On 11/7/17, 4:23 PM, "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi Lee, > >On 07/11/17 19:06, Lee Howard wrote: >> You have no right to “intimate privacy†at work on your >>company-owned >> computer on the company network on company time. > >First, I don't think there's any need to (nor liklihood of) >reaching consensus as to the above. FWIW, I don't agree >with you, and nor would various court judgements in some >places in the world. I fully accept that your position is >one shared by a bunch of folks though. Great summary: I am in the minority here, but it is not clear that there is consensus. Out of curiosity, can you point me to courts that have found a right to privacy where all three conditions existed (company device, company network, company time)? > >But in any case, there are many other forms of corporate >surveillance (e.g. kid's toys calling home to the manuf >for dodgy reasons) so I hope you'd agree that we don't >have to have 100% agreement about all of that to agree >that surveillance is not an issue that always involves a >government actor. Yes, that’s where we started. I was pointing out an additional vector of surveillance, which might not be as easily dismissed. Your example is another one (whether the reasons are dodgy or noble). Surveillance does not always involve a government actor, and I think there’s consensus on that. I further assert that there are conditions under which surveillance is not evil, but that statement does not have consensus support. Lee > >S. >