3 ms·
Sure, if we're talking about employers, the rules are different. But most of the discussion in this thread has been about non-employer email providers. The line
by declan 13y ago
Sure, if we're talking about employers, the rules are different. But most of the discussion in this thread has been about non-employer email providers. The line is actually drawn pretty reasonably in that case, if you spend some time thinking about it.
The felony statute I was referring to far above was the Wiretap Act. The "not more than 1 year" in prison is from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Also if you're talking about cable providers you need to look at the Communications Act of 1934 and the Cable TV Privacy Act of 1984. Enjoy. :)
- tptacek 13y agoYou're on a thread talking about employers searching mail, Declan.
- declan 13y agoActually this thread was not about routine employer-employee searches, but Harvard College and faculty email searches. Harvard is as far as I can tell unique in providing its faculty -- thanks to a very able computer science professor there -- with contractual privacy rights that go above and beyond the rights any other university or employer provides. (The resident deans whose email was searched were faculty, not staff employees. The 12 RDs of the Houses are faculty with a lecturer rank: two of them serve on the Faculty Council; Harvard views RDs as faculty when reporting faculty counts; Harvard tells US News and World Report they're full-time faculty, etc.) But then of course the thread veered into other directions including Google, Qwest, shell corporations, the NSA, the British Parliament, Comcast, etc. As usual!