[plug] Acceptable use policies, employee privacy legalities etc

Tom Cleary tom.cleary at gmail.com
Wed Nov 1 20:48:16 WST 2006


Guys,

At present, all bets are off. There have been recent case decisions both
here and in the U.S. supporting the position that employers can not violate
a "valid expectation" of privacy, even when the AUP says you have no rights.

This seems to be because the U.S. position on privacy is mutating more
towards the European position - that Organisations must respect an
individual's privacy unlike here where the U.S. Free Trade agreement has our
right moving the other way.

Enter the Federal A.G. - where the Privacy Act is being debated as we speak:

http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/current/privacy/index.htm

But back to the AUP statement - it really depends on what you want to do -
if you have a genuine Business reason to want Users to know that active
monitoring for a particular behaviour will be undertaken, be specific and
clear in your language.

If you are doing this to "minimise liability" and maximise Business freedom,
then be prepared to have overstepped your limits ( and pay the damages.... )
if you make too free.

For instance, your Govenance stance might be criticised if you don't monitor
for people doing online trading, but if you observe someone's Bank details,
you may have violated that person's reasonable expectation of privacy for
personal information.

For the definitive answer, you REALLY need a Lawyer - such as Jeremy
Malcolm?  ;-)

If you want someone to give you a hand, there are lots of firms around who
can help you out with Governance/Risk Management, such as my employer - CSC.

Nuff said,

tom.


On 10/16/06, Jonathan Young <jonathan at pcphix.com> wrote:
>
>  Bernd Felsche wrote:
>
> Of course employees should assume that they have no privacy when
> using their employer's resources.
>
>  That is the crux of the entire theory.  If you are at work or using work
> equipment/resources, then assume you are being watched.
>
> It's one of those things where you can't have it both ways.  You'd expect
> to be covered by worker's compensation eating lunch in the staff room right?
>
> --
>  Jonathan Young
> Director of PC-PHIX
> jonathan at pcphix.com
>
> Phone: 0410 455 674
> Web: http://www.pcphix.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.org.au
> http://www.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/plug
> Committee e-mail: committee at plug.linux.org.au
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plug.org.au/pipermail/plug/attachments/20061101/b51419cd/attachment.html>


More information about the plug mailing list