Xref: utzoo comp.admin.policy:97 comp.unix.admin:1976 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!rutgers!ukma!sean From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: E-mail Privacy Message-ID: <1991May26.004112.15971@ms.uky.edu> Date: 26 May 91 00:41:12 GMT References: <1991May23.155851.4496@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991May23.172155.28633@decuac.dec.com> <1991May24.151412.28103@ms.uky.edu> <1991May25.042951.6269@kpc.com> Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY Lines: 48 bri@kpc.com (Brian Rice) writes: [Explains that systems people must sometimes look at mail headers, that email is not to be used for confidential documentation, that employers are compassionate when they point this out, and that I have confused email management with how a company values its employees.] I have to agree with the first. I'm a systems programmer for a WAN that passes thousands of messages a week. All of the mail software I've seen (including Unix mailers like MMDF and sendmail), generally only write headers when they display debugging info. The body is usually useless for problem determination; I don't even want to see it. I don't feel that I should read the body of a message unless it is absolutely necessary, which is almost never. If I did, and it weren't required to keep mail running, I'd expect to be terminated or strongly disciplined for a serious breach of our users privacy. What email "should" be used for, and what people expect to use it for are sometimes two different things. Just because a company owns the equipment is not ethical license to define extremely narrow uses or to read employee mail. Most people would find such a policy unreasonable. Remember, just because it may be legal doesn't make it right. If a company said it was going to rifle your desk and your company car whenever it felt that it was its advantage to do so, how would you feel? What if they said they'd steam open your mail? Or that they would tap your telephone at random? Or all of the above? Would you work there? I wouldn't. I'd find it goddamn insulting. And I don't think "compassion" is the driving force behind notifying people their mail can be bugged at any time. I believe it is fear of litigation. A compassionate company wouldn't bug an employees mail or tap their telephone or search their office unless there were extraordinary circumstances and then only in cooperation with the police. A compassionate company would respect their employees, and find means of dealing with problems that don't punish the good people. Companies should remember what goes around comes around. If they want to attract good people and get them to work, they had better treat them with professional respect. Sean -- ** Sean Casey