E-mail Privacy

[Joshua_Putnam]

In <50318 at muvms3.bitnet> rcbi12 at muvms3.bitnet (Michael J. McCarthy) writes:

>In article <TG13D3L at dri.com>, braun at dri.com (Kral) writes:
>> In article <Nk13311w164w at bluemoon.uucp> sbrack at bluemoon.uucp (Steven S. Brack) writes:
> 
>>>	 Most employees
>>>        expect that their employer would treat them as human beings,
>>>        not as slaves to be constantly monitored.
>> 
>> I don't see this as the latter.  You seem to feel that if I have a right to
>> access your files/desk, then I will be constantly monitoring you by doing so.
>> I say this: any company that has nothing better to do than *monitor* it's
>> employees is going to fail in the marketplace by the results of its economic
>> inefficiencies.  This does not, however, preclude the search through documents
>> in the course of conducting proper business.

>	Consequently, the inmates behaved as if they were constantly being
>watched, to the point where actual observation was almost unnecessary.  They
>began to internalize the idea that they were constantly under the watchkeeper's
>eye, and thus modified their OWN behavier.  The inmates became, therefore,
>their own jailers.  For a more modern and personal example, ask yourself why
>you stop at a red light on a deserted street at 4:00am (assuming you do).  It's
>because even though your eyes tell you that NOONE is there, you worry that
>maybe, just maybe, behind that billboard, is a police officer waiting to meet
>his or her ticket quota for the week.

Silly me.  And here I thought it had to do with old fashioned concepts 
like "civilized conduct" and "respect for the law" derived from the 
"consent of the governed" as part of a "democratic system."  
Personally, the thought that I might get caught just isn't relevant.  
Maybe I'm out of tough with modern society, but I'm rarely in such a 
hurry that I'd feel the need to run a red light.  (But then, Seattle 
is known for the sight of pedestrians patiently waiting in the rain, 
on empty streets, for the "Don't Walk" to change to "Walk.")  

In a similar vein, I do not expect my employer to monitor me 
constantly to "force" me to "comply."  It simply doesn't make sense.  
If I didn't like the work, I wouldn't take the job.  If I did not want 
to comply with some policy, and my employer would not change the 
policy, I would face a straightforward choice between complying in 
good faith despite my objections and finding another job.  Attempting 
to subvert company policy simply would not present itself as an 
option.  

Certainly it is reasonable for an employer to have the right to search 
my desk for an important document if I were not there when the 
document was needed.  The alternative, having the company grind to a 
halt for a day or a week until I came back, is silly.  Employees 
should have some common sense, and not take things to work that they 
would not want their employer to see.  The same applies to computers.  
Absent an ironclad guarantee of privacy, I have no right to assume any 
files on the company's computer are absolutely inviolable.  If regular 
backups are made and kept, I have no reason to believe they will not 
be used.  Even if the company provides nominally private personal 
directories to employees, employees should remember that their files 
may be viewed accidentally by administrators (who should keep quiet 
about what they see in such cases). 

Employers should obviously refrain from abusing their rights, but that 
does not mean they should forswear them altogether.  

>The company need
>not constantly monitor its employees; it need only show that it can and
>occasionally does for the effects of such constant observation to take hold.

I see, and I hope others would see, a huge difference between 
"monitoring" employees continuously or randomly for intimidation 
purposes and retrieving company documents from an employee's desk or 
computer for legitimate business needs.  

The arguments against employers' rights all seem to assume an 
adversarial relationship between employer and employee.  Unless 
justified by a record of abuse of power or bad faith commitments, such 
an assumption seems counterproductive.  If such a history of abuse 
exists, how do you justify giving the employer the benefits of your 
labor?  
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam at happym.wa.com   Happy Man Corp.   206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.    (NextMail
 Info. free (sample $20): E-mail patty at happym.wa.com.    okay too)