3 ms·
An employer has the right to check private email of an employee. It seems that the shafted guy is pissed off because he did not think that his employee status w
by 1gor 18y ago
An employer has the right to check private email of an employee. It seems that the shafted guy is pissed off because he did not think that his employee status would give his opponent the right to snoop.
- ivey 18y agoHow do you figure? I don't know the specific laws involved, but I can't see any way to claim that my employer (if I had one) has the right to read my Gmail account, or to access emails hosted on my personal server.
- catch23 18y agowhat? I've never heard of that before. If employers had the right to check private email, do they also have to right to record calls made from your home? Do they also have the right to break into your home and search for materialTh
- TrevorJ 18y agoI find that assertion to be borderline ridiculous.
- gojomo 18y agoAn employer has the right to check private email of an employee. It seems that the shafted guy is pissed off because he did not think that his employee status would give his opponent the right to snoop. You should qualify that: the employer has a right to view a work-provided email account, and the work-provided computer. But not all employee email. In this case, the employer's rights could hinge on whether the email accessed was sent to an @employer.com address, and whether McConnell's claimed prior agreement about a "personal partition" on the company-reimbursed laptop is substantiated.
- 1gor 18y agoTo answer most of the sibling comments: "U.S. Court Affirms Employer's Right to Read Employees' Email" at http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-14518/U-S-Court-Affirms-Employer.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-14518/U-S-Court-Affi... Keeping anything private on a corporate laptop or accessing private email through corporate network does not guarantee any privacy at all. There is a company right now arguing it has right to read Yahoo email of an employee. http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/06/company_argues.html http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/06/co... I take downmodding of my comment above as a sign of righteous indignation about US privacy laws.
- cperciva 18y agoU.S. Court Affirms Employer's Right to Read Employees' Email Fraser v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company is entirely irrelevant here: That case dealt with whether a company has the right to access emails stored on the company's server. There's a question of privacy there, but not one of computer crime -- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company did not access computer systems without the owner's permission. This is manifestly different from the situation as I read it to be here, where it was being alleged that the article's author's VPN was being accessed without his permission. The Structured Settlements case is more relevant, but it fails on two counts: First, the legal theory being put forward by Structured Settlements involves them merely observing what Mr. Palma had done on one of their computers -- their claim is that they didn't access his Yahoo account, but merely saw him accessing his Yahoo account -- and second, the Structured Settlements case has yet to be tested in a courtroom. Yes, the US has very weak privacy laws, but that doesn't extend to its computer crime laws -- and accessing a computer system without authorization is a computer crime, not just a privacy violation. And of course, IANAL, the above is not legal advice, etc.