Workplace Privacy Lacking

PaGeN writes: "It's about time. Per today's New York Times, thinking and respected jurists are raising eyebrows at the legal principle that seems to have sprung up overnight: "You have no right of privacy in on-the-job online communications." Judge James M. Rosenbaum, Reagan-appointed chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, expresses surprise that employees should be expected to tolerate "an electronic rummage through their lives." "The present concept permits -- and even encourages - 'Big Brother' searches," wrote Judge Rosenbaum. "... just as an employee does not surrender all privacy rights on the company's premises, so they should not be automatically surrendered on the company's computers."" The column linked above is interesting; you can also read the original paper online.

Comments

Re:So What?

[PigleT]

You appear to be avoiding half the issue.

When you're at work, you're still you, you're just on work's premises using their gear. You have to respect *both* halves of `still you' and `their gear', though. This is why it's give and take: the only sensible kind of policy I've seen is one that says `we won't snoop and you won't waste resources'.

There's no need to get all stuck on one extreme ("it's the employer's gear!") or another ("you have privacy rights!") when there's a common-sense fair middle of the road to be taking.

Next issue please? ;)
~Tim
--
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

False expectations of privacy

[pongo000]

It really doesn't matter that the corporate world doesn't believe in on-line privacy. It's a moot point: Any expections of privacy are folly unless attempts are made to somehow obfuscate the data being transmitted. It's really as simple as that. Articles like this simply support this idea. Obfuscation (through encryption or whatever) is the key to the problem.

These kinds of articles aren't even really news, in the sense that corporations will always have the upper-hand in terms of employee "privacy." People need to get used to the idea, and circumvent the problem instead of simply bitch about it.

Absurd privacy invasion

[fleener]

In my office, if I make a telephone call to my doctor to arrange a medical appointment does my employer have a right to invade my privacy by listening or recording my conversation simply because my employer owns the phone? That's absurd. Does he have a right to videotape me in the bathroom because he owns the toilet and pays the water bill? That's absurd.

It is reasonable to expect a certain level of personal activity and communication while on the job. E-mail and web use should be no different.

One thing left out here.

[www.sorehands.com]

What about searchs done to find an excuse to fire someone?

In this type of situation, an employee complains of harassment/discrimination/retaliation and the company then searchs their computer and finds an email to a sick father and then fires the employee for using the computer for personal use. Or, after the person is fired, they seach the computer and then gives that reason for the termination.

The Supreme court that after acquired evidence cannot be used to justify termination, but says nothing on an investigation being a form of retaliation. That an investigation was done because a complaint have been made.

Maybe everyone should use PGP at work?

The problem

[rabtech]

The major problem is that courts have held companies liable for their employee's conduct, even when that conduct is against company policy. Therefore, we MUST scan our email for anything that could be remotely deemed offensive, or we risk being sued. If we choose to respect privacy, then we open ourselves up to massive liability.

We need laws protecting employers from liability if an employee refuses to report misconduct. Then we could do away with some of the scanning and observing technologies we have (which cost us quiet a bit... many thousands.) If someone receives an offensive message, reports it, and nothing happens, ONLY then should the company be responsible for it. But the way the courts have ruled up to this point, simply not performing active scanning of email is an admission of guilt.
-- russ

Computers vs Pencil, paper and a file cabinet

[hillct]

Judge Rosenbaum makes some interesting points in his article, however one that seems to have ben missed is the difference between computers and any older technique for information storage.

No one would object (in a legal sense) if an employer chose to open the file cabinet next to an employees desk and examine the documents within, as these documents would probably be considered property of the employer.

How is that different than examining the documents on the computer the employer has provided for my use durring my employment? Well, in several key areas: first, computers are much more versitile than the file cabinet in that they have the capability to perform thousands of operations that the paper and pencil would not facilitate (like web serfing for the purpose of evaluating reviews of an OSS version of a product competing with that of my company), as wel las many others from communicating with my son, to buying groceries if I so choose. Some of these activities are work related and some are not.

Searching the computer becomes less like riflingthrough the file cabinet and more like searching the company car which I drive to work in every day. While it does belong to the company, it is a common practive for me to use it for non-work relatd personal activities like picking my son up from soccer practice (which is why there's a Power Rangers toy in the back seat).

The point is, when employees are given tools with vast flexibility and power then employees are given a certain level of responsibility to behave appropriately. By extension the employee is also given a level of autonomy to use the device (wether it be a computer or a car) in a manner he sees fit. Judge Rosenbaum suggests that the grant of this authority to the employee comes with a set of additional rights to privacy with respect to the device/tool in question.

If my employer did not trust me I would be provided with a paper and pencil, with which I could perform no other function than my specified job function and no-one would have any problem with the employer viewing the documents I had created with the pencil over the course of the work day.

The proposal here is: With the grant of powerful devices such as computers to employees, comes a grant of authority, autonomy and privacy with regard to the use of such devices.

--CTH