r0f
April 27th, 2001, 05:14 PM
Well.. GWL received an email from me today with this story attached. I hope they have a few good lawyers.
The Globe and Mail
Monday, April 16, 2001
Stop snooping on your employees - Privacy commissioner says confidential e-mail is a right
VIRGINIA GALT
TORONTO -- Employees have a "fundamental, inherent right" to privacy
in the workplace, and this includes the right to private e-mail, says
federal Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski.
"Most of us would agree that an employer would have no business
randomly or routinely pawing through the desk drawers of employees,
and examining whatever happens to be there. What makes the contents
of a computer any different?"
This runs counter to the belief of many employers, who say that
because they own the equipment, they have an unlimited right to
peruse the contents, Mr. Radwanski notes. "This is wrong."
The immense capacity of technology to capture and log any transaction
conducted on a computer raises enormous privacy concerns that
legislators are just now moving to address. It has implications for
both employers -- who say they have a duty to guard against Internet
abuse -- and employees, who don't want to feel like Big Brother is
always watching over them.
Technological advances notwithstanding, the privacy commissioner says
employees do not lose their right to privacy just because an employer
tells them "not to expect any privacy."
The establishment of legal and acceptable limits is all the more
important given that many major employers now have the means to
electronically monitor their work force, he said in an interview from
his Ottawa office, where he oversees compliance with the new Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
"A lot of employers . . . want to monitor employees' e-mail and Web
use because they're concerned about employees' time-wasting. I don't
think the potential justifies this," he said at a conference in
Toronto, organized by the University of Toronto's Centre for
Industrial Relations and legal publisher Lancaster House Publishing.
"If there's a real problem, if there is a reason to suspect abuse,
that's different. You can address that in a less privacy-invasive way
than monitoring everyone," he said in a forceful speech aimed at
clarifying the intent of the law.
The new federal privacy law pertaining to electronic documents, which
took effect Jan. 1, stipulates that an organization may collect, use
or disclose personal information "only for purposes that a reasonable
person would consider appropriate." Mr. Radwanski, who has the
authority to investigate and refer breaches of the act to the Federal
Court of Canada, says "random snooping" through employees' e-mail
boxes is clearly a breach.
The law applies to federally regulated industries such as banking,
telecommunications, broadcasting and interprovincial transportation.
Mr. Radwanski predicted that the law will soon provide the framework
for similar provincial privacy provisions.
Mr. Radwanski's speech set the stage for a rousing debate at the
conference, which drew industrial relations specialists from both the
labour and management sides.
Management representatives argued that they should be able to use the
tools at their disposal to protect against employee theft, fraud or
unauthorized distribution of "commercially sensitive material."
Electronic monitoring can also uncover e-mail and Internet abuse,
such as the transmission of harassing e-mail messages or the
downloading of pornography.
Bell Canada lawyer Suzanne Morin said company-provided Internet
access "is a privilege, not a right."
The telephone utility, a unit of Montreal-based BCE Inc., permits and
encourages employees to "surf the Net" for personal use, as long as
it does not interfere with job performance and employees do not
violate company policy, Ms. Morin said.
Bell keeps a log of all computer activity, she said, but does not
delve into the content unless there has been a complaint about a
possible breach of company policy. Allegations of fraud, theft,
---ual or racial harassment will be investigated, Ms. Morin said.
Mr. Radwanski declined to comment on specific company policies but
said that he has "no problem" with employers conducting targeted
investigations into suspected policy violations or illegal activity.
Labour lawyer Lorne Richmond, of the Toronto firm Sack Goldblatt
Mitchell, said he is concerned employers will "hide behind" the legal
requirement that they maintain harassment-free workplaces to conduct
widespread electronic surveillance. Arbitrators have restricted the
rights of employers to place employees under video surveillance, he
noted.
The privacy commissioner dismissed the notion that harassment can
only be tracked and stopped through electronic monitoring. Employers
can only be held liable if they have not exercised "due diligence" to
prevent it, he said.
"Get yourself a good harassment policy," he advised employers, and
make sure employees are aware of the acceptable limits of e-mail and
Internet use on company time.
"You're not going to get dinged for liability because you refused to
treat all your employees like suspects and install computer
monitoring software."
Appointed in November to a seven-year term, Mr. Radwanski, a former
journalist, author and public policy researcher, said the
technological revolution has made privacy "the defining issue of this
new decade." Snooping can't be stopped, so "we have to impose our own
limits."
The Globe and Mail
Monday, April 16, 2001
Stop snooping on your employees - Privacy commissioner says confidential e-mail is a right
VIRGINIA GALT
TORONTO -- Employees have a "fundamental, inherent right" to privacy
in the workplace, and this includes the right to private e-mail, says
federal Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski.
"Most of us would agree that an employer would have no business
randomly or routinely pawing through the desk drawers of employees,
and examining whatever happens to be there. What makes the contents
of a computer any different?"
This runs counter to the belief of many employers, who say that
because they own the equipment, they have an unlimited right to
peruse the contents, Mr. Radwanski notes. "This is wrong."
The immense capacity of technology to capture and log any transaction
conducted on a computer raises enormous privacy concerns that
legislators are just now moving to address. It has implications for
both employers -- who say they have a duty to guard against Internet
abuse -- and employees, who don't want to feel like Big Brother is
always watching over them.
Technological advances notwithstanding, the privacy commissioner says
employees do not lose their right to privacy just because an employer
tells them "not to expect any privacy."
The establishment of legal and acceptable limits is all the more
important given that many major employers now have the means to
electronically monitor their work force, he said in an interview from
his Ottawa office, where he oversees compliance with the new Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
"A lot of employers . . . want to monitor employees' e-mail and Web
use because they're concerned about employees' time-wasting. I don't
think the potential justifies this," he said at a conference in
Toronto, organized by the University of Toronto's Centre for
Industrial Relations and legal publisher Lancaster House Publishing.
"If there's a real problem, if there is a reason to suspect abuse,
that's different. You can address that in a less privacy-invasive way
than monitoring everyone," he said in a forceful speech aimed at
clarifying the intent of the law.
The new federal privacy law pertaining to electronic documents, which
took effect Jan. 1, stipulates that an organization may collect, use
or disclose personal information "only for purposes that a reasonable
person would consider appropriate." Mr. Radwanski, who has the
authority to investigate and refer breaches of the act to the Federal
Court of Canada, says "random snooping" through employees' e-mail
boxes is clearly a breach.
The law applies to federally regulated industries such as banking,
telecommunications, broadcasting and interprovincial transportation.
Mr. Radwanski predicted that the law will soon provide the framework
for similar provincial privacy provisions.
Mr. Radwanski's speech set the stage for a rousing debate at the
conference, which drew industrial relations specialists from both the
labour and management sides.
Management representatives argued that they should be able to use the
tools at their disposal to protect against employee theft, fraud or
unauthorized distribution of "commercially sensitive material."
Electronic monitoring can also uncover e-mail and Internet abuse,
such as the transmission of harassing e-mail messages or the
downloading of pornography.
Bell Canada lawyer Suzanne Morin said company-provided Internet
access "is a privilege, not a right."
The telephone utility, a unit of Montreal-based BCE Inc., permits and
encourages employees to "surf the Net" for personal use, as long as
it does not interfere with job performance and employees do not
violate company policy, Ms. Morin said.
Bell keeps a log of all computer activity, she said, but does not
delve into the content unless there has been a complaint about a
possible breach of company policy. Allegations of fraud, theft,
---ual or racial harassment will be investigated, Ms. Morin said.
Mr. Radwanski declined to comment on specific company policies but
said that he has "no problem" with employers conducting targeted
investigations into suspected policy violations or illegal activity.
Labour lawyer Lorne Richmond, of the Toronto firm Sack Goldblatt
Mitchell, said he is concerned employers will "hide behind" the legal
requirement that they maintain harassment-free workplaces to conduct
widespread electronic surveillance. Arbitrators have restricted the
rights of employers to place employees under video surveillance, he
noted.
The privacy commissioner dismissed the notion that harassment can
only be tracked and stopped through electronic monitoring. Employers
can only be held liable if they have not exercised "due diligence" to
prevent it, he said.
"Get yourself a good harassment policy," he advised employers, and
make sure employees are aware of the acceptable limits of e-mail and
Internet use on company time.
"You're not going to get dinged for liability because you refused to
treat all your employees like suspects and install computer
monitoring software."
Appointed in November to a seven-year term, Mr. Radwanski, a former
journalist, author and public policy researcher, said the
technological revolution has made privacy "the defining issue of this
new decade." Snooping can't be stopped, so "we have to impose our own
limits."