Should An Expectation Of Employee Privacy Exist? – Network Computing

Continuing our previous discussion on U.S. Supreme Court case on a data privacy issue related to whether or not an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy for personal messages sent on devices owned by an employer, we have to ask, does it matter that employees know that personal information will be captured and monitored by employers? If a person who is a member of a golf club speaks too loudly in the club restaurant and is overheard by others, that person has no one else to blame if that information is used to cause negative consequences. Just as the loud speaker could have spoken more softly as well as more carefully, so a user of electronic communications tools should recognize that others may see what he or she regarded as private. So logically, a user of an electronic communications channel may very well want to assume that any communications that are made could very be made public.

That does not mean that personal communications would necessarily be exposed. A business may or may not choose to search the data. For example, data on a desktop that is used at home for at least some business use may be protected by being backed up to remote storage and the employer may pay for the protection. In the process, personal information may also be protected. The employer may be protecting the data only so that it can be restored in the case of an emergency and never plans to look at it. However, by residing within the company's data repository that information could be included in an eDiscovery request.

via Should An Expectation Of Employee Privacy Exist? – Network Computing.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare

Communications with Attorney Using Company Computer and Email Account Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege : Electronic Discovery Law

Alamar Ranch, LLC v. City of Boise, 2009 WL 3669741 (D. Idaho Nov. 2, 2009)

In this case arising from a land use and permitting dispute, the court ruled that emails sent by a non-party to her attorney using her work computer and work-assigned email address were not protected by the attorney-client privilege.  In so holding, the court relied in large part upon the existence of company policy which put the employee on notice that her emails were subject to monitoring and were not confidential.  Emails sent by the attorney to the employee’s work account were likewise unprotected where the attorney was on notice of the employee’s use of company email and should have recognized the risk that such emails were unprotected.  As for emails sent to the attorney by other clients and copied to the employee, the court reasoned that such emails retained their privileged status where the senders non-employees of the relevant company were not on notice of the potential exposure of their emails to outside scrutiny.

[continued] Communications with Attorney Using Company Computer and Email Account Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege : Electronic Discovery Law.

LinkedInPinterestEvernoteWordPressBlogger PostEmailShare