Court strikes down e-mail privacy

[shereads]

That's the perfectly accurate legal answer. I was referring to whether one "accepts" (ie, agrees) with the principle. I do not. And that's why I do not work for big-brother companies that enforce such policies.

Good luck with that. I once swore never to work for a company that required a drug test as a condition of employment, but it's become so commonplace that the alternatives are few and far between. Is anything you do or say nearly as intimate as handing over some of your urine to strangers?

Not many companies will tell you they're reading your e-mail or monitoring phone calls, and not many have the luxury of a staff whose job it is to do that, but chances are there's a document someplace with your signature on it, that was part of the stack of things you sign when you're new in any company, to qualify for health insurance, etc.

Just as scary as official corporate abuse of your privacy, are the hackers who do that sort of thing for fun. I've been told stories by computer geeks in companies I've worked for, involving everything from which employees' were being considered for firing and the date it would occur, to which agency president had uploaded his homemmade porn at the office (a three-way with his wife and a man).

Edited to add: And those were not people in the IT department, with official access. They were just bored men with a certain set of skills.

 

[snooper]

That's the perfectly accurate legal answer. I was referring to whether one "accepts" (ie, agrees) with the principle. I do not. And that's why I do not work for big-brother companies that enforce such policies.

I have always accepted that. I didn't steal pens and paper clips either.

Of course, for the last too many years it was my company, but I still kept work separate from my private life.

 

[minsue]

That's the perfectly accurate legal answer. I was referring to whether one "accepts" (ie, agrees) with the principle. I do not. And that's why I do not work for big-brother companies that enforce such policies.

I accept it and agree with it for the reasons snooper posted. I also see it as wholly different from an e-mail provider monitoring e-mails.

I'm not at all surprised at the ruling. Just disappointed, as usual, by the ignorance and shortsightedness of the current court.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Good luck with that. I once swore never to work for a company that required a drug test as a condition of employment, but it's become so commonplace that the alternatives are few and far between. Is anything you do or say nearly as intimate as handing over some of your urine to strangers?

Not many companies will tell you they're reading your e-mail or monitoring phone calls, and not many have the luxury of a staff whose job it is to do that, but chances are there's a document someplace with your signature on it, that was part of the stack of things you sign when you're new in any company, to qualify for health insurance, etc.

Just as scary as official corporate abuse of your privacy, are the hackers who do that sort of thing for fun. I've been told stories by computer geeks in companies I've worked for, involving everything from which employees' were being considered for firing and the date it would occur, to which agency president had uploaded his homemmade porn at the office (a three-way with his wife and a man).

Edited to add: And those were not people in the IT department, with official access. They were just bored men with a certain set of skills.

Never thought of it that way....thanks Sher. Truly makes you stop and think how easy it is for people to access your privacy.

 

[hiddenself]

I hear you

Good luck with that. I once swore never to work for a company that required a drug test as a condition of employment, but it's become so commonplace that the alternatives are few and far between.

Yes, those loathsome drug tests. University positions (like the one I have) come without them fortunately.

Not many companies will tell you they're reading your e-mail or monitoring phone calls, and not many have the luxury of a staff whose job it is to do that, but chances are there's a document someplace with your signature on it, that was part of the stack of things you sign when you're new in any company, to qualify for health insurance, etc.

True. But the operative word was "enforce." Plenty of companies have such policies but do not bother really.

 

[shereads]

With computer systems being confiscated for having child pornography on them, I'd definitely want to monitor the content of anything passing through my system to insure that nothing illegal gets left on my sytem that would be grounds for confiscation.

This raises a question that's had me curious since the first time i read about someone's computer being confiscated: How does a prosecutor or police detective learn what's been downloaded, by whom? Great, they're taking pedophiles off the streets, but if someone is monitoring their downloads, what makes the rest of us think we have privacy?

 

[shereads]

That's interesting. Just want to point out that, by the same token, you should also accept someone eavesdropping on the phone calls you make from company telephones. Or, someone opening the letters you send through company snail mail.

We have the option of communicating without using a company's equipment. Not that I like the idea. But it bothers me a great deal more to know that companies can require drug tests and other intrusions into our privacy as a conditon of employment. Being asked to give a vial of bodily fluids to a stranger is so invasive, I'm amazed that it's simply been taken in stride as more and more companies have made it a policy. "Pee in the cup, or you can't work," is scarier by far than, "surf the internet on your own time."

 

[Weird Harold]

This raises a question that's had me curious since the first time i read about someone's computer being confiscated: How does a prosecutor or police detective learn what's been downloaded, by whom? Great, they're taking pedophiles off the streets, but if someone is monitoring their downloads, what makes the rest of us think we have privacy?

In the only case I have any personal knowledge of, a friend who ran an adult BBS (pre-internet, direct dial) had someone upload an illegal picture and then call the cops bfore he had time to get home from work and do his check of new uploads to delete it.

I suspect that most cases are similar -- not necessarily a set-up but an anonymous tip that results in a warrant.

From news stories, it is often presented as "the result of a long and thorough investigation," but I think manyof those "investigations" amount to "some stool pigeon just called and claims joe-blow has child porn on his computer, let's go check it out."

Also from news stories, the discovery of child porn on someone's computer is incidental to some other investigation -- computers taken and searched for information about drug deals or embezzlement -- and the child porn is just a bonus charge to pin on the culprit.

 

[snooper]

...I suspect that most cases are similar -- not necessarily a set-up but an anonymous tip that results in a warrant. ...

As I said above, most cases are unsavoury sites being closed down and their credit card records being used to trace customers.

And the moral of this story is:

If you want to download kiddy porn, use somebody else's credit card number! This has a double advantage: they get persecuted, and you don't have to pay.

 

[Clare Quilty]

On th other hand, what about places where the e-mail originates. As the owner of a small company, I would certainly want to be able to review any e-mail that was sent out or received under a "mycompany.com" e-mail addy as there could be liability issues at stake.
Lime

This is why I encrypt every email that I send from work. Maybe the CIA can break the 128 bit asymmetric key encryption, but my boss cannot!