Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement

[Lee Howard <lee@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 2:56 PM
To: Lee Howard <lee@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Proposal to revise ISOC's mission statement

On Nov 7, 2017, at 06:59, Lee Howard <Lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11/7/17, 4:59 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[…] While the latter may have some fig-leaf of so-called "consent" or clicked-EULA, it's the same information being gathered/centralised etc. (And of course the latter form of surveillance can nicely feed the former when companies are compelled.)

Another form of corporate surveillance is monitoring your employees’ use of your corporate resources. I hope we don’t collectively object to that. Similarly, parents may surveill their childrens’ use of family resources.

Those are dissimilar with respect to the issue of consent. It’s one thing to use surveillance technologies in the role of legal guardian for dependents without capacity for consent, and it’s an entirely different thing to use a contract of adhesion to coerce subordinates into “consenting” to give up their rights to intimate privacy.

You have no right to “intimate privacy” at work on your company-owned computer on the company network on company time.

And there’s a lot of dirty business hiding under that phrase “monitoring your employees’ use of your corporate resources” when you consider that your employees have personal identities in social media that can, at any moment, become involved in a viral public relations disaster. When corporations regard the personal online activity of their employees, using personal resources at home on their own time, as bearing on the public brand identity, using that to justify surveilling their employees private social activity, and further insist on employees “consenting” to this surveillance as terms of their employment, that’s hardly similar to a parent monitoring their kids’ porn habits.

Who said anything about “personal resources at home on their own time”?

Trying to expand my statement to include that is more than simply disingenuously building a straw man to throw down a slippery slope, it’s dishonest.

Lee