[BUGS] Assumed Privacy of E-Mails?

[Jerahmy Pocott]

On 09/04/2008, at 2:21 PM, Sue Blake wrote:

> t would probably not be dealt with as a privacy issue but as a  
> workplace
> surveillance issue. This Act is a fairly new one that some employers  
> still
> ignore to their peril ("too hard"). Its requirements need to be  
> followed
> before the event, not after.
>
> http://www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au/rights/employer/workplace+surveillance+act.html

Thanks, that was really good info! =)

Seems this is a hot topic!

Too much to reply to everyone, but some thoughts and opinions:

People require a password to view their e-mails and usually to access  
files on the computer, therefore I would say that anything protected  
by a password is not "in plain sight" and unless users are informed  
that it's not private there is almost certainly going to be an  
assumption of privacy. Certainly this may not be a 'legal' issue, but  
it is somewhat of a moral issue.

If something is likely to be assumed private when it is not, then I  
feel there is some sort of obligation to inform people of this? It's  
sort of like having a change room where the walls are two way mirrors..

 From the sys admins perspective, nothing on the network is barred,  
but that doesn't mean it isn't private, just because a door isn't  
locked doesn't mean you should open it. Anything seen while performing  
your actual job is fine, but that information should not go beyond you  
unless you believe that lives could be in danger or something like  
that. Of course this is just my opinion based on a moral standpoint  
rather than a legal one.

I'v actually read a lot of peoples private e-mails as an admin, but  
I'm only ever interested in the headers, who can even read mail  
generated by lookout? One line of text seems to generate about 20  
pages of random html..
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.barnet.com.au/pipermail/bugs/attachments/20080410/370eeb5a/attachment.html