E-mail supervision, ethics 4

[infogeslan]

I did post a question like this one several months ago, but I consider this forum is more appropiate than the one I used back then. We have a Lotus Domino 6.0 in our company and the administrator has the power to see, read, log and administrate all e-mails in the company. Is this ethical or legal? By the way, I am the administrator and want to know about your opinions before I do anything.

Thanks a lot.


"Let us be the change we want to see in the world" M.Gandhi

 

[Rhys666]

<QUOTE>
Where is private email in the work place a basic human right?
</QUOTE>
Read my email - European Convention on Human Rights I believe which is legally enforcable

<QUOTE>
You want privacy then don't shout out in the middle of the office that you are impotent
</QUOTE>
On which planet would that be a way of asking for privacy? You make no sense here...

<QUOTE>
There are other means to communicate while in the work place.
</QUOTE>
Yes, equally monitorable. Is monitoring of all of these legal, or are you saying an employer has the right to monitor, store, read etc. any communication undertaken by yourself from your place of employment?
How would you communicate with a Trade Union in the same employment group at a different geographical location?

At the end of the day you missed the point. Employers are entitled to employ filtering technolocgy to identify and isolate unwanted/illegal etc. emails based on content scanning, but are not entitled to arbitarily read, isolate, ban emails or other communication just because they can.

Again, as I said, I only believe this to be the case, based on European Human Rights Legislation, which would give every employee in the EU the basic human right of private email in the work place.

Rhys
Thought out... Maybe,
Opinionated... Probably
But it is only an opinion!

 

[guestgulkan]

Again, as I said, I only believe this to be the case, based on European Human Rights Legislation, which would give every employee in the EU the basic human right of private email in the work place.

Stuff and nonsense.
But then what should I expect from an organisation that watsted millions of euros defining an EU standard recommendation for the straightness of bannanas.

 

[Rhys666]

The straightness of Banana's thing was an urban myth, i.e., not true...

Can you show it is nonsense?
I am asking genuinely as I know I've seen this somewhere and am only stating my believed source of this fact, and it is a fact whether you like it or not. I also happen to believe that having a basic constituational convention on Human Rights is extremely important, especially in the UK where, (as we have no formal constitution), almost everything can be interpreted in any way possible and the organisation with the most money/political sway can enforce those rulings in the Courts.

At the end of the day this is really a freedom of speech issue. Does your employer have the defacto right to remove your right to freedom of speech where you're not interfering with their business? I'd say not. Censuring and blocking communication is actually little more than preventing speech.

Rhys
Thought out... Maybe,
Opinionated... Probably
But it is only an opinion!

 

[CrookedHouse]

If I may, you might find this document an interesting read

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2002/wp55_en.pdf

 

[Rhys666]

Good document...
Which I will maintain supports my belief that within the EU it is illegal to blanket monitor/read staff emails, unless there are grounds that they are acting illegally or against the interests of the employer...
although I will concede that it does give an Employer the Legal right to monitor email under certain conditions

Reading down, the general tone of it is that electronic communication should be treated the same as non-electronic information, and an employer cannot arbitrarily open and read letters, thus they cannot simply and arbitrarily read employee's emails.

So, going back to the original post...
'...We have a Lotus Domino 6.0 in our company and the administrator has the power to see, read, log and administrate all e-mails in the company. Is this ethical or legal?...'

...I would say that this blanket ability to arbitrarily see, read, log and administrate all e-mails in the company is in Breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and this view has been supported in Legal action undertaken by Employee's within the EU against their employers.

Don't get me wrong though, I do understand the need of employers to make certain staff aren't acting illegally and against the interests of the company, but that doesn't mean you check your basic Human Right of freedom of speach at your office door when yu go to work...

Rhys
Thought out... Maybe,
Opinionated... Probably
But it is only an opinion!

 

[lionelhill]

You have to have a bit of common sense about this.

Obviously I'd be a bit miffed if my boss opened letters sent to me at work. But on the other hand I think it's perfectly OK for my boss to be a bit miffed if I have a rhinoceros in a crate delivered to the goods inward door....

Similarly it seems to me a little intrusive if someone reads all my e-mails, but on the other hand if I want to run a spamming operation from work computers, then it's a bit hard if the EU decides my employer must increase the band-width so that work mail still gets through, without being allowed to investigate why my &quot;personal&quot; mail is now occupying most of the company's IT resources.

Which is all to say that there is no black-and-white about this, and employers have rights too, whatever the EU cares to think.

 

[guestgulkan]

CrookedHouse
I've downloaded that linked document and I will certainly read it carefully.
I will try and put aside my prejudices and try an objective approach.

 

[Rhys666]

<RANT>
Lionelhill, go and read the document not just my paraphrasing. It does go into these area's in some detail.
Having a rhinoceros (or something of that size) in a crate delivered to the goods inward door would be against the interests of the employer, ergo they have a defacto right to investigate the contents. Same with your spam argument, one persons email eating a companies bandwidth is against the interests of the employer, and again they have a right to investigate.

The document in question does examine both sides of the argument and isn't just an arbitrary 'Employee's Rights must come first' statement. It takes a balanced view that an employee does have the right to private communication, as long as that is not against the interests of the employer.

Be realistic, most cases would have to be settled through legal proceedings anyway, but I will maintain that precedents have been set, and whether you happen to like it or not, the Law is the Law and in regard to the original question and Europe wide legislation a blanket ability to arbitrarily see, read, log and administrate all e-mails in a company is in Breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Employers do have rights, so do employee's. As long as an employee's communication doesn't breach the companies rights, (and yes I agree a packaged Rhino would), the company cannot lawfully breach the employees.

Oh, and it's not what the EU cares to think, it is Legislation, it is legally enforcable and has been on more than one occassion with the most common end result being the company being shown to have infringed on the rights of an employee for no good reason.
</RANT>

Apologies for that. At the end of the day the truth is that if you're not acting illegally, or against your employers interests, then it is illegal in the EU for a company to arbitrarily see and read all of your e-mails. This is a proven point of law.

Rhys
Thought out... Maybe,
Opinionated... Probably
But it is only an opinion!

 

[infogeslan]

I'll read that document too and only wish it would be in Spanish!!. But first I must thank everybody for your opinions that allow me, and hope, many others to see the different points of view and evaluate them. Nothing is a simple as it seems to be, no white or black, greys instead.

&quot;Let us be the change we want to see in the world&quot; M. Gandhi.

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Rhys666 I think you are missing my point.
Human rights as defined by

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

all the arguements are based on article 12.

You have to remember that this isn't meant to be at the expense of someone else. From your quote &quot;as long as that is not against the interests of the employer.&quot; The interest here is that the employer is paying for your comunication. Not only for the cost to transmit the email but to maintain the resources that facilitate it. If email is a basic human right then all employees would have to have email. Now article 12 is not infringed upon because your correspondance is not yours if you use the companies resources. They are the companies correspondance.

You have no more rights to send personal email from a company then you have to make a long distance call for 8 hours on a company phone or send a package express mail to your sister in England by a company courier. The fact that the costs are different is not a issue. You do have the right to make mobile phone calls from work on your own phone. You do have the right to send mail which you payed for though and not have the company question it, as long as you are not negatively impacting the company.

Company supplied email is NOT a human right. Your correspondence is a right but if you use the companies resources then it is not YOUR correspondence but their correspondence.

 

[PCLine]

SemperFiDownUnda
The fact that the costs are different is not a issue.

You do have the right to make mobile phone calls from work on your own phone.

I am just wondering, should the &quot;second&quot; quote I've used be qualified with &quot;during your luch break&quot;? I ask, because the &quot;first&quot; quote (when used in context) compared extreme variations in communication. So the point about cost would be that unless it is on your own time you are costing the company money...or at the very least you are engaged in activities during your contracted hours that your employer is not paying for.

So, in the first quote you say that the cost difference is not an issue ~ I would then ask you, In my example, would you consider the length of time engaged in such activities an issue.

It is my belief that there is &quot;middle&quot; ground here ~ and middle ground is not covered by a total ban of using the available technology.

As the document CrookedHouse posted indicated ~ it is not reasonable to expect people to &quot;check&quot; their private life at the door when they enter work.

All the best.

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

If you want to push it to the nth degree then yes I think the employeer has the right to say that you don't make personal calls on company time. How you negotiate around tha is your business.

I'm saying you can't expect the company to pay for something then not have the right to have conditions. I'm a contractor right now. If I'm on the phone with someone and it isn't related to my current contract I don't bill them for that time. At the end of the day I just average it in with my lunch time I take.

I'm not saying anything about a ban. What I'm pointing out is most companies have a terms of use. The terms of use of company email might, and rightly so IMHO, be that they are allowed to monitor email sent from the company mail server. Its your choice to comply either accept it or not use it.
You don't have to check your private life at the door. Nothing we do is private at work really. Is it your right when you get a call from your wife who is screaming at you because she just found out you are having an affair for you to be able to say to everyone in the office &quot;Everyone out I need to have a private conversation&quot;. You can't be in public and have privacy. They are contridictory. You give up some of your privacy. The amount you give up is your choice. Your choice here is accept that they might look at your email or you don't use it. Or if you do you secure it in some other way just like you might take that call from your wife in a part of the office where no one is around.

Don't take the &quot;You do have the right to make mobile phone calls from work on your own phone&quot; out of contexts. It is pointing out you have right to private communication if you are using a communication method paid for by you. If you want to send a package to england or even across town with a 22 cent stamp paid by the company don't be upset when they want to know what you are sending.

 

[PCLine]

Hi SemperFiDownUnda

I think we will just have to disagree on placing the employer in such a dominant position.

The points you make about public, private and privacy are well made.

I wasn't attempting to take your example out of context, I was just seeking a qualification ~ which you provide, thanks.

I'm not saying anything about a ban.
I appreciate that you did not focus your attention on this part of my posting ~ I am sure others would have.

Regards.

 

[Rhys666]

SemperFiDownUnda,
I'm not missing your point, and any opinion I take may well be solely my own but I'm entitled to that.

All I'm saying is the EU Convention on Human Rights and legal precedents set by it do mean that a company does not have a legal right to read all e-mails sent by employee's. They are legally entitled read email content if they have genuine reason to believe an email is against their interests or illegal, but if an employee finds they are doing this and wants to contest what they are doing the legal onus is on the employer to prove what they are doing is not in breach the employees rights not the other way around.

I don't contest there are a variety of ways to argue this point but the Law is the Law and and in the EU, legal precendents and legislation, are now quite clear on what can and can't be done. I'm happy to debate the ethics and morals of email monitoring, but not the lagality as this is clear.

Personally, I rarely send personal emails at work, and if I have to they never contain anything that is illegal, against the interests of my employer or anything I don't want them to know because at the end of the day, whether reading all of my emails is illegal or not, it's possible and, as the saying goes, there's little point shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

We all live in the real world, and it's true to say that any communication not delivered directly and privately can be intercepted, (in fact with modern technology it may be true to say it's actually impossible to deliver a communication entirely privately). So, any communication we make needs to be tempered with this reality and awareness of the consequences of our actions. I apprecite and will listen to all opinions on this, and pretty much any other, matter but, as is human nature, I will draw my own conclusions based on my knowledge, understanding of situations, experience and perception, as will you. As will business', and all we're doing here is providing a representative of a business, (and our deveoted listeners!), with a range of opinion and fact from which they can draw their own conclusions and make a decision, probably not only on the subject at hand but us as well...

...still, I have enjoyed the thread and it has been very enlightening in a lot of ways.

Cheers all!

Rhys
Thought out... Maybe,
Opinionated... Probably
But it is only an opinion!

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

PCLine sorry didn't mean to offend you. I was just making it clear that it wasn't what I meant. I guess I made the same error you did by just refering to a small part of your post.

Rhys666 I don't disagree with you. I mean law is law. I might not agree with it and I can't debate EU law because I don't know enough about it. I'm talking in broad context and the ethical situation. I think my view is driven by the fact that I don't think the company should have to blindly flip for the cost of communication of its employees. Also they have to look out for their self interests.

We all know they have the capability right?! Well think of it this way. Why would 99.9% of the employers out there want to look at your email without cause anyway? Its more a bored admin type that would do that. In which case either 1) you won't ever know about it. or 2) you find out and you goto their boss and ask why. Agian 99% of the cases you'll find that that bored admin will get in trouble.

If you don't want someone to read your email and you know that the company has a police that lets them (you've probably agreed to this police in writing, I do in every place i've worked in the last 8 years) then I don't see what the moral problem is. They've told you, you aggree (or you don't and you obstain from using the service).

Is it morally wrong for a company to deny you email?

How about this. What if email was provided but you are only allowed to email to certian addresses?

Also note that in some states, California, that it is LAW that they maintain Email records for 3 years. So if that if a company that deals with the state of california (doesn't have to be in California) gets asked they have to produce that info. There is no &quot;Oh you can't look at this email, it was personal&quot;.

 

[Rhys666]

Bizarre isn't it.
Wonder how that California thing works if a British company dealing with an office in California is having to pass personal information by EMail between the two. To produce that information in California could well be in breach of the UK Data Protection Act, and European Convention on Human Rights, (as widely discussed), but to deny that information would be in breach of Californian State Law, (would this be the correct term???).

Like I said though, and you said too pretty much I have to say, if you don't want the company to know something, don't send it by Email from work, or probably by phone from work as well.

This really is a minefield for Business isn't it?
I'm kinda' glad I'm not making the decision on how to implement any kind of monitoring process, because it pretty much looks like you're gonna be in breach of a Law somewhere if you do business widely enough.

Anyway, on the whole I think I do actually agree with you. As long as people are aware of the possibility of communication monitoring, and that monitoring itself is internally regulated, audited, monitored, (or anything so it's not solely in the hands of one or two people), so it can't be used to unfairly predjudice decisions made about an employee or discriminate against them based on their personal opinions, it is probably fair to say it is moraly and ethically defensible. Personally, I think that really it comes down to the level of awareness the employee has of the monitoring that takes place, and as long as they are aware of it and the level of it, it's OK.


Rhys
Thought out... Maybe,
Opinionated... Probably
But it is only an opinion!

 

[CajunCenturion]

Some further reading:

http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-1018562.html?tag=cd_mh

From the article is the following quote:
&quot;Management's failure to check internal e-mail is a potentially costly oversight,&quot; ... &quot;Off-the-cuff, casual e-mail conversations among employees are exactly the type of messages that tend to trigger lawsuits, arm prosecutors with damaging evidence and provide the media with embarrassing real-life disaster stories.&quot;

How much stock you place in the statement is one issue, but it does beg the question, how much right does the company have to protect itself through preventitive measures?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[lgarner]

Consider also that in the US, in some industries, companies are *required* to record all email and instant messages.

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

Yes, stock brookers in particular. The IM issue is such a nightmare to capture that many firms have banned the use of and instant messanger. Strangely I don't see what the big difference between IM and a quick phone call. I think the laws need to be fixed in many cases.

 

[Kjonnnn]

When did it become our RIGHT to have private conversations and communication others' &quot;tool&quot; (phone, email, cam), and on the time they pay us to work for them.

The whole issue boils down to that. People feels its their RIGHT to use a company's property for their PRIVATE use.

I'm not saying NO to personal conversations and emails at work. BUT, to understand why a company WOULD want to know what you are doing on company time and equipment that is not to benefit them.

I've seen people actually run a second business from the main office (and still get their regular work done). (That also gets into another issue. Are getting paid for you output or your time?)