I wasn't trying to place all employeers in a morally superior position by default -- I don't doubt that there is a condition where the moral scruples are reversed. However, in my experience -- as the title of my post stated -- it's the criminally minded employees that tend to be more afraid of this.
There are tons of examples where my employer was being ripped off by warehouse employees sneaking out electronics. Now they use radio transmitter cameras to secretly monitor hotspots in the warehouse. Do you think that they have time to go through every single second of the tapes to listen to everything that any employee is saying -- maybe just to catch someone bad mouthing the boss? No. But if there is something missing from an area they will quickly scan the tape to see who was working.
Frankly, what employeer doesn't have an employee or two (or more) that hates them. Why should they care as long as they aren't doing something illegal to get back at them? Who the hell has the time to look out for people who are just griping about pay?
I am one such person that monitors the keystrokes, emails, etc. that employees make in our system. I work in a retail environment, where a lot of our employees are salespeople. On a number of occasions, I have been asked to investigate the creation of a sale. As it turned out on one occassion, a guy used stolen credit card numbers to write up product under another salesperson's initials. Dumb guy -- he tried to write the sale under his own initials first, before writing the fraudulent sale. Of course, I saw all of that. =)
I think that the original question goes off in a seriously different tangent. Why on earth would you wonder if your employeer could look at your own personal mail?
The point is: the employeer owns its own equipment and you can own your own. The have a right to do what they wish with their equipment, and you have a right to do what you wish with yours.
Frankly, the only people who have to really fear that their employeer is monitoring them at work are the ones that fear getting caught for doing something wrong or illegal.
If someone broke in your house while you were gone, brought a CD recorder with him and dubbed your whole collection while you were gone, I don't think that the police would charge you with any criminal act.
There is a difference between being ignorant of the law and being a victim of someone elses attempt at piracy. Considering that Napster advertises its software as music sharing, walks you through the process of finding *all* of the mp3s on your hidedrive (illegal or legal) and even gives you the ability to manage which folders get selected as shared, you would be in a tough spot to convince someone that you were ignorant of the fact that you were sharing the material illegally.
I have all my mp3s available on a LAN and on the internet -- but I also have a firewall protecting it from unauthorized users. If someone breaks through my firewall, then that is the equivalent of breaking and entering.
The history lessons they give on this site are pretty fluff, but I liked reading it. My favorite quote -- on the history of computers:
"If it should turn out that the basic logics of a machine designed for the numerical solution of differential equations coincide with the logics of a machine intended to make bills for a department store, I would regard this as the most amazing coincidence that I have ever encountered."
Would that have been so hard to see back then? Or was this guy just really naive?
That is a good idea. Someone should moderate this up higher. I think the more relevant point is that there are possibly a higher number of Napster users and more informed people in Slashdot. I would think that a general chat with Metallica will turn out unproductive.
Slashdot Mirror
...you can't forget
clapton.is.god
Excellent word choice for a counter-argument.
I wasn't trying to place all employeers in a morally superior position by default -- I don't doubt that there is a condition where the moral scruples are reversed. However, in my experience -- as the title of my post stated -- it's the criminally minded employees that tend to be more afraid of this.
There are tons of examples where my employer was being ripped off by warehouse employees sneaking out electronics. Now they use radio transmitter cameras to secretly monitor hotspots in the warehouse. Do you think that they have time to go through every single second of the tapes to listen to everything that any employee is saying -- maybe just to catch someone bad mouthing the boss? No. But if there is something missing from an area they will quickly scan the tape to see who was working.
Frankly, what employeer doesn't have an employee or two (or more) that hates them. Why should they care as long as they aren't doing something illegal to get back at them? Who the hell has the time to look out for people who are just griping about pay?
Scott
I am one such person that monitors the keystrokes, emails, etc. that employees make in our system. I work in a retail environment, where a lot of our employees are salespeople. On a number of occasions, I have been asked to investigate the creation of a sale. As it turned out on one occassion, a guy used stolen credit card numbers to write up product under another salesperson's initials. Dumb guy -- he tried to write the sale under his own initials first, before writing the fraudulent sale. Of course, I saw all of that. =)
I think that the original question goes off in a seriously different tangent. Why on earth would you wonder if your employeer could look at your own personal mail?
The point is: the employeer owns its own equipment and you can own your own. The have a right to do what they wish with their equipment, and you have a right to do what you wish with yours.
Frankly, the only people who have to really fear that their employeer is monitoring them at work are the ones that fear getting caught for doing something wrong or illegal.
Scott
"
simma-dohn-nah!"
If someone broke in your house while you were gone, brought a CD recorder with him and dubbed your whole collection while you were gone, I don't think that the police would charge you with any criminal act.
There is a difference between being ignorant of the law and being a victim of someone elses attempt at piracy. Considering that Napster advertises its software as music sharing, walks you through the process of finding *all* of the mp3s on your hidedrive (illegal or legal) and even gives you the ability to manage which folders get selected as shared, you would be in a tough spot to convince someone that you were ignorant of the fact that you were sharing the material illegally.
I have all my mp3s available on a LAN and on the internet -- but I also have a firewall protecting it from unauthorized users. If someone breaks through my firewall, then that is the equivalent of breaking and entering.
The history lessons they give on this site are pretty fluff, but I liked reading it. My favorite quote -- on the history of computers:
"If it should turn out that the basic logics of a machine designed for the numerical solution of differential equations coincide with the logics of a machine intended to make bills for a department store, I would regard this as the most amazing coincidence that I have ever encountered."
Would that have been so hard to see back then? Or was this guy just really naive?
--Scott
That is a good idea. Someone should moderate this up higher. I think the more relevant point is that there are possibly a higher number of Napster users and more informed people in Slashdot. I would think that a general chat with Metallica will turn out unproductive.
--Scott