wk 5 individual

7/30/2019 Wk 5 Individual

1/5

1

Employee Privacy Report

James Ayers

COM285

17 March 2010

Fred Steingraf


2/5


3/5

3are three exceptions that companies use to bypass the EPCA. The provider exception which

states that that as long as a company provides the e-mail system. This fact alone will exempt the

majority of employers. The second exemption is the ordinary course of business exception. This

basically means that the company if done through the ordinary course of business may look at

electronic communications. The final exception is the consent exception. This requires that

the company obtain consent of the employee to monitor their e-mail. The minimum that an

employer has to accomplish to obtain this exemption is to send out the companies e-mail policy

out to each employee. There is an act called the Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act (NEMA)

act that requires that employers notify employees at the time of hire and annually.

The majority of oversight for e-mail and internet usage must be done by the individual

company. Because of this each individual company must provide their own policies and

procedures for dealing with e-mail and internet privacy issues. At the company I work for they

have a policy that all regular employees get internet access. There is a website filter on web

sites. The filter only allows the individual to go to company approved sites. The number of

actual sites that can be reached is extremely limited. Specifically designated individuals can

have an access code that allows full internet usage. These people are selected by need to reach

or search out new products, services, and clients. With both groups of web usage, there is

internet monitoring. All web pages and keystrokes are logged and are run through a database of

unacceptable words. Once there is a hit in the database the information technology people will

be automatically notified. Email is also monitored at the company I work for. While all email is

logged and scanned by a database, there is no filter on where the email is sent. There are filters

that prevent email from being received by certain servers.


4/5

4Most employees believe that their emails are not being watched and that they can say or

do what they want in a personal email at work. This belief can get many employees in to

trouble. The fact of the matter is that most employees e-mails are being monitored. This

In the case of Burke v. Nissan Motor Company, the company fired an employee after

certain e-mails were intercepted. The employee sent off some email messages that talked

negatively about management. Once the e-mails were intercepted they were then read by

administrators and management. The employee ended up suing the company. In a separate case,

Flanagan v. Epson America, Inc an employee was fired for refusing to help intercept other

employee e-mails. Each of these cases the state ruled in the companies favor.

The fact is most people feel secure in their privacy at work. This is in fact far from the

truth. The laws do provide minimal protection but it cannot be counted on. To prevent any

issues at work a person should refrain from making personal e-mails.


5/5

5References

Journal. (2001).Monitoring Employee E-Mail: Eficient Workplaces Vs. Employee Privacy, (), .

Retrieved fromhttp://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html

Locker, K., & Kienzler, D. (2008).Business and Administrative Communication (8th ed.). New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Periodical. (1996).Monitoring, 40(4), 70-71.Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9467917&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13118&RQT=

309&VName=PQD
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.htmlhttp://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.htmlhttp://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.htmlhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9467917&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9467917&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9467917&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9467917&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQDhttp://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=9467917&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQDhttp://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html

wk 5 individual

Documents