"Staff emails can’t just be accessed by a company whenever it feels like it, a UK High Court Judge has ruled, in what could be a guiding case on email privacy."
"The only way that emails could belong to a firm is if they contained copyrighted material or confidential information or if the employee’s signed contract with the firm already said so."
This is new to me, having been employed for so long, and it has always been the case that employees should be careful on how to use their e-mails becuase the company has the right for accessing it.
Full text here.
I think the case is perhaps a little nuanced — it seems to look at this situation:
ReplyDelete- I, as an employee of Company A, send a message to you, an employee of B
- I delete my copy
- Company A, for some purpose, perhaps litigation, requires a copy of the message
Can it compel Company B to provide a copy back to them?
At least, that's my understanding, and the conclusion seems a pretty sensible one.
I enjoyed a good discussion on this on Slashdot a couple of weeks back — you might find it interesting. One of the issues I enjoyed debating was whether there is any property in an email - a sequence of bits - or not. I side with "no," but that, to the extent that the email is restricted/protected by copyright, there is property in that copyright.
There is also an debate in that thread around employee access to email, which seems to vary in different markets — the Netherlands seems to take a tougher view than the UK.
The issue of workplace privacy rights seems to be on a consistent upward trajectory. This creates problems for employers, particularly given the blurring of personal and work spheres for many younger employees. The incidental use of workplace resources for personal matters is expected among young employees and, at least in Canada, a company that did not provide for this, would likely be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to hiring.
ReplyDeleteThe Canadian Supreme Court recently had cause to consider workplace privacy rights in R v. Cole. Essentially, the court found that Mr Cole DID have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his work computer, even though it was not owned by him. Because of this, the police DID need a warrant to search it (which didn't happen in this case). Ultimately, however, the court found that the illegally obtained evidence could still be admitted under s.1 of Canada's Charter that provides for limitations on certain fundamental rights (such as the right to be free from unreasonable serch and seizure) if the limitation can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". This latter point, which seems to be have been overlooked by many commentators, seems to diminish the privacy right somewhat.
The full judgment can be found here:
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12615/index.do