5 ms·

Warning someone that you're going to violate their right to privacy doesn't magically make it legal for you to violate their right to privacy. That's why this

by ebbv 11y ago

Warning someone that you're going to violate their right to privacy doesn't magically make it legal for you to violate their right to privacy. That's why this is a concerning decision. It indicates this european court believes there is no right to privacy at work.

Alupis 11y ago
> It indicates this european court believes there is no right to privacy at work When you're on the employer's dime, using the employer's equipment, and using the employer's internet connection, you don't get to send personal messages. This guy did, and then found out the consequences. It's pretty simple. The company used MSN Messenger for business purposes. This guy took it upon himself to setup a separate account from which he privately messaged people during business hours. This guy would not have been able to send those private messages had the employer not fully paid for all the equipment and necessary components to facilitate messaging for business purposes. Imagine the parallel. I hire you to telemarket for me (make sales phone calls). I tell you all calls are recorded. Sometime later, I'm digging through the recordings to find a customer's call, and discover you have been making many personal non-business-related phone calls. Instead of using my equipment to conduct business, you have decided to make personal calls to your friends. Of course you would be terminated, and of course I listened to the calls, because I own them.
- izacus 11y ago
  > Of course you would be terminated, and of course I listened to the calls, because I own them. And of course in several EU countries you'd be staring down a possible severe consequences for breach of privacy. Some countries do not consider employment a right to total ownership of an employee. Several EU countries recognise that employee has a right to privacy even when working (which includes phone calls and other communication with their families while working and sometimes - like France - even on computer equipment).
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > Some countries do not consider employment a right to total ownership of an employee This isn't about "owning" an employee, this is about owning the equipment which an employee uses against it's explicit purpose (to conduct business). I don't think many would have an issue with an employee stepping out for a few minutes to handle a personal call. But many would have an issue with an employee phoning friends and chatting during regular business hours instead of doing their work. The guy in the original story was chatting with friends while at work over MSN Messenger... instead of working. > And of course in several EU countries you'd be staring down a possible severe consequences for breach of privacy That's not true in this case. If you have a policy that prohibits personal use of company equipment, and another policy which states clearly all communications are recorded for business purposes, and it's signed by the employee, then it's really cut and dry.
jerf 11y ago
You can't have both a "right to privacy" at work, and high degrees of oversight of companies. The way you have oversight of companies is by monitoring and controlling employee actions while at work. There's no separate "company" that can somehow be monitored without its employees. If you want to create more privacy for employees at work, you also must be willing to subject companies to less scrutiny, because all such private channels are also places to hide malfeasance. Given the meager volume of complaints about workplace privacy (basically, we only hear about it when it directly comes up, like in this article) vs. the near-continual torrent of complaints about companies that comes up all the time, I suspect people are generally going to choose corporate oversight.
DanBC 11y ago
> It indicates this european court believes there is no right to privacy at work. The court has been clear (in this case, and cases in the past) that employees do have a right to privacy at work, and that an employer cannot just trawl everything all the time, even if there are policies in place.
- ptx 11y ago
  How is it clear exactly? Obviously they won't be trawling literally everything literally all the time, but being able to access anything they choose at any time they choose seems indistinguishable from the employee's perspective, and that is apparently allowed?
  - DanBC 11y ago
    They can't access anything. They accessed his work work account because they thought it was the work account, and they had already asked him not to send personal stuff through the work account. They didn't make any judgement about his personal account (which also got read) because as I understand it they've already ruled that you can't read personal accounts without very good reason.
izacus 11y ago
> It indicates this european court believes there is no right to privacy at work. That's not true and I guess you haven't really read what the ruling is about. It's about this one exact case where the court ruled that the employer reasonably expected that the account they were looking at wasn't personal. If the employer would knowingly look into employees personal correspondence the ruling would be different.

by ebbv 11y ago

Alupis 11y ago

> It indicates this european court believes there is no right to privacy at work When you're on the employer's dime, using the employer's equipment, and using the employer's internet connection, you don't get to send personal messages. This guy did, and then found out the consequences. It's pretty simple. The company used MSN Messenger for business purposes. This guy took it upon himself to setup a separate account from which he privately messaged people during business hours. This guy would not have been able to send those private messages had the employer not fully paid for all the equipment and necessary components to facilitate messaging for business purposes. Imagine the parallel. I hire you to telemarket for me (make sales phone calls). I tell you all calls are recorded. Sometime later, I'm digging through the recordings to find a customer's call, and discover you have been making many personal non-business-related phone calls. Instead of using my equipment to conduct business, you have decided to make personal calls to your friends. Of course you would be terminated, and of course I listened to the calls, because I own them.

izacus 11y ago
> Of course you would be terminated, and of course I listened to the calls, because I own them. And of course in several EU countries you'd be staring down a possible severe consequences for breach of privacy. Some countries do not consider employment a right to total ownership of an employee. Several EU countries recognise that employee has a right to privacy even when working (which includes phone calls and other communication with their families while working and sometimes - like France - even on computer equipment).
- Alupis 11y ago
  > Some countries do not consider employment a right to total ownership of an employee This isn't about "owning" an employee, this is about owning the equipment which an employee uses against it's explicit purpose (to conduct business). I don't think many would have an issue with an employee stepping out for a few minutes to handle a personal call. But many would have an issue with an employee phoning friends and chatting during regular business hours instead of doing their work. The guy in the original story was chatting with friends while at work over MSN Messenger... instead of working. > And of course in several EU countries you'd be staring down a possible severe consequences for breach of privacy That's not true in this case. If you have a policy that prohibits personal use of company equipment, and another policy which states clearly all communications are recorded for business purposes, and it's signed by the employee, then it's really cut and dry.

jerf 11y ago

You can't have both a "right to privacy" at work, and high degrees of oversight of companies. The way you have oversight of companies is by monitoring and controlling employee actions while at work. There's no separate "company" that can somehow be monitored without its employees. If you want to create more privacy for employees at work, you also must be willing to subject companies to less scrutiny, because all such private channels are also places to hide malfeasance. Given the meager volume of complaints about workplace privacy (basically, we only hear about it when it directly comes up, like in this article) vs. the near-continual torrent of complaints about companies that comes up all the time, I suspect people are generally going to choose corporate oversight.

DanBC 11y ago

> It indicates this european court believes there is no right to privacy at work. The court has been clear (in this case, and cases in the past) that employees do have a right to privacy at work, and that an employer cannot just trawl everything all the time, even if there are policies in place.

ptx 11y ago
How is it clear exactly? Obviously they won't be trawling literally everything literally all the time, but being able to access anything they choose at any time they choose seems indistinguishable from the employee's perspective, and that is apparently allowed?
- DanBC 11y ago
  They can't access anything. They accessed his work work account because they thought it was the work account, and they had already asked him not to send personal stuff through the work account. They didn't make any judgement about his personal account (which also got read) because as I understand it they've already ruled that you can't read personal accounts without very good reason.

izacus 11y ago

> It indicates this european court believes there is no right to privacy at work. That's not true and I guess you haven't really read what the ruling is about. It's about this one exact case where the court ruled that the employer reasonably expected that the account they were looking at wasn't personal. If the employer would knowingly look into employees personal correspondence the ruling would be different.