Anne Wilson wrote: > On Wednesday 06 June 2007 11:41:55 Andy Green wrote: >>> 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. >> Another practical issue is that most IM traffic is encrypted nowadays >> anyway. You can run vnc to see their actual chat session visually or >> turn on their chat logging and check the files on the client it but it >> doesn't sound like it makes for a good work environment... it sounds >> like the kind of thing they'll be wanting to complain about on IM... >> >> Seems to be another good reason not to be employed by a company... >> >> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/06/is_your_boss_reading_you >> r_emai.html >> > I can assure you that it's not nice to know that you can be imprisoned for > something that an employee has done. I'm glad I'm retired and will never > have to employ anyone again. Yep no doubt. But what does it mean? It's now a reasonable duty expected of the company to read all the employee traffic and you are negligent if you're not doing it? Don't worry it's just a rhetorical question. -Andy
