Skip to main content
Don't Look Now

It’s a growth industry and a complete mess, snooping on staff that is. I have been writing about the subject for at least three years and it has taken that long for the government, in the shape of the Information Commissioner to draw-up a code that business can use as a reference point for their obligations under the Data Protection Act.

The UK’s Data Protection Act of 1998 is based on the earlier European directive (95/46) and embraces all personal data regardless of commercial or civil activity. The problem facing company directors and civil servants is that breaching data protection regulations represents a criminal offence and as a consequence, a criminal record for anyone who happens to be convicted of neglecting or ignoring the legislation.



Add this to the fact that companies are increasingly paranoid about inappropriate content, viruses, harassment and the risk of commercial secrets slipping out of the door and you have the beginnings of an eavesdropper’s paradise. A series of high profile cases and the industry’s enthusiasm for the sale of ‘monitoring software’, has meant that many employers have started sweeping their mail servers for dodgy content, without giving a great deal of thought to the proper handling of what be thought of as personal information; guidelines for which are, at last, contained in the new code.

The important conclusion for all employers, reflected in the code, is that intercepting employees’ correspondence can only be justified to prevent malpractice or crime and that monitoring of any kind, in the workplace, can only occur if it is transparent, in that employees understand that this is happening. In other words, the code makes monitoring an exceptional activity, carried-out with an appropriate duty of care, rather than a rule, which can be applied quite arbitrarily in the workplace.

So, with research now showing that more people are being dismissed for Internet-related offences than ever before, employers now find themselves in a very difficult situation. It’s called ‘Vicarious Liability’ and more than ever before, if you happen to hold a responsibility for email or any other means of storing personal information, then you need to be sitting on-top of the current raft of European and domestic legislation instead of risking drowning beneath it.

If it is a good thing that the rules governing interception of employee communications are now defined, the disadvantage, from the point of view of the employer, lies in having to develop a policy, which allows the company to reasonably intercept communication without falling foul of the law. This still appears to me to be a highly emotive ‘can of worms’ and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the subject re-visited, yet again, in a year’s time. Leave the eavesdropping to GCHQ until then.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
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…