Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!Dixie.Com!jgd
From: jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
Subject: Re: E-mail privacy and "vacation" messages
Message-ID: <20213@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Date: 1 Jun 91 23:45:13 GMT
References: <1991May31.211508.7023@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <0094970A.3B0DBBC0@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU>
Organization: Dixie Communications, The South's First Commercial Public Access Unix
Lines: 49

seward@CCVAX1.NCSU.EDU (Bill Seward) writes:
>The second case is a lot grayer.  If Joe was indeed suspended and this is
>fairly common knowledge among the employees of XYZ, you might be steping
>on his freedom of speech.  After all, XYZ has thier side, he has his.  

Irrelevant argument.  The Company has no obligation to provide resources
to any employee to facilitate  his freedom of speech.

In this hypothetical, there are only 2 issues:  A) is the vacation
file "email"? and b) does management have the right to control what
an employee does with the company's resources and does it have a right
to take steps to verify compliance with that policy?

The obvious answers are A) no and B) Yes.  Most employees feel that they
have some right to use email facilities for incidental personal or
other use.  While most companies allow such use, there is no "right"
involved.

The central question is really B.  Does the company have  the right to 
set and enforce policy?  Yes indeed.  And just as it has the right
to search an employee's desk if it thinks something is amiss, it has
the right to search computer files for the same purpose.  For the 
totally paranoid, I hope that this hypothetical company has issued 
an ECPA statement to each employee to cover any ambiguities.
Most companies choose not to enforce most policies regarding E-mail
use for personal business but that is simply because it is considered
good employee relations.  No rights involved.  If an employee wants to
send private personal E-mail, the mechanism is very simple.  He has to
only buy the equipment and establish a node of his own.

For those that might doubt the right of companies to police their 
electronic media, consider the case where instead of an employee being
suspected of saying nasty things about the company, he was suspected of
engaging in industrial espionage.  Makes it kinda clear doesn't it?
Now suppose that instead of espionage, it was sabotage?  Could not 
saying nasty things about one's employer while still employed there
be considered sabotage?  I think so.

As a system admin in this situation, seeing no ethical dilema, I'd do
exactly what my boss told me to do.  I'd document it, of course, to CYA.
This instance seems much ado about nothing.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade"  (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga                  | 
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd      | "Vote early, Vote often"