Employees at Harvard University are in an uproar because administrators searched through their e-mails. They’re right to be upset. But Harvard didn’t violate any laws by combing through their communications, nor did it break any promises it had made. In fact, what the university did is what almost all employers across America have the right to do. The real outrage isn’t what happened at Harvard. It’s that what happened at Harvard can happen anywhere.
If you write a letter to a friend while at work using a company pen and then mail it using a company-owned stamp, it’s still private. (You might be accused of abuse of company time or of stealing the stamp, but the letter itself remains confidential.) Not so with e-mails. Employers typically claim employees should expect no privacy whatsoever. It’s an absurd distinction.
Comments
If you are using the company's computer to send personal electroninc messages you have no expectation of privacy. It is not absurd. Do your personal writing on your personal time, at home or on lunch with your hand held device. Conducting your personal business on company time is not what an employer is paying you for. (No, I don't own a business). However, if any of those emails are between the individual and their personnel office, or responding to a manger's request for information and insight, then those communications should be treated as business confidential.
Office employees can be the biggest bunch of whiners at times.
A person working in a factory never has this "problem". The clerk at the convenience store doesn't have it either. Or the one in the department store.
But office employees? They sit in their cubicles, stealing company time, writing emails to their friends and family. They type those emails on company owned computers, send them out over company owned intranet systems.
But because they addressed them to a friend, the email is supposed to be private? This reminds me of people who sit in an office, get on the phone to have a personal call, then tell everyone "this is PRIVATE!" and expect everyone else to scamper away. Nah, it is not private, the person is at WORK.
The real problem is that many people have become huge blabbermouths and think that every little thing they do or happens to them must be broadcast to every friend and acquaintance they know. It is why so many "like" Facebook.
This may be the only post you've ever written that I agree with.
This comment has been removed.
I'm retired now, just a few years, but when I was working I had an employee provided computer on my desk, as did all other employees. We had directive about its professional vs personal use during the workday. Most employees followed those rules, i.e., no shopping online for products, personal travel arrangements, x-rated sites, etc., Early on personal e-mailing was not verboten. I personally was always aware of that the computer on my desk was my employer's not mine. A case in the genesis years of computers at work involved the NYT and its employees. I recall that a New York State Supreme Court ruling found very much in favor of the NYT and some employees were let go. Nothing severely egregious as I recall, just over use of the desktop computers for what the bosses at the Times decided was way too much personal business on the company's time. A solution, now one can do all their personal stuff on their own iPhones, iPads and like devices to avoid self incriminating communications on the company's computers.
Wrong Wrong
Your employer has the right to see what you are sending. You are using company property and representing the company. How could a company defend itself in a lawsuit against a client based on an email - if they couldn't see the email.
The analogy with a letter and a stamp is incorrect - the correct analogy is sending a letter on a company letterhead - I would assume in that case the employer would have a right to know what is in the letter.
All email sent using government accounts are a matter of public record.
BTW - just as a matter of practicality - if you are worried about your personal emails being viewed by a company use a personal web email account.
This comment has been removed.
How does this get printed?
a key item left out of this article: your phone conversations on company time, on company equipment, is protected by law. It cannot be recorded or listened to without a warrant.
One form of communication is private, the other is not.
Not if you're in an industry that requires recorded lines. No need for a warrant, you just need to make the person on the other end of the line aware (which is usually done with that annoying beeping)
So according to Mr. Keane, because he cannot be bothered to use his own property to send and receive private messages an employer must be subjeted to restrictions on what s/he can do with her/his own property.
I think we can chalk this one up to a somewhhat mild expression of the entitlement culture.
Concur with and augment tsynchronous' POV by noting that risk aware organizations, including those subject to various federal, state, & industry regulations, as well as their own corporate policies, must have controls in place to assure that information privacy and security requirements are served. This is true irrespective of whether the media is paper or, excluding voice, electronic formats. Whether an employee uses corporate resources to send/receive, snail-mail or e-mail, their employer may, if sufficiently mature in this space, already be inspecting it to ensure only authorized and compliant communications are enabled. Remember as well, unless your electronic communications are encrypted, the content can be viewed, purposefully or inadvertently, by the many systems/individuals involved in its transmission along the way (sort of like sending a postcard).
The comments above say far more about the authoritarian mind set of the commenters than about the costs and benefits of treating your employees like children. If the leadership at Harvard really thought that perusing their employees' emails was OK, why weren't they up front about it?
Your comment is right on target. It also raises the question of who would want to work in such a culture. Being upfront about the investigation would have gained them some respect. Maybe those that were investigated will be updating their resumes.
The author of this article is very naive! Plus...in almost every office I have worked over the past 20 years, my bosses have ALWAYS opened my snail mail before it ended up on my desk.
I don't think anyone who works in an office considers any email they send to be private!