I heard about this on NPR a few days ago. Part of it is that 1) he's a police officer. 2) The department's OLD policy was that the employees could use the departmental equipment all they wanted as long as they paid for the overage. Later, the department got curious about the overages and decided to look at like the top 5 or 10 users and that's when they went in to look at the usage. Previously, the *stated* policy had been as described. Most places now say that the company owns the equipment and such. I'm going to have to review our policies here, I think, to make sure that we're covered.
John-AldrichTile-Tools From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:44 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: How is this even in question? It's a question because lawyers are involved. :-) I think it's interesting that the article doesn't mention what kind of case it actually is. A separate article stated that he and the girlfriend (not the wife, or maybe ex-wife by now) are suing over 'privacy violations'. It isn't clear what harm they suffered. Was the outing of the affair the harm, or something worse like wrongful termination or public ridicule. Was the existence of the text messages made public outside of those parties with reasonable right to know about them such as HR, supervisors, etc? On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM, David Lum <david....@nwea.org> wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/worklife/04/20/work.text.email.privacy/index. html?hpt=C1 Company owns the device, company owns the information on it, why should I expect privacy on a device I didn't buy and don't own? David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
