Xref: utzoo comp.admin.policy:331 comp.unix.admin:2161 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!drivax!braun From: braun@dri.com (Kral) Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.unix.admin Subject: Re: E-mail Privacy Message-ID: Date: 7 Jun 91 17:00:57 GMT References: <15110@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> <4749.284789cb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> <1991Jun06.152549.17193@socrates.umd.edu> Organization: Digital Research Inc Lines: 37 In article <1991Jun06.152549.17193@socrates.umd.edu> tmurray@socrates.umd.edu (tony murray) writes: >With all the arguments going back and forth about a company's rights >versus the employees right to privacy, it seems to have been forgotten >that the employee in the original example was _given_an_opportunity_ >to purge all his/her personal files. They were given a chance to get >rid of materials they did not want to leave behind for others to see... >If >you are giving someone an opportunity to throw out old personal materials, >isn't it implied that you are not going to go rummaging through the trash >they put in the dumpster? This depends, not on the implication that the employee had was permitted to "remove" personal material from the system, but whether the company ever gave the employee, implicitly or explicitly, the impression that any materials ever kept on the system could be considered "personal" and/or "private". I'm told, by our Humar Resources nee Personnel department that this example is relevant: if the company explicitly states a policy of checking handbags, etc, at the entrance as people come into or out of the building, then it may do so; but if it is ever found to be irregular in its application of that policy - so as to lull employees into forgetting about the policy - then they could be guilty of some sort of invasion of privacy [can you tell I'm not an attorney?]. The same is true of the computer files: if you give people the impression that some files on the system may be considered personal and private, and then you go probing in those files without due cause, you could be in big trouble. Remember, this has been used in very visible court cases, to wit, the Iran-Contra case, where significant information was brought before the court from backup tapes of email between, if I remember correctly, North and Casey. I'm dead sure that privacy issues would have been raised if there were a chance they could be used effectively. -- kral * 408/647-6112 * ...!uunet!drivax!braun * braun@dri.com "Talking trash, touching on truth" -- Micheal Hedges "1-900-I-LUV-YOU"