From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 13:26:59 PST
To: David Mandl <dmandl@bear.com>
Subject: Re: Employer Probing Precedents?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951228091552.4338d-100000@goya>
Message-ID: <199512282126.QAA22624@universe.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


David Mandl writes:
>All I'll say here is that I disagree strongly with the views Tim May
>posted about employees' property rights, etc. (though we agree on most
>other things).

I have to agree with David.

I don't think that "property rights" are quite as clear-cut as Tim
claims.  By granting use of certain equipment to a single employee,
such as a desk, a uniform, or personal computer, the employer has
invested that employee with a vague sort of limited ownership of the
item.

The notion that, simply because you're wearing a uniform owned by your
employer, you're subject to physical search at the employer's
discretion is laughable.  The difference between this and searching the
computer on one's desk differ only in degree, IMO.

Property rights *are* fundamental to many other human rights, but they
aren't the exclusive basis of them.  The right of self-determination
isn't based in property (except to the extent that one may be said to
inalienably own oneself, but this is really an analogy), and is equally
fundamental to human rights.

Many of the issues related to workplace privacy concerns exhibit
conflicts between these two.