[plug] Acceptable use policies, employee privacy legalities etc

[Daniel Pearson (Flashware Solutions)]

CSC ......................... and that's all I'm going to say on that one :)

Tom Cleary wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:jonathan at pcphix.com>
>
>     Phone: 0410 455 674
>     Web: http://www.pcphix.com/
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PLUG discussion list: plug at plug.org.au <mailto:plug at plug.org.au>
>     http://www.plug.org.au/mailman/listinfo/plug
>     Committee e-mail: committee at plug.linux.org.au
>     <mailto:committee at plug.linux.org.au>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20061102/3a2816c2/attachment.html>