In a message dated 21/01/2001 15:00:45 GMT Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Reading an article in the Time Tue 16 Jan 01 - "E-mail's public-private
partnership" written by Penny Lewis caused some debate in my mind regarding
that balance.
It does appear that the privacy of e-mail is only really brought into
question when there is some intimation that the medium might be being
abused. This seems to apply both in the business and individually private
context.
Attacks to access the contents of an individuals, or businesses e-mail,
where there is no abuse appear to be only power plays between the different
players.
If that is so, then e-mail should be protected unless abuse is being
investigated. The debate regarding abuse of the law or abuse of an
organisations policies, which cause important perceptual differences, are
only of secondary concern at this point.
Does anybody have any examples which would counter the above view? >>
--------------
Possibly the Simpsons incident. If the e-mails were being passed around
using just the subject line: "The Simpsons" there would be no evidence at
that stage that the e-mail system was being abused and the content was in
breach of company policy, particularly if the policy allowed limited personal
e-mail use.
Most content scanners would also have missed the abuse anyway, the images
were attachments - not text content. Random checking of attachments by a
trusted human being would have been necessary had it never been reported by
an offended individual. Some of the staff receiving and passing on the
cartoons may not have been aware of the consequences of doing so. Some of
those caught with it on their machines may not have known how to remove it.
I am not saying that all e-mails should be checked, nor am I suggesting that
none should be checked - I think a balance needs to be found.
Ian Buckland
MD
Keep IT Legal Ltd
|