On 08/11/17 03:36, Lee Howard wrote: > 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)? First, IANAL etc. but I had a quick look. There's the recent ECHR case, [1,2] (which I assume is the same as the story behind the NYT paywall that Christian sent:-) On that one, I'd not be surprised if advance notice is insufficient to allow employers to try snarf everything - there's also a requirement for proportionality that I'd bet will come back into play as we go along. There's a similar sounding article about a Canadian case [3] as well. Our local data protection commission guidance [4] also says similar things about not being covert etc. And Germany as usual seems more protective of worker's rights [5] saying a "concrete suspicion" is needed, for at least some forms of monitoring, though that case involved a keylogger. If I'm reading those right I think they all involve all 3 of your conditions being satisfied and also all place further constraints on what it's ok for employers to do. Cheers, S. [1] https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2017/09/06/workplace-surveillance-privacy/ [2] https://medium.com/@privacyint/privacy-international-response-to-grand-chamber-of-the-european-court-for-human-rights-barbulescu-v-cc722b73086b [3] http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/226944/Data+Protection+Privacy/Courts+Recognize+Employee+Privacy+Rights+In+Workplace [4] https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Guidance-Notes-Monitoring-of-Staff/m/208.htm [5] https://www.hldataprotection.com/2017/08/articles/international-eu-privacy/new-case-law-on-restrictions-for-employee-monitoring-in-the-workplace-in-germany/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature