From: dmandl@panix.com (David Mandl)
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 95 13:02:58 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks)
Subject: Re: The little sex kitten
Message-ID: <v01530501ac4040bb01c2@[166.84.250.21]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:57 AM 7/29/95, Philip Zimmermann wrote:
>JUDGE RULES ON E-MAIL PRIVACY CASE
>
>TULSA, OKLA -- The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled on a case that many
>legal experts believe clearly delineates the e-mail privacy rights of
>computer users in the workplace.  Judge Stan Musing declared that employees
>have a right to expect that their empolyers will refrain from monitoring
>e-mail messages transmitted on company systems.

Far as I can tell, this is meaningless.  If you sign a paper "consenting"
to email monitoring by your employer, they've got a green light, period.
And under those circumstances, I'd think very few companies would be
foolish enough not to just ask you to sign.  So the only ones who have to
worry are those who don't get your "permission" first, and probably more
and more companies will just be more up front about it in the future.

The tightwad, privacy-loathing scumbags I work for sprang just such a
document on us recently, and after squirming and bitching about it for a
while, I actually did sign, simply because I wasn't prepared to lose my job
at that point.  My fear, based on well-established tradition, is that
eventually this will become widespread and more and more employers will
monitor email, with coerced "consent."

   --Dave.

--
Dave Mandl
dmandl@panix.com
http://wfmu.org/~davem