Interesting thread at the BBC about scanning your work email. There's no certain answer, I know - it's like stealing paperclips or photocopying a couple of posters in that there have to be limits. I know this, but I still feel uncomfortable reading in that thread about a workplace finding racist email; should they have looked? Perhaps it's good that they did, and given that they did of course something has to be done. And then I read about a guy who got locked up [Metafilter thread] because his roommated poked around in his email and...
conclusion | People are different depending on whether they're being watched or not, and we can't make assumptions about their public self by looking at their private self. Unless a person has been explicitly told that their email will be read, it should not be read or used as direct evidence. Companies do need to scan, yes, but they should only monitor usage patterns and if further investigations needs to take place they should do so with the cooperation of the author. Now surely this comes under a current privacy law?
Interesting thread at the BBC about scanning your work email. There's no certain answer, I know - it's like stealing paperclips or photocopying a couple of posters in that there have to be limits. I know this, but I still feel uncomfortable reading in that thread about a workplace finding racist email; should they have looked? Perhaps it's good that they did, and given that they did of course something has to be done. And then I read about a guy who got locked up [Metafilter thread] because his roommated poked around in his email and...
conclusion | People are different depending on whether they're being watched or not, and we can't make assumptions about their public self by looking at their private self. Unless a person has been explicitly told that their email will be read, it should not be read or used as direct evidence. Companies do need to scan, yes, but they should only monitor usage patterns and if further investigations needs to take place they should do so with the cooperation of the author. Now surely this comes under a current privacy law?