Skip to main content
Personal Services

Employers and vendors of surveillance software are it seems, resistant to the idea of a Private Member's Bill to outlaw email “snooping” in the workplace.

One argument used in defence of the right to intercept private correspondence in the workplace, is that email is different to more conventional forms of communication, in that it contains a header with the company’s domain name and frequently other details in the body of the message. Ipso Facto, this is company property and the company is indirectly responsible for its content and might be held liable if that content is later shown to be offensive or illegal.

Without doubt, the question of employer liability has to be clearly resolved and the Norwich Union case illustrated the problems associated with defamation but interception is not a solution and in most respects, given the sheer volume of email traffic, is an impossibility, as after all, reading someone’s email will only tell you what has happened or simply demonstrate a pattern of behaviour.

The philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, once said that “For any argument, the opposite can be maintained, regardless of logical error or factual mistake”, so let’s try a couple of examples to judge whether the case for the right to trawl other people’s email in the workplace, holds water.

·The company gives you a mobile phone. Does it have the right to intercept and listen-in on your conversations or your text messages?
·You use company letterhead to write to a third-party. Is the employer entitled to remove the letter from the post room and read it?
·You are on the company network but are corresponding via your own Hotmail account or Instant Messenger. Can the company legally monitor this traffic?

The last one of these represents an interesting grey area but in general, if the answer is ‘No’ in all three examples and is supported by existing legislation, then you have to ask where the logical justification might for employers establishing their own equivalent of GCHQ?

At the very best, what employers should aim for is something resembling a watered down RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) Act. In other words, a company should be entitled to monitor network traffic and record where that traffic from individual IP addresses is going, outside of the firewall. It should also have the right to place a Proxy Server behind the firewall and filter or prevent access to inappropriate sites, like Ogrish.com or SexTracker.com as examples. In addition, as long as a written content security policy is in place and is appended to an employee’s contract, any company should be relatively safe from the liability concerns associated with confidentiality and inappropriate content involving electronic mail.

On a personal note, I believe it’s time we drew a line in the sand and stopped the insidious spread of the surveillance society, what Britain does best, going any further. If the right to read email is protected in law, then one has to ask what comes next and I have to agree with MP Michael Fabricant, that now is as good a time as any to say no to snooping.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mainframe to Mobile

Not one of us has a clue what the world will look like in five years’ time, yet we are all preparing for that future – As  computing power has become embedded in everything from our cars and our telephones to our financial markets, technological complexity has eclipsed our ability to comprehend it’s bigger picture impact on the shape of tomorrow.

Our intuition has been formed by a set of experiences and ideas about how things worked during a time when changes were incremental and somewhat predictable. In March 1953. there were only 53 kilobytes of high-speed RAM on the entire planet.

Today, more than 80 per cent of the value of FTSE 500* firms is ‘now dark matter’: the intangible secret recipe of success; the physical stuff companies own and their wages bill accounts for less than 20 per cent: a reversal of the pattern that once prevailed in the 1970s. Very soon, Everything at scale in this world will be managed by algorithms and data and there’s a need for effective platforms for ma…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …