It's maybe not as bad as the headline suggests.
"His employer had discovered that he was using Yahoo Messenger for personal contacts, as well as professional ones. Because it believed it was accessing a work account, the judges said, the firm had not erred."
Obviously, your employer has the right to check your work messages. On the other hand they shouldn't be able to check your private messages. Mixing the two in the same account causes complications. I suppose having two separate accounts would be the obvious solution, but who wants to remember yet another password ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35301148
Why is this ambiguous to so many people? If you're using a computer that your employer owns, it is illogical to assume that anything you do on it is private....period. I've always told new employees that the best policy when using any work-based computer or device is to assume that there is someone looking over your shoulder at all times.
ReplyDeleteSome people do not understand what possession is, or privacy. I had a former employee erase 'his' hard drive without permission, after being asked to back it up. Obviously, if anyone calls, he is not recommended for hiring.
ReplyDeleteThe ECHR has ZERO jurisdiction in the US.
ReplyDeleteBut this morning I had to logon to my bank to make a payment. I had no choice but to use my employer-owned computer and internet connection. They don't have any right to access my bank details though.
ReplyDeleteIn the USA, employers have the right to capture anything done on your monitor. They can certainly capture your screen in the routine course of business. Consent is implied by working there, and only one party ( the employer) needs be informed of the snooping on your machine. Just as in phone calls, one party can record without the others knowledge.
ReplyDeleteAnd you had a choice. You could have used a personal phone, or a personal tablet, or mailed a check, or called them.
https://www.privacyrights.org/workplace-privacy-and-employee-monitoring#3a
Rhys Taylor this will probably sound a bit sour, but my own company's response...and most companies in the US would probably....would be "it doesn't matter. If it's the company's machine, we reserve the right to observe anything and everything done on it and from the company's perspective it's legally irresponsible to do otherwise." They would undoubtedly tell you that you don't have any more right to use the computer for private things (including logging into your bank) than you do using company time for personal activities.
ReplyDeleteObviously plenty of places are far less draconian (small offices, etc), but working for a company as large as mine usually means very strict limits on what we can use work computers for. It's very serious business. There's no way I'd ever log into my personal email or bank at work, mostly because we have a huge IT department and is be worried about someone with access stealing my private info.
Actually, just this week I know of someone who was fired for an apparent breach of privileges.
I don't think I could ever work for a company with rules like that. Too soul destroying. I've known people who work for banks who have to fill out a timesheet every three minutes (in practise actually meaning "click a button to indicate you're at your desk", but still). On the other extreme in Arecibo (under Cornell University) there was a specific clause in our contracts stating that we were allowed to view pornographic material.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad the European law on this issue is not yet fixed and probably won't swing as far in favour as the employer as in the US. That extreme view does make sense in some situtations, but not all. Mind you, being in a situation where meaningful output is only possible on a timescale of weeks (at a minimum, more often months, sometimes years), I'm heavily biased.
"And you had a choice. You could have used a personal phone, or a personal tablet, or mailed a check, or called them."
ReplyDeleteActually no, I could not. All the information I need is online, I don't have paper copies. I've tried dealing with my bank over the phone before, and it's not possible without specific numbers that I don't have hard copies of. Since I'm currently staying on-site, the only alternative to using my employer's internet connection would have been to find somewhere with free wi-fi, which I wouldn't care to use for bank information.
Or I could do what I actually did, which was to sort everything out in about 3 minutes using my employer-owned computer and internet connection. This had exactly zero output on my productivity. US employment laws are more than a little bonkers, in many cases.
I won't disagree. Just pointing out that the US of A is weird in our "freedoms". Most people think our free speech is everywhere, but in reality, only the government cannot stop speech, except in lots of situations. Companies certainly can stop it. I'm free to demand your Facebook user ID and password here, as a condition of employment, as yet another example of "My company, tis, of thee.." Until very recently, I had the right to demand blood from employees, that I could test for anything, and fire you without telling you what that was. How odd was that? But laws do get passed, and things do change.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor it's not so much that the company would object to any loss of productivity. It's more to do with policies regarding legal liabilities.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is, if I were to access my bank account at work....nobody would really care. My VP wouldn't get worked up. Nobody would bat an eye. Hell, I have no doubt that lots of people here ( at my company) do it all the time.
But as a policy the company reserves the right to know just exactly what the hell I'm doing on my work computer because if an employee is doing something illegal using company property, the company is really vulnerable legally and financially. If somebody in IT uses their work computer to hack into an outside computer, it's the company who would end up on the line.
It's not as bad as it sounds, really. The US is a seriously litigious society. Frankly if I owned a business in which I had, say, a dozen or so employees using company machines, I would make a "no personal stuff on company machines" policy myself. You wouldn't find many people in the States who would have any problem with that. It seems pretty logical to us. If this seems draconian, you should see the computer policies in places like Japan or China.
Fred Beckhusen uh...nooo. Employers can't demand Facebook access. I'm aware that some employers think they can, but it doesn't hold up legally for a microsecond.
ReplyDeleteFred Beckhusen and also I have to point out that, no, you can't demand blood and test it for anything and fire them without explaining why. Any sensible company's no-drug policy has to spell out what they're testing for, and the terms of separation if the policy is violated. If the employer violates those terms, then they're legally very vulnerable and will get p0wnd in a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteAn employer might fire an employee over dumb reasons, but it doesn't mean they're justified or will not face repercussions. It's not a dystopia.
We do the wifi thing, at my company. It's simple.
ReplyDeleteAnd sorry, Christopher Butler , but only a few states in the US prohibit employers from asking for passwords to social media sites. I am not defending this practice! Just pointing it out here!
Here in the not-so-great state of Texas, it's perfectly legal to demand social media access, and if the employee refuses, it is perfectly legal to fire them and tell them why. You have no right to free speech as far as a private company is concerned. Any company can muzzle your speech - even at home when off duty - as a condition of employment. And if you do get fired, you won't get unemployment, either.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/employer-access-to-social-media-passwords-2013.aspx
As I explained earlier, it USED to be true that an employer can ask for GENETIC blood tests and fire you based on those results that law was changed at the Federal level in the EEOC act in 2009. But they can still do so for things like diabetes, sickle cell anemia, or whatever they want - as there is currently no federal law that prohibits smaller employers from discriminating against workers with disabilities. The law does not apply to employers with fewer than 15 people - so it is legal to discriminate against people with diabetes, for example.
http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/resources/disability/disability-discrimination/discrimination-workp
Here is another bizarre Texan example: Though many states have passed laws regulating or restricting an employer’s right to require drug testing, Texas has not. Texas legislation does not address drug testing in private employment. This means that employers are free to require or ask employees and applicants to take a drug test, as long as they don’t run afoul of other legal protections
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-drug-testing-texas.html
As for terminating an employee, whether they pass a test or not, it is very simple here: just tell them there is no longer any need for their service. There is no duty on the employer to disclose any reason. This makes it very difficult to defend your rights, all am employer has to do is treat everyone the same, give everyone spot checks, and get rid of the ones they want to get rid of, quietly.