Date: Tue, 03 Aug 93 16:21:05 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <comp-privacy-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
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 <dak@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
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 <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: First Person broadcast on privacy
John De Armond <gatech!dixie.com!jgd@uunet.uu.net> 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 <sjameson@atl.ge.com> 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 <I.G.Batten@fulcrum.co.uk>
Subject: Re: America Online censor
Organization: Fulcrum Communications
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 12:17:14 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.5.2@pica.army.mil> Matthew Lyle <matt@ra.oc.com> writes:
> submit, publish, or display on America Online any defamatory, inaccurate,
^^^^^^^^^^
good thing that rules doesn't apply to usenet.
ian
------------------------------
From: Craig Wagner <craig.wagner@his.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1993 10:57:01
Subject: America Online censor
RM> From: Robert Martin <gnat@panix.com>
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
******************************