|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on July 9, 2008, 1:30 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Matt Probert wrote:
>
>>
http://ebn.benefitnews.com/asset/article/621321/court-rules-workers-text-messages-private.html
>>
>> Although this is a California court (for those of you outside of the
>> U.S., they are widely accepted as some of the most radical in the U.S.),
>> and the order only applies right now to California, it could have
>> far-reaching implications - I suspect it could even be argued as
>> applying to web surfing.
>>
>
> Here in the UK we now have new Draconian anti-terrorism legislation
> which allows full phone intercepts and includes email intercepts.
>
> Quite how such rules were slipped in may amaze some people, but after
> years of indoctrination or "spin" the British public is now a very
> stupid and gullible animal.
>
> They don't even realise that the term "terrorist suspect" actually
> means "some innocent person" and could include THEM, under our new
> laws. I can not speak for the USA.
>
> Matt
>
> .
> --
> The Probert Encyclopaedia
> http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
>
I should also add - this one is different, because although it involves
a police department, the case is more related to them as a private
employer than as a police department. It could easily be expanded to
indicate that any employee could expect to have a certain amount of
privacy in his personal messages, even if it is company-supplied equipment.
Which makes me wonder about employers monitoring their employees web
surfing habits, for instance.
BTW - funny story. Last week my wife tried to go online to order some
lingerie. But her company's firewall blocked the site because it
contained the word "panties" :-).
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
| 
XML Sitemap