All
This is interesting as the Union here have an Account set up with the
Council - only several members from the Branch Executive have access to that
account and the members can contact them at that e-mail address - what if
there was a disciplinary issue and tactics were being discussed!! This
could prejudice an employee's right to a fair hearing.
Again though you are right Ian - staff should be made aware that e-mail is
like a postcard - anyone can read it but if someone has a grievance and
wants to get it off their chest - people can be very naive!!!
Regards
Doreen Broom
Scottish Borders Council
Council HQ
Newtown St.Boswells
Melrose
Borders TD6 0SA
01835 824000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 25 October 2000 15:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Interception of e-mails
>
> In a message dated 25/10/2000 15:18:38 GMT Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << If staff are emailing about a health or trade union issue, where are
> they
> giving consent to this data being held about them either by the employer
> or
> the recipient?>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This is exactly my point - they are not giving consent for the processing
> (data being "held" is no longer relevant) and therefore the employer
> should
> not process by way of interception.
>
> The fact is that employers would obtain (process) sensitive personal data
> in
> both the examples I gave, without explicit consent. The new regulations
> override this right by allowing monitoring without consent, making the
> interception lawful - but is it fair under the DPA First Principle?
>
> A policy that states the staff will not be "discriminated against" for
> using
> e-mails in a work-related but personal manner (TU or occy health) is no
> comfort to the data subject if employers obtain medical or other data they
>
> should not have access to.
>
> If the members of staff are told that ALL their e-mails are read and that
> the
> system should not be used for anything they wouldn't pin up on a notice
> board, they should be sufficiently informed to make a judgement as to
> whether
> to use it.
>
> In another scenario, the thought of an IT officer having access to
> clinical
> or social services data (say about children in danger) - just because it
> is
> being passed between two qualified social workers or doctors - causes the
> hairs on my neck to stand up.
>
> I would imagine that the responsible employer will advise staff never to
> use
> e-mail for anything sensitive, whether it is about themselves or other
> people
> - unless of course the content is encrypted. Can the employer demand the
> encryption key under the RIP Act or is it just police and other
> enforcement
> agencies?
>
> I have not heard that legal professional privilege applies to e-mails. I
> would be surprised if that were the case but if other members can give any
>
> details I'd be grateful.
>
> Ian B
________________________________________________________________
This e-mail is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright.
Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited.
The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily
be the views held by the Scottish Borders Council.
_________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|