The recent Article 29 WP opinion on e-mail filtering may be of interest
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2006/wp118_en.p
df
The opinion isn't completely clear which provisions apply only to public
networks and which to all networks, but it does give some indications of
ways to implement a filtering service and ways not to.
Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Tinsley, Chris
> Sent: 13 June 2006 11:43
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Monitoring for Swear words
>
>
> Thanks for replies
>
> I have many problems with this sort of monitoring.
>
> It was introduced without the users prior knowledge (although there is
> mention of monitoring in the email policy).
>
> The list of bad words is not available to the people who are likely to
> transgress.
>
> It is automatic, requiring a member of ICT to read any
> blocked email and
> decide whether it is appropriate. Do I really want these
> people reading
> my private emails.
>
> I am an adult, I can decide which words are good or bad.
>
> It engenders an air of mistrust between employer and employee.
>
> It seems that I am the only person in WCC to complain about this
> monitoring. I shall have to start my Treat Us Like Adults (TULA)
> campaign all on my own.
>
> (Incidentally the email below reached me so I am beginning to wonder
> what is being blocked.)
>
> Chris Tinsley
> Wiltshire County Council
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C.B.Bayliss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Chris
> Bayliss
> Sent: 13 June 2006 10:28
> To: Tinsley, Chris
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Monitoring for Swear words
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:29:52AM +0100, Tinsley, Chris wrote:
> > Did any one see this article about the perils of monitoring
> for Swear
> > words
> >
> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/3
> 0/uemail.x
> > ml
> >
> > We have recently been told at WCC that ICT are now monitoring for
> > "swear" words at the email gateway. At WCC we have a policy which
> > allows limited private use of email as long as it is not
> offensive or
> > inappropriate. Offensiveness and inappropriateness is in the eye of
> the
> > beholder, words between friends will have differing appropriateness
> than
> > words between customers and clients.
> >
> > The list of words which are block has not been published
> (probably to
> > avoid offending staff).
> >
> > Do people think that a policy which automatically monitors
> and blocks
> > private as well as business emails using a list of words considered
> > inappropriate is a good idea?
>
> As the article you cite illustrates, blocking on a list of words is
> not a good idea whatever it is for. Before effective spam filtering
> software was available, we tried a keyword and keyphrase filter (on a
> purely opt-in basis). We had some success with phrases, but
> learnt that
> there were very few single words that could be blocked safely.
>
> There are problems words which can have innocuous meanings - erection
> was mentioned, but there are plenty of others - eg box, member,
> rimming, cock, screw, shag, etc. You can't sensibly block
> them, but if
> you allow the words through, the filter isn't doing what you want.
>
> There is also simple matter of false positives in people's names. We
> had numerous complaints from people - for example a Dr Wank, a Dr
> Cunther and a Richard Dick (I am not joking).
>
> Ther other problem is of mis-spelt words getting through (there are
> many variations for the F word - possibly one of the few words that it
> is safe to block). We did try allowing for variations in spelling,
> but this produced complaints from an engineer mailing about a Fokker
> aircraft and physisists trying to discuss the Hartee-Fock theory.
>
> We were only trying to reduce incoming spam. There are now more
> effective methods that we deploy.
>
> The whole idea of censoring mail by keywords illustrates the double
> standards applied to written elecronic and paper based communications.
> I doubt if many organisations open letters and screen them for swear
> words.
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
> swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
> www.mimesweeper.com
> **********************************************************************
> Please do not print out this e-mail unless absolutely
> necessary. Save energy and paper!
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
> available to the world wide web community at large at
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
> If you wish to leave this list please send the command
> leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
> All user commands can be found at : -
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
> Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to
> the list owner
> [log in to unmask]
> (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
