Court Rules Against Work E-mail Snooping

(AP)  A federal appeals court has made it more difficult for employers to snoop legally on e-mails and text messages their workers send from company accounts.

Under Wednesday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, employers that contract an outside business to transmit text messages can't read them unless the worker agrees.

Users of text-messaging services "have a reasonable expectation of privacy" regarding messages stored on the service provider's network, Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote in the three-judge panel's unanimous opinion.

The ruling limits employers' access to employee e-mail on internal servers.

The text-message part of the ruling will affect more employers than the e-mail portion because most U.S. companies pay outside parties for text-messaging but keep e-mail on internal servers, analysts said.

The judges had few precedents, Wardlaw acknowledged in the ruling.

"The extent to which the Fourth Amendment provides protection for the contents of electronic communications in the Internet Age is an open question," she wrote.

A civil liberties advocacy group called the ruling a "tremendous victory" for online privacy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a posting online that the ruling helps ensure the Fourth Amendment "applies to your communications online just as strongly as it does to packages and letters."

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Ontario police Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers after Arch Wireless gave their department transcripts of Quon's text messages in 2002. Police officials read the messages to determine whether department-issued pagers were being used solely for work purposes.

"I think right now service providers are going to be a little leery of providing anything to the subscriber because of this case," said John Horowitz, a lawyer representing Arch Wireless.

Dimitrios Rinos, an attorney for the city of Ontario and its police department, said his clients probably will appeal the ruling.

and comparing someone renting out their house to company''s email is stupid, because the company is not renting out the email server....GOOD GRIEF what a stupid statement....

andor3, I work for a company in the IT department and we don''t snoop on anyone''s email, because frankly, we don''t have time. But if an employee opens up an email containing something illegal, we will know about it. All attachments have to be authorized through our department, even the owners email is scanned that way. It''s all about SPAM, ADWARE and VIRUSES, nothing more. Several years ago, someone opened up an email with an attachment, and BAM.....her outbox filled with 130 emails....took almost all day to fix the virus. So don''t start spouting off privacy issues when it is a company owned server.

RTFA bobnjersey "The ruling limits employers'' access to employee e-mail on internal servers.

The text-message part of the ruling will affect more employers than the e-mail portion because most U.S. companies pay outside parties for text-messaging but keep e-mail on internal servers, analysts said".

[bobnjersey]

so what''s the change w/ respect to the email? the piece only refers to the text messaging.

[concorde5]

Bush has rolled back privacy rights so far I''m surprised at this ruling. Your employer can''t snoop on your text messages but Bush can. Today they are voting to give Telecom companies immunity for turning over your calls and texts to the Government but your employer can''t snoop. Hmmmmm.....

Typical neocon way of thinking.

[terrorislami]

HUSSEIN IS SOFT ON FASCIST NAZI TERRORISLAMIST JIHADISTS,,,

HELL HIS KENYAN FAMILY AND TRIBE ARE FASCIST NAZI TERRORISLAMIST JIHADISTS,,,

Obama Sides With Radical Islamists

The magnitude of difference between the two candidates running in our presidential election could not be more stark! After reading the statements of both Obama and McCain regarding the horrible Supreme Court 5-4 decision to allow Gitmo detainees the right to be tried in civilian courts, we can clearly see what a flawed, unfortunate, and terrible direction Obama would take this country if [God forbid!!]elected in November.

Obama''s statement:

Barack Obama statement on the Supreme Court''s 5-4 decision today extending civilian legal protections to terrorist suspects held in Guantanamo Bay:

Um...er...earth to Obama? Foreign terrorists caught in battle against our forces during war have never been eligible for "habeas corpus"! They are not covered by the Constitution of the United States of America. So...what "rule of law" are you referring to?
http://talkwisdom.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-sides-with-radical-islamists.html

[andor3]

one issue with the US is that people often attach too much meaning to the concept of "ownership." It is just a legal construct that assigns certain rights. But owning something does not mean you have complete, unlimited rights to do with it as you please, no matter how much "owners" might try to claim that.

For example, if you own a house and rent it out, you cannot control what the renter does or does not do, who they invite over, what they put in the house. You cannot even enter on your property or into your house without good reason and fair notice, and even then you can''t say a lot if you do not like what you see as long as the renter is not violating the law or lease.

Once you agree to provide a house, you give up certain rights to control how it is used.

Same if an employer provides a comnputer to an employee to do a job. As long as they do the job and do not violate the law or terms of employment, the employer has no right to control the computer contents or usage.

[andor3]

How can anyone seriously think an employer has any right to snoop on employees and personal communications? Get a grip on reality... The employer does not own the employee or his/her time, or his/her thoughts, or his/her data. That is just common sense and the court has affirmed that again.

Most attorneys advise employers against even doing SPAM filtering of employee email at the server, because it can be construed as snooping, discrimination, harassment.

Empoyers who try this kind of BS and do not trust their people get what they deserve--simply put: talented and professional people will not work under these conditions.

It is very simple: monitor your employees email and it is not the courts that will get you, it is your employees and competitors that will drive you out of business.

[guest173]

but I admit I am a little confused if this article is stating it is the employer''s electronics or if it is someone''s personal stuff. If it is personal, then I see where a judge can say leave it alone, but then the employer should make a rule to their employees not to use personal equipment for business purposes. I guess that''s my 2 cents.

[guest173]

I don''t agree with that judge''s ruling, if it is about employees using employer equipment. You are a paid worker and if you are representing that company, there shouldn''t be anything to hide and accountability will keep everything legitimate.