On Wednesday 06 June 2007 12:28:09 Anne Wilson wrote: > On Wednesday 06 June 2007 07:37:14 Manuel Arostegui Ramirez wrote: > > El Martes, 5 de Junio de 2007 20:11, Anne Wilson escribió: > > > On Tuesday 05 June 2007 18:57:16 Manuel Arostegui Ramirez wrote: > > > > El Martes, 5 de Junio de 2007 19:45, Frank Cox escribió: > > > > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:25:58 +0200 > > > > > > > > > > I assume this is to prevent anyone from saying, "But I told you on > > > > > MSN that I wanted you to sell that stock yesterday" after the > > > > > bottom falls out. > > > > > > > > If that's true, why not only keeping a log of the company instant > > > > messaging system? (If available) > > > > > > > > The point was, I'd like to know if he's going to inform his users > > > > about all this stuff > > > > > > UK law admits that there are some situations where it is necessary or > > > desirable. Recording such traffic is perfectly legal, *providing* the > > > individual's contract of employment states that it is company policy. > > > > Like for example....? (just curiosity) > > As someone remarked about the US, employers here are legally responsible > for the actions of their employees. I can't tell you any specific > circumstances where companies would decide that it is necessary. I believe > that companies where a lot of employees have Internet access do sometimes > put this into their policy, not to use routinely, but in case they need to > investigate a problem. The key point is that employees must have been told > in their contract that they can be monitored. It cannot be legally done > without the knowledge of the employee in question. > > Anne Yeah, that's the point. Thus, that's the reason I asked the original poster of the thread (who has not appeared again) about if his users were going to be aware of the fact that all their communications are going to be or could be monitored -- Manuel Arostegui Ramirez. Electronic Mail is not secure, may not be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues.
