What is Digg?78 Comments
- inhaler, on 06/21/2008, -1/+44What's with the stock photo to the right? Seriously.
- inactive, on 06/20/2008, -4/+41This is a refreshing story seeing as how privacy is becoming more a privilege and less a right.
- sysadminBJ, on 06/21/2008, -1/+24Two things... First, I was always under the impression that any email sent via my company's Exchange server was the property of the company. As such, the director of technology has the right to peruse my email when he/she has probable cause. Second, only an idiot would use the company's email system if they were doing something nefarious... If they did, they deserve to be caught and fired.
In my personal opinion, I don't mind if my boss were to look at my email. There is nothing there other than business. All of my personal communication comes through my personal cell via text or gmail. - artfiend77, on 06/21/2008, -0/+19It's in Ontario, California you hoser. :)
- TedTschopp, on 06/21/2008, -0/+14The ruling states that if a company owns a computer that uses a service (say an email server) it can search the email server without having to get a court order.
BUT (and this is a new and big but)
If the company outsourced the mail server to say Google using gmail. The company you work for must get a court order to look at the data in the server.
This does several things.
1. If you work for a company that is rather large they will never outsource channels of communicaiton (they will want to audit employee communicaitons without having to go get a court order).
2. Therefore many large companies will always need IT staff to support said servers.
3. It also means that if a company, government agent (police, etc...) or whomever wants to get data in my Gmail account or on the web server I'm paying for I have an expectation of privacy, and a judge must approve a search warrent before that stuff is grabbed.
I am not a lawyer, and this does not constitue a recommendation to break the law. Nor does this article intend to give real legal advice.
What I do want to bring to everyone's attention is that most of these Services for Corporate IT have just been given a huge setback. Which means as an IT professional, I've been given a couple more years of a career. - kanimara, on 06/21/2008, -2/+15It's nice and all to read this.
But every company I've ever worked for that pays well makes you sign an agreement at the start that says they can pretty much do anything. Read your e-mails, record your phone calls, go through company property obviously (laptops + phones)
So really the police department will just make them sign a contract that says they can do it, and it'll be legal. Nothing changes. - S1ngular1ty1, on 06/20/2008, -1/+10I'm glad courts are starting to stand up for our rights online. It is a refreshing change in the right direction.
- robszol, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8Well they can ban it all they want..but what's stopping them from looking at them anyway, then firing you based on other reasons?
- dafpoo, on 06/21/2008, -0/+8It's Bret from Flight of the Conchords
- ericthegreat, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5If it's on the company's tab they have every right. If it's personal email/SMS on non company equipment then it should be left alone without a warrant.
- TedTschopp, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5The article is about outsourced stuff. So if the company owns the equiptment, etc... then there is no expectation of privacy. But if the company doesn't own the equiptment and they are paying someone else to provide the service to the city / company, then the users have an expecation of privacy.
It makes an interesting boundry for privacy in a world of outsourcing. - oldcrows40, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5Now I feel like a retard. I really should read full articles.
- hermslice, on 06/21/2008, -0/+5ReRead the article...they did. there already is a policy saying that they can read the emails/SMS. but the courts said despite that they are private. so basically the court over turned a company policy...we shall see how that works on appeal.
- inactive, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4"Pic Unrelated"
- chicagobiker, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4This is in the USA. Ontario California.
Your boss can't look through your mail.
But the federal government can and put your in jail without a trail based on nothing. - inactive, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Well, as someone on the other side of the equation, I am responsible for the email system where I work. All this will accomplish is getting employers to require employees to sign an agreement to have their email monitored before getting an email account, and if they don't sign the agreement it means they can't perform the job without email so they don't get hired. Yay. The court has sure protected their freedoms. Now they will have freedom from a job.
- Harbinger67, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4If my boss read my SMS and email, I'd be dancing angerly through the streets too.
- LibertyVista, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Keep in mind, the 9th Circuit has a relatively high rate of decisions overturned.
A good point has been made here about the difference between messages that are exchanged on company resources versus personal. - m0tbaillie, on 06/21/2008, -0/+4Well wait. If you're using company computers and company email, then hell yes your employer ought to have access to it. It's their property. Same goes for cellphones - if it's company-issued and it belongs to them and is paid for by them, then they have every right to read/monitor the thing to make sure you're actually using it for business.
If we're talking personal email and personal cellphones, then ***** the employers, they can keep their noses out of that *****. *Big* difference between personal property and company/organizational property. - borez, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5Damn right
- TokenBlack, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5Why is Bret the thumbnail for this?
- TedTschopp, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3They are talking about things like a company outsourcing email to Google.
The court decided that if the company you work for outsourced their email servers to Google, then the company can -not- monitor your email account, even if its yourname@company.com.
It's a very interesting ruling that changes the game. - artfiend77, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4RTFA....wait, too hard... just look at the source of the article. It IS the USA.
- Rikkochet, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3If their "other" reasons are just, nothing. But if they make up some stupid reason, they can't. The US has laws allowing "at will" employees to be terminated for any reason, but in Canada we have a fairly strict Employment Act that varies from province to province that protects employees from termination with cause. It overrides anything your contract states as well - my contract at work says I have to provide 3 weeks notice if I leave the company. The Employment Standard Act says I have to give nothing, and that trumps it.
What really shocked me was that police are unionized... How was he fired? This is about the ONLY thing unions are useful for anymore, and they're ***** around forcing their member to go to court on his own? - PacketScan, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3If the company is paying for any of it.. you are using it free of charge it's not yours.
So if they want to monitor it so be it..
want privacy? buy your own! - culbeda, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3See if this holds up.
- Myztry, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3Though I'm normally very anti-authoritarian, I do believe that employers should be able to monitor communications on their systems in a business environment. They have a vested interest for things that may effect their business or be taken as on their behalf.
On the other hand, they should be liable for any ACTION taken on that information. It's one thing to intercept communications with the competitors CEO (etc), and another to misuse personal information to discriminate, defame, etc. - easy4lif, on 06/21/2008, -0/+3sorry to pop your bubble, but the 9th Circuit is been overturned more times by the Supreme Court then the Yankee's have won world series. this officer had no right to waste taxpayer money on useless text messages especially one of a sexual nature.
from the article:
In August 2002, Quon and another officer exceeded a department limit of 25,000 characters per month for texting. The police chief ordered a subordinate to obtain transcripts of the officers' text messages to determine whether the pagers were being used purely for WORK PURPOSES.
The provider, Arch Wireless, sent the department transcripts of the messages. The city determined that many of Quon's messages were personal, and several were sexually explicit.
this will get overturned by the supreme court and the cop will be fired from his job. - KDX200rider, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3Ok, so you are using an e-mail client that your company purchased, on a PC that same company purchased. The e-mail is delivered on a server that was, again, purchased and maintained by that company. That server operates on a network purchased and maintained by said company, the Internet connection....OK you get my point. Most people are warned when they are hired that there is no privacy with regard to e-mail. No one forced you to take the job. So now the nations biggest group of judicial nitwits has decided you should expect privacy. The 9th circus is the nations biggest joke.
- tylermenezes, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2I say sure, if they're paying for the two. Don't use work email for things you don't want your work to know about - it just seems like common sense. Furthermore, if you want to have privacy in your SMS communications, don't let your work pay for your phone. IMO, if they're paying for it, they should be able to do whatever they want to with the data they collect.
- spookyttws, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3Same here. I don't understand how the government says you're protected unless you give permission, in order to get the job you must sign a paper giving permission, if you don't sign, you can't work there. It's a big loophole, and feels discriminatory to private people. But then I'm not stupid enough to use company phones or email to talk about anything I would feel embarrassed about to admit to doing under polygraph.
- artfiend77, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Because not only can you NOT read article, you can't read replies to your own lame comments.
- CosmicJustice, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Lighten up Francis.
- TedTschopp, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Ontario California....
- h4mx0r, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Fly-dancing. You should try it sometime.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2A company Provided (meaning they foot the bill) Email account outsourced or not is not personal.
its work related
Its like thinking you can drive a work truck around to go bar hopping just because you can drive it in your job. - otakugeek, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2Ontario, California.
- lucas22, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1don't you mean brit? (sic)
- XternalHD, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Whats this privacy?
- katorga, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Someone did not read the ruling. The ruling stated that communications systems outsourced to a 3rd party can have an expectation of privacy, in contradiction to organization policy, if a supervisor makes statements that could be understood to imply an expectation of privacy. In-house systems have zero expectation of privacy. This will be overturned if taken to SCOTUS.
- Weaselboy, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1This ruling will kill e-mail outsource providers. Companies will not want to outsource if it means they cannot review the employee e-mail.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1except the company isnt paying for myspace.
and you should watch what you say because nothing is truely private on the internet. - inactive, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Nope. It means they will fire anyone using Yahoo IM on company time.
- chicagobiker, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1I wish I could Digg your comment twice!
- inactive, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1I hate it when the city and the province gets mixed up between the two. Not that it'll happen in our country (yet).
- CosmicJustice, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2Wow! You work for some sorry ass companies. Sorry 'bout your luck.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1except they still shouldnt expect the right to privacy even if its outsourced
who is paying for it? the company
Who works for the company? the employee
Who isn't being payed to talk (or more appropriately text) dirty to his wife? the employee
the company should have some expectation of control when they are giving the employee tools to work with not use to make plans with his wife - jjvors, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1"Is it who owns the server machine, or where it's physically located?"
It's who owns the machine; the company or a 3rd party.
"What if you have an in-house mail server that queues email to an outside hosting service? "
If it were my company, I'd sure monitor the queue to make sure no one was emailing company secrets or abusing the company's email for their own use. I'd have a legal requirement too; if the employee abused the company email to send spam for his own business and I knew and did nothing, I'd be liable.
"Does this also mean a company can't watch employees' Yahoo IM traffic traveling through its routers, since they don't own the Yahoo server?"
No, the company can easily monitor outbound email traffic to Yahoo or Gmail through its routers.
Realize email is NOT private anymore than a post card is. The email is broadcast to every server and forwarded on from there. Any of them could cache your email and read it. Anyone with a router or sniffer on the internet can pick up any plain text email that goes by.
People often think email has the same privacy protection as postal mail--that's not true. -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is