1996-08-03 - Re: Corporate e-mail policy

Header Data

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: gkuzmo@ix.netcom.com (George Kuzmowycz)
Message Hash: 029509f7a9201e45f98e95e2a68b552e1cb12fbe6973c01be2a851af999cf990
Message ID: <199608022351.SAA14955@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <199608021611.JAA13044@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-08-03 02:29:41 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:29:41 +0800

Raw message

From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 10:29:41 +0800
To: gkuzmo@ix.netcom.com (George Kuzmowycz)
Subject: Re: Corporate e-mail policy
In-Reply-To: <199608021611.JAA13044@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199608022351.SAA14955@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


George Kuzmowycz wrote:
>   In an ideal world, the rest of the group would agree with me and say
> "Yup, we have no business reading e-mail." Since that's not likely,
> I'm looking for examples of "privacy-friendly" corporate policies
> that I can put on the table in our meetings, and end up with a
> minority report.  
> 

Maybe it is only me, but I recommend "privacy-fascist" policy. This way
employees will at least know to keep their own business out of computers
that will be monitored by the company anyways.

This is ultimately to the betterment of employees themselves if they
fall prey to complaints of the likes of January KOTM The Right Reverend
Colin James III (puke). For the information of those who do not know
CJ3 made it a hobby to complain to the employers of people whom he did
not like -- with not much success though.

The employees would easily be able to say that the employer has nothing
to do with the alleged matters of complaints.

	- Igor.





Thread