Court Rules Against Work E-mail Snooping

E-mails, Text Messages Are Private When A Third Party Owns The Data, Says Court

(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.

[mcvet]

Great ruling! Big Brother is already in our lives to much as it is!!

[carjenbe]

Ah, the 9th court of appeals, liberal Americana at its finest. I think they all married each other recently.

[faith_in_w]

OK we just threaten to fire the worker if we cant read them. Case close libs. Hahahahahaha

[Latrocinor]

Great ruling! Big Brother is already in our lives to much as it is!!

Posted by MCVet
.. .. ..

Well put. Big Brother needs to get lost.

[xyno-2009]

OK we just threaten to fire the worker if we cant read them. Case close libs. Hahahahahaha

Posted by faith_in_w at 03:29 PM : Jun 19, 2008

---------------

Companies don''t need a reason to fire people -- it''s called "employment at will".

[lorinkundert]

Companies don''''t need a reason to fire people -- it''''s called "employment at will".

Only if the termination does not violate any State or Federal labor or discrimination law, all it takes is an employee to demand that the employer state the reason why the termination did not violate any law, once a reason is given it is no longer at-will.

[aldon61]

texanforlogic 2:21---LOL You''''ve got it backwards bud--you and yours are the ones who spew hate on this board--not my side---I just give back what I get!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by blondbiotch at 02:26 PM : Jun 19, 2008
Depends on your state bubba.

[aldon61]

Companies don''''t need a reason to fire people -- it''''s called "employment at will".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Xyno at 03:38 PM : Jun 19, 2008

This is the post I responded to, the individual states may have no right to work laws.

[aldon61]

Great ruling! Big Brother is already in our lives to much as it is!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by MCVet at 03:25 PM : Jun 19, 2008
+

McVet, you and I normally agree on issues but this time I''m going to need some convincing. An employer grants an email account for an employee to conduct company business. The employer, in my opinion has a right to monitor the content of the messages that are being sent on their behalf. If the messages are of a personal nature, that is NOT company business, but the employer still has a right to review the content because the messages are supposed to be company business. Help me out here, make me understand your slant on this. By the way, did the flooding come very close to you? My home state almost floated away.

[dinkydog1]

About time working people won. Why all these post bashing libs?, preserving our right to privacy is very fundamental and conservative.

[drivelphobe]

Anyone who uses the employer''s equipment, phones or computers, to engage in communications of a personal matter, should be terminated. There is no valid reason, other than an extreme emergency, to have such communications while being paid on company time.

The employer should have every right to listen in on phone calls or have access to emails and text messages to verify their nature if made on company time or equipment.

It is absurd to claim "the people won" in this case. The employers will arrange their systems now to make it legal to verify that the "people", lazy, cheating employees, can be monitored and terminated for being involved in private communications without permission.

If you are an employee and want to make a personal communication, do it on break, on your own equipment or with permission of your employer. Otherwise you are stealing and should suffer the consequences.

Just do the work you are hired to do and quit whining. Many employees are looking for handouts, easy work and less hours, of course with higher pay. They are truly a motley bunch in general and need to be supervised like little children.

It is not fair to the high quality employees to tolerate the abuses of the entitlement grabbers and cheaters.

[andor3]

it is a good ruling, but just common sense that an employer does not have the right to spy on its employees or monitor their communications, or actually do anything other than see if the work they are doing is satisfactory.

Good employers realize this and it is not an issue. In fact, employers can be liable for damages if they are shown to filter email based on keywords, for example.

It comes down to common sense--people need to have communication with families and friends outside of work and no employer has a right to restrict that. Even arrested suspects cannot be held without a phone call.

[andor3]

"I should be able to look at anything I want that is done with ny assets."

Not if you make those assets avaialble to me as an employee for use. If I am your employee and you monitor my communications, there will be serious consequences for you and your company. It will be worse for you if it is not disclosed clearly or discriminates in any way. Executives know this now, talk to a corporate attorney.

[Latrocinor]

About time working people won. Why all these post bashing libs?, preserving our right to privacy is very fundamental and conservative.

Posted by dinkydog1
.. .. ..

Typically right wingers own or try to own other people. They get upset about "All men are created equal"

[haoli25]

I really never minded sharing the ''replica watch'' and ''free money fairy'' e-mails with my employer.

[deacon20081]

I believe in giving employees time during breaks and lunch periods to use the WEB to check their personal email accounts and so forth. E-mail accounts for the business are for Business Use Only, and personal accounts such as yahoo etc are not my concern.
As the administrator I never have to snoop on anyone, I trust the personell to do their jobs and come to me with problems or questions. Acting like Big Brother only makes your personell concious of the fact that they are suspect. The ruling is a good ruling.

[sblake63]

Lmao at some of you LOW INCOME people. But why does anybody need a ancient wire tied LAN connected PC anymore especially at work? Anyway, would you transmit personal business over it? Anybody ever hear of a web enabled smart phone? Lmao it has a full function browser, email, messengers. And best of all most of them cost 500 bucks or less - dirt cheap. These things have so many features you barely need a desk top any more!

Please don''t tell me some of you still use ancient clam shell cell phones with no data service plans? if so Lmfao at you - YOU SHOULD BE FIRED for accessing the web or personal email using THE COMPANIES internet access! In this day and age of portable devices that have full internet capabilities, you have NO EXCUSE!

[ddkem]

I totally disagree with the ruling. If an employer is providing the computer, pager, cellphone or whatever device, they should have 100% authority to know how it''s being used! This ruling will only allow slackers to slack even more and sue if they feel like their slacking was violated :-)

[oneworldusa]

I never use my work e-mail for personal use. It just potentially invites spam anyway, which I do not want at work. I rarely check my personal e-mail at work.

If a company wants to see everything I do on their computers, fine I have nothing to hide. All they really care is that I get my job done, mostly.

[gkc99]

"No Employee has the right to steal time. Things went along just fine before email and cell phones, but now the world can''''t get along without them who are you kidding.
Before I retired I was the President of a Company with 28 plants and 6400 employees and I did just fine with that old thing called a telephone"--Posted by dmw1167


Employees can steal time because a$$hole employers like you steal our lives and health.

******* CEOs destroyed employer-employee loyalty in the USA. When you creeps started throwing away employees like used Kleenexs, we acquired the right to f*ck you over any way we could.

Don''t like it?--tought *******.

[magoo2u1]

Get a grip. CEOs have been sending their secretaries out to buy their wives birthday presents, kids Christmas and their lunch since *** discrimination was invented. Why cry about a text message ,which is quicker than an on-the-clock phone call,to have honey pick up the kids ''cause your running late. What bugs them is a few "percks" have filtered down to the little guy and they hate us for it. They think it''s fair to fire people all day for failing drugs tests because they ate a bagel with poppy seeds.But they think it''s unfair you might have a moment or a life.

[luvwknd69]

Intellectual property rights! The data on the computer, cell phone etc that is owned by the company is not their property so they don''t have the right to view it!
Pretty simple really, I don''t ever know what the issue was in the first place. How would all you nay-sayers of this new law feel if the RIAA came into your house and started snooping around your music collection just because they "OWN" those songs? You wouldn''t like it now would you? So your boss shouldn''t have the right to view your email or text messages either just because they own the device doesn''t mean they own the data!

[ontheleft]

Never fear, the conservative Supreme Court will overturn the ruling. Business interests come first.

[cyberus-2009]

OMFGBBQ!

First Habeas corpus is reaffirmed and now *PRIVACY*

[drivelphobe]

gkc99..

Your input only makes further illustrates why employers must monitor employee communications. It is the employers'' business, their equipment, and you are theirs while on the clock. Quit if you don''t like it.

What''s so funny is, that while you think you are *** the company, the boss muses knowing that he could pay you three times what you earn and it wouldn''t make any difference. When I had my business, if I wasn''t making five times what I paid each employee, something was wrong.

Anyway, most employees share your low-life opinion and therefore, the employer will always come out on top as they should. Employees have no right to use employer-paid time, equipment or information for any kind of personal use. It is clearly theft, mixed in with deceit. That''s one reason most employees end up with nothing but a measly pension at best and waiting at the mailbox for their Social Security checks. I''m certain that''s your position in life.

I rewarded the good employees generously and gleefully dished out just rewards for those who thought and acted as you profess.

[afranco297]

If you''re using your employer''s computer and network then your employer has EVERY RIGHT to monitor how you use these resources! How do you expect a right of privacy when you''re at work? If you''re doing right then you have nothing to worry about and will not at all be threatened by employer monitoring. There are employees who use their employer''s resources for personal business and even to run outside businesses. If I was an employer I''d want to reserve the right to monitor employee computers.

[afranco297]

IN RESPONSE TO luvwknd69.
"just because they own the device doesn''''t mean they own the data!"
EXCUSE ME! WHEN YOU''RE BEING PAID A SALARY BY AN EMPLOYER AND PROVIDED WITH HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, OTHER RESOURCES, AN OFFICE, ETC. ETC. THE EMPLOYER MOST CERTAINLY DOES OWN OR AT THE VERY LEAST SHARE IN OWNERSHIP OF THE DATA! ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ARE GENERALLY NEGOTIATED IN CONTRACTS, (e.g. COLLEGE PROFESSORS AND COURSE MATERIAL OR INVENTIONS)
"How would all you nay-sayers of this new law feel if the RIAA came into your house and started snooping around your music collection just because they "OWN" those songs? You wouldn''''t like it now would you?"
EXCUSE ME AGAIN. THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE COMING INTO YOUR HOME AND LOOKING AT YOUR COMPUTER AND AN EMPLOYER MONITORING USE OF THEIR OWN RESOURCES IN THEIR OWN OFFICE. ALSO, MUSIC ANALOGY DOESN''T FIT. ASSUMING YOU LEGITIMATELY PAID FOR THE MUSIC, YOU OWN IT (THEY OWN RIGHTS TO SELL, BUT ONCE YOU PURCHASE, YOU THEN OWN MUSIC ON YOUR COMPUTER OR ELSEWHERE). YOUR ANALOGIES JUST DON''T FIT!
"So your boss shouldn''''t have the right to view your email or text messages either just because they own the device doesn''''t mean they own the data!"
AGAIN, ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! IF EMPLOYER IS PAYING YOU A SALARY THEN THEY DO OWN THE DATA OR AT THE VERY LEAST SHARE IN OWNERSHIP OF THE DATA.

[afranco297]

No one has mentioned that employers need to monitor their computers in order to prevent criminal activity. If illegal material such as child pornography is discovered on an employee''s computer guess who''s liable? The employer needs to monitor to protect the company as well as other employees and perhaps people outside the company from criminal activity.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[bobnjersey]

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

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".

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.

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....