As far as I know, technically, in the eyes of the court, they are right. In the eyes of what is practical and ethical, I'm not so sure. I don't think explaining to them why doing this would be "wrong" would help any, nor trying to explain the importance of privacy. However you could explain why doing this is opening a BIG can of worms.
First, you should find out what's really getting their attenion. Are the users taking up to much storage? Are the users running porn sites and making money on company resources? Are the users just simply wasting time, instead of working? Was there evidence or rumors of a pervert going around? With all of these examples, there are resonable ways to draft policies that keep people on a leash, but don't violate privacy. Such as make it a company policy that users only get so much storage. You don't have to enforce it, but when the time comes, you have a policy to back you up.
Second, you should explain the ramifications of doing this. Tell them you will seriously consider leaving. In some parts of the world, they can't get any computer help and suddenly, this action won't be an option.
Third, You should also explain the significant effect this will have on morale. People will be pissed, people that will very quickly find work arounds to go outside the system.
The fouth reason not to do this is to keep lawyers unemployed. If they do this, it may be very likely people will leave the company. Those people may also try and sue the company. They may not win, but they may cost the company $500,000 - and that can hurt.
The fifth reason is that, if they open this can of worms (especially w/o notice), they then become liable for all of the content on the network. In other words, if you were to censor this time, you can leagally be expected to censor all of the data on the network. For example, lets say their upset b/c Joe Bob is archiving alt.sick-sex.pictures. They make you break in and catching him, and they fire him for wasting company resources. Later on, after Joe Bob has been forgoten, Jim Bob is archiving alt.sicker-sex.pictures. FBI finds out what Jim Bob is doing, busts him and takes the companies equipment for five years (nothing you can do about that). However, someone's son/daughter was caused irreprable harm from Jim Bob's actions and files a civil suit against him. The lawyers will also name the the company in the suit, (b/c Jim Bob can't pay a lawyers salary off of what he makes in federal prison) saying the company had a history of stoping porn, but did not act in this case. This may seem far fetched, but things similar to this have happened. The parents may not win either, but they will cost the company millions.
Given the greedy nature of companies, I think a good delivery of the final reason will work. However, don't forget, you can refuse, quit, and go work somewhere else making twice as much b/c you'll be able to sleep at night and do more during the day.
Slashdot Mirror
I checked my four domains - I don't see any changes. Perhaps tomorrow. Hopefully, we can keep NSI from getting the same ego/power as WTO.
As far as I know, technically, in the eyes of the court, they are right. In the eyes of what is practical and ethical, I'm not so sure. I don't think explaining to them why doing this would be "wrong" would help any, nor trying to explain the importance of privacy. However you could explain why doing this is opening a BIG can of worms.
First, you should find out what's really getting their attenion. Are the users taking up to much storage? Are the users running porn sites and making money on company resources? Are the users just simply wasting time, instead of working? Was there evidence or rumors of a pervert going around? With all of these examples, there are resonable ways to draft policies that keep people on a leash, but don't violate privacy. Such as make it a company policy that users only get so much storage. You don't have to enforce it, but when the time comes, you have a policy to back you up.
Second, you should explain the ramifications of doing this. Tell them you will seriously consider leaving. In some parts of the world, they can't get any computer help and suddenly, this action won't be an option.
Third, You should also explain the significant effect this will have on morale. People will be pissed, people that will very quickly find work arounds to go outside the system.
The fouth reason not to do this is to keep lawyers unemployed. If they do this, it may be very likely people will leave the company. Those people may also try and sue the company. They may not win, but they may cost the company $500,000 - and that can hurt.
The fifth reason is that, if they open this can of worms (especially w/o notice), they then become liable for all of the content on the network. In other words, if you were to censor this time, you can leagally be expected to censor all of the data on the network. For example, lets say their upset b/c Joe Bob is archiving alt.sick-sex.pictures. They make you break in and catching him, and they fire him for wasting company resources. Later on, after Joe Bob has been forgoten, Jim Bob is archiving alt.sicker-sex.pictures. FBI finds out what Jim Bob is doing, busts him and takes the companies equipment for five years (nothing you can do about that). However, someone's son/daughter was caused irreprable harm from Jim Bob's actions and files a civil suit against him. The lawyers will also name the the company in the suit, (b/c Jim Bob can't pay a lawyers salary off of what he makes in federal prison) saying the company had a history of stoping porn, but did not act in this case. This may seem far fetched, but things similar to this have happened. The parents may not win either, but they will cost the company millions.
Given the greedy nature of companies, I think a good delivery of the final reason will work. However, don't forget, you can refuse, quit, and go work somewhere else making twice as much b/c you'll be able to sleep at night and do more during the day.