On Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 16:33:34 +1000, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote: >On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 14:51, Benno wrote: >> On Wed Mar 31, 2004 at 14:41:15 +1000, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote: >> >On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 16:38, Howard Lowndes wrote: >> >> <hfl> >> >> I guess there are a few of out there that will be needing some legal >> >> opinions on this one and some re-defined acceptable practice >> >> conditions. It looks like a minefield. >> >> </hfl> >> >> >> >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1077250.htm >> >> >> >> The New South Wales Government is moving to outlaw bosses spying on >> >> workers' emails, unless they have a court order to do so. >> > >> >My first thought is "so what? get back to work". It's the company's >> >time and money, etc. >> > >> >But then in light of the Wesco stupidity comes the thought of a person >> >stalking another using their position in the company... It might be a >> >manager that's wasting/misusing the company's time and money, etc. >> >> Wow, I'm amazed at this `workers as slave' mentality people have. I >> would not like to work in an office, or for a company, with such >> policies, it sounds like a depressing, draining, stressful environment >> to work in. (I'd wonder how productive/creative a bunch of stressed >> out and depressed emplooyees would be anyway.) >> >> Does anyone on this list really want to work in this kind of environment? > >Reductio ad absurdum. Yes, anyone can use such an argument, and it's a >great distraction. > >But that isn't the position I'm speaking from, although it's the >position you may want to cast the discussion into.
It is the impression I got from your last email. But I'd accept it may not be what you intended. >If I agree to paint the inside of your house, and root through your >underwear while I'm there and drink your beer, I've broken my agreement, >and your trust. I have no business doing that. On the other hand, you >and I probably have no problem with me taking a personal call on my cell >phone while I'm there, as long as I get my job done, and don't abuse any >of your possesions while I'm there. > >It's less clear cut, but it might be resonable to assume you wouldn't >mind me making a local call on your phone while I'm there if it's >innocuous, say calling the office, or ordering lunch. I do that from >work, and don't worry about it. > >But if I use your possessions to arrange a drug deal, or rack up a bill >on a pay-per-minute call on your phone, I've taken what isn't mine from >you. Sure, but in this case I place trust in you that you won't do these -- and part of that trust is I don't then go and monitor you when you make a phone call. >When I agree to represent somenone (i.e. be an employee), it's my >agreement I'm giving. I don't abuse it knowingly. It isn't about them >controlling me, it's about me taking responsibility for my agreements. >It's their computer, their time, their business. I don't treat it as a >straitjacket, although you might wish to pretend that's what I meant. Its not about pretending -- that is the impression you gave me, as above, I'm prepared to accept that isn't what you meant, although I wasn't singly you out, there seemed to be a lot of people professing the same kind of attitude. >It isn't. I treat it as a trust I've been given in return for my >agreement, and I'm comfortable acting within that. So am I ;) Benno -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
