On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Jack Lloyd wrote: > > Expectations of privacy at work vary by jurisdiction and industry. In > > the US, and say in the financial services industry, any such expectations > > are groundless (IANAL). > > Most places I have worked (all in the US) explicitly required consent > to more or less arbitrary amounts of monitoring as a condition of > employment.
Even if you sign a contract that you do not have any expectations of privacy, it does not mean that you do not have them: honestly, you do expect that your coworkers are not going to read you personal emails, right? <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/421/2>: Lance Corporal Jennifer Long was issued a government computer to use on a government military network. When she was suspected of violations of the military drug use policies (and of criminal laws related to drug use), Marine Corps criminal investigators reviewed the contents of email messages she sent to another military employee who was likewise using a government issued computer over the same government network. The messages were retrieved from the government mail server and later used against Long. On September 27, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed forces had to decide whether Long had any expectation of privacy in these e-mails. The starting point for any analysis is, of course, the DoD policy expressed on its warning banner, which stated quite explicitly: [...] All information, including personal information, placed on or sent over this system may be monitored. Use of this DoD computer system, authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring of this system. [...] However, the military court, [...] found that Long did, in fact have some privacy interests in the contents of her communications. It noted that while the government said it could monitor, it rarely did. -- Regards, ASK --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
