Wouldn't FOIA allow you to get access anyway.

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Steele, Thomas C <[email protected]>wrote:

> I believe this was referring to the Ontario, California case that the
> Supreme Court recently ruled on *in favor* of the employer with regard to
> personal text messages.    Here is the actual case...
>
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1332.pdf
>
> -TS
> ________________________________
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Bob Morse [[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 9:15 AM
> To: 'Tech-Geeks Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [tech-geeks] access to predecessors emails
>
> Do you remember where you read this?  I would love to find this article?
>
> Bob
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rodebaugh
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:33 PM
> To: Tech-Geeks Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [tech-geeks] access to predecessors emails
>
> That is all correct, but there was a big Supreme Court case just decided in
> June that involved a California Police Officer... I'm not a legal expert by
> any means but from my understanding the findings were a fundamental shift in
> Public Employee Privacy Rights providing that public employees do have a
> reasonable expectation of privacy on government owned equipment... I'm just
> saying I would tread very carefully on this issue from a technology
> directors stand point... I think CYA is very appropriate here...
>
> ________________________________
> From: [email protected] on behalf of Steele, Thomas C
> Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 11:41 AM
> To: Tech-Geeks Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [tech-geeks] access to predecessors emails
> The courts have been pretty consistent with regard to employer-owned mail
> systems, especially when there are published policies and other mechanisms
> alerting employees to the fact that there is no expectation of privacy.  The
> gray areas seem to result from the use of private e-mail accounts (like
> gmail or yahoo) on employer owned computers and the fact that there is some
> expectation of privacy of those e-mails.
>
> Again, in the case of public/government owned systems there is no
> expectation whatsoever as decided in United States vs. Monroe.
>
> Monroe confirms that government employees using government computers have
> no expectation of privacy with regard to their e-mails and any information
> stored on government-provided resources. The Fourth Amendment then does not
> protect a government employee until law enforcement authorities decide to
> extend the scope of the search beyond the information seized from the
> central computer system or the personal workstation.  (source
> http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/vol8/issue2/guirguis.html)
>
> Of course if you can get the supt to take the heat that is always the safer
> way!  :)
>
> Thomas C. Steele
> Technology Director
> Manteno CUSD #5
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Rodebaugh
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:05 AM
> To: Tech-Geeks Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [tech-geeks] access to predecessors emails
>
> I would tread carefully on this issue. I believe the privacy of an
> employee's email has been challanged recently in several court cases and is
> due to be heard by the supreme court on the grounds of a reasonable right to
> privacy... I'm by no means an expert but from what I've been reading the
> rules are changing on email and text messages...
>
> ________________________________
> From: [email protected] on behalf of Steele, Thomas C
> Sent: Wed 7/28/2010 9:16 AM
> To: Tech-Geeks Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [tech-geeks] access to predecessors emails
> As I recall e-mail on an employer’s server using an employer’s mail account
> is considered the property of the employer and has no expectation of
> individual privacy – that is just from a labor law standpoint.  Since you
> are also talking about a public entity using publically funded equipment
> this is also subject to sunshine laws so ANYONE could request the e-mails
> (though I would imagine your attorney would require some things to be
> redacted).
>
> Personally I have no problem with going through an former employees
> e-mails, folders, etc though only at the request of an administrator.
>  However we also have wording in the AUP which is mandatory to be signed by
> all employees as well as a legal disclaimer that pops up every time someone
> logs on.
>
> -TS
>
> Thomas C. Steele
> Technology Director
> Manteno CUSD #5
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob Morse
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:44 AM
> To: 'Tech-Geeks Mailing List'
> Subject: [tech-geeks] access to predecessors emails
>
> I have a issue in which I have a business manager who left and has been
> replaced with a new one.  The new business manager has asked to have access
> to all of the old business managers emails.  Is this a normal process in
> your district?  Do you get this request a lot?  This is my first time ever
> that I have received a request like this, so as you can imagine, have some
> questions, issues with it.
>
> It is legal?
>
> Our AUP does mention “ Students and staff members have no expectation of
> privacy in any material that is stored, transmitted, or received via the
> District’s electronic network or District computers” and “Electronic
> communications and downloaded material, including files deleted from a
> user’s account but not erased, may be monitored or read by school
> officials”.
>
> I wonder if these statements in the AUP are sufficient or should I check
> with legal to “ensure” we are safe to  do this?
>
> Normally we just kill the pst file of the old person and of course, this
> has been done in this instance.  I do have our archives supplied to us by
> the LTC should I have to rebuild all of the old business managers emails
> (argh!!!).
>
> Bob Morse
> E-Rate Coordinator
> Technology Specialist
> Community Consolidated Schools District 168
> 708-758-1610 ext. 124
> Skype: bmorse68
>
> | Subscription info at http://www.tech-geeks.org |
>
| Subscription info at http://www.tech-geeks.org |

Reply via email to