Date: Tue, 03 Aug 93 16:21:05 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#008 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 03 Aug 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 008 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: First Person broadcast on privacy Re: First Person broadcast on privacy Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work Re: First Person broadcast on privacy Re: America Online censor America Online censor The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dorothy Klein Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy Date: 2 Aug 93 21:56:52 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. I actually SAW this piece, out of a morbid curiosity as to how stupidly they could put the situation. What follws is the situation as I recall it being presented. Keep in mind I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention. The sticking point is that the person who was doing the complaining had been some kind of lowish level computer tech (perhaps setting up accounts without really knowing the guts of the system), who had specifically asked about security, had been told of COURSE nobody could or would read e-mail, and to go ahead and tell everyone they could use the e-mail and feel secure. She later tripped over a pile of e-mail printouts, with one of hers on the top, in her boss's office, and was told it was none of her business -- shortly before Epson fired her. Epson fired her on 15 minutes' notice, and someone saying they were at Epson called the local 911 number while she was cleaning out her desk saying that she was violent, irrational, and had a gun (and gave her full name) -- NBC presented what sounded like the original 911 phone tape, without any "dramatization" disclaimers. (No mention was made of what the police had to say about a fraudulent call to 911.) So: If I ask my company whether it's OK to send my bills out in the company mailsack, am told yes it's OK and nobody will bother with them, then stumble across photocopies of my Visa bill on the boss's desk, is that OK? When I call my boss on what can at best be construed as an unannounced policy change, should I be fired within the week? Should the SWAT team be called to remove me from the premises? The whole sticking point was that the employee had asked about privacy, had been told it existed, and when she found out otherwise, was fired and the police were called. Dorothy Klein ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 18:48 PDT From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy John De Armond writes: > If you want private E-mail, rent an account > on a system unrelated to work. If you want private voice-mail, do the same. > And if you want private paper mail, drop it in a US Postal service box. There are practical reasons for not loading the company's communications facilities with your private communications, or at least not depending upon them. Recently, a friend of mine was laid off from a large (VERY large) company. In the five years that he worked there, he had managed to get an e-mail account, voicemail, a company pager, and cellular account. He used the company's central mailing address as his own. He regularly used the company fax and other facilities for his own personal use. Nobody cared because EVERYBODY did it. Suddenly, he was virtually without communications. No e-mail, no voicemail, nothing. What a scramble! He had to get an account on a private system for e-mail (this one!), scrounged a fax machine, had his pager moved to another account, etc., etc. The point is that you, the employee, are not in control of your employer's communications facilities. When you are not in control of a facility (or an account thereon), you lose not only expectations of privacy, but also convenience, particularly concerning your personal correspondence. Stephen M Jameson writes: [Re: The concept that the employer owns the computer and has a right to do with it as he deems necessary.] > In all > seriousness (i.e. non-rhetorical question here) I ask those of you who like to > talk about "privacy rights" on company-owned computer systems: > > 1) Have you never heard nor thought of this line of reasoning? > 2) If so, do you know of a reasonable rebuttal? The avoidance of this issue comes from what can best be described as a sense of entitlement by employees. When I was a principle in a medium-sized firm, it seemed that each and every employee considered himself/herself a part owner. Company-provided facilities were used for any purpose the employee deemed necessary, even in the light of employee manual directives to the contrary. The attitude comes down to "we work hard and deserve to have whatever it is that we think we deserve to have." If this is free, private telephone calls or unlimited use of the company's voicemail, or even consumption of the firm's credit balance at a nice restaurant at lunchtime, then so be it. That employees feel a divine right to private, unrestricted use of company facilities should be of no surprise to anyone who has found himself in the position of hiring help. This was particularly annoying when dealing with people who had come from large corporations, where no one has the time to monitor anything or care about its use. Once such person was asked about a string of calls to a distant city shortly after beginning employment at my firm. The indignant reply was, "That is private business. How dare you question me about my private business?" The person was given a choice: answer the question or pay the bill. And this is the bottom line: when an employee starts paying for his own usage of company or any other facilities, then he can start raising questions about privacy. And not until then. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 03:07 GMT From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy at work On the subject of privacy at work, what liability does the employer have with respect to employees actions? I would have to agree with previous posts about companies having the right to monitor the systems it pays for and personal email phone calls etc. having no business using company resources. With the easy abuse of the telephone for 900 calls etc. it seems like it is more than fair for a company to safeguard itself and the systems it pays for for the purposes of conducting its business (NOT for its employees personal affairs). Christopher Zguris CZGURIS@MCIMail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 01:02:51 PDT From: hugh_davies.wgc1@rx.xerox.com Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy In Computer Privacy Digest V3#007, Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> says; <... For example, cellular phones have been monitored for a long time because they operate in readily-tunable frequencies. This is now becoming an issue because it has become public knowledge- the result is pressure on cellular providers to go with digital cellular to help keep calls private. ...> Would that this were true. In fact what is happening is that the cellular providers are putting pressure on Governmental agencies to ban receivers capable of picking up cellular phone calls, or to make their use illegal. What's worse is that the introduction of digital cellular is being delayed because the encryption provided was *too* good for the Government's liking. Regards, Hugh. ----------------------------------------------------- Huge.wgc1@rx.xerox.com Rank Xerox Technical Centre, WGC, UK. ------------------------------ From: Ian G Batten Subject: Re: America Online censor Organization: Fulcrum Communications Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 12:17:14 GMT In article Matthew Lyle writes: > submit, publish, or display on America Online any defamatory, inaccurate, ^^^^^^^^^^ good thing that rules doesn't apply to usenet. ian ------------------------------ From: Craig Wagner Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1993 10:57:01 Subject: America Online censor RM> From: Robert Martin RM> If a group of people wish to have a particular type of discussion, and RM> there is general agreement as to what sort of discussion they wish to RM> pursue, boorish behavior "forces" the group to use the killfile in RM> order to meet their goal. This amounts to (possibly) hundreds of RM> people forced into an action that -most- people would rather not do. RM> We've all been taught that it's impolite to ignore people. No, we haven't. In fact, Miss Manners teaches just the opposite. Specifically that some types of socially unacceptable behavior are justification for ignoring those who engage in them. RM> The coercion of forcing one boor to be polite or get out is relatively RM> little coercion, and therefore the better way to handle things - less RM> coercion and, in the long run, less repeats of this sort of thing, and RM> therefore likely to be less polarizing. I sympthasize with your position, but disagree with your reasoning. There's no coercion involved in ignoring someone, and doing so is not impolite. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #008 ******************************