it *is*
the company's business.
>The fact that the company owns and controls the vector that is being
>used to communicate the appointment is, in my opinion, irrelevant in
>any reasonable moral context. They may own the laptop, but they have no
>right to the proprietary information flowing between me and a third party.
??? And you get to decide what goes between the "do not look" veil? This
makes industrial espionage just too easy.
And again, you have no "right" to use the company's machines in this
manner anyway.
hawk, esq.
In the case of emails, why not marking personal emails as 'Personal'. Those emails would not be legally accessible by the employer. And if an employer sees that there are 50 personal emails a day for an employee then he is fully entitled to say he has a problem with it. Privacy is preserved and company working time is monitored. In the case of internet access, I believe that employers should be allowed to say that it can only be used for work purposes and therefore have full right to monitor their employees' navigation. Sort of meeting behalves...
É que os desafinados também têm um coração
So what sort of bosses like to see what their underlings are up to. Do they themselves believe they should be monitored also?
A while ago our head salesman logged on to check his shares, only to find a porno site had taken its place (temporarily). Those photos were in his cache whether he liked it or not, and our proxy logged the accesses. As it happened we were working in a small office and we all had a good laugh about it.
How would things be in a larger organisation where the monitor may be unable to see (or appreciate) the context? Would it matter if our head salesman was a junior instead?
-- Hob - Java Spectrum Emulator