On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 21:27, Howard Lowndes wrote: > On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 20:43, James Gray wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:38 pm, Howard Lowndes wrote: > > *snipped* > > > "Unless employers have a court order, they will need to give employees > > > notice that surveillance will be conducted," he said. > > > > > > That could mean a warning box pops up when the computer is turned on. > > > > We already have a pre-login message on our systems that basically says: > > > > "You agree to adhere to the acceptable use policy. You understand that > > anything and everything you do is logged and monitored and by logging into > > this system agree to allow this to occur. If you don't like this, HR will > > be happy to receive your resignation." > > add to this "...and archived..." > > Mind you, the resignation bit might just land you in trouble,
This may seemreasonable in Howard's case, but would he be so keen to enforce this in the case of employers who have outside agencies maintain the networks. Would you like, for example a rival company monitoring your email for you. In our case the only people with access beyond basic restricted user access are the company who maintain the network. The do not exclusively work for the Dept of Education, but are the only ones with high enough privaleges to monitor email - including confidential email between counsellors. Do you want an outside agency reading your child's confidential Psychological and Wealfare reports (Meant for your eyes only)? As I said before, might work in a situation where the IT support is inhouse. Stay well and Happy Heracles -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
