FITUG e.V.
Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft
FITUG e.V.Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft |
|
------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:56:48 -0500 To: cryptography@c2.net From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> Subject: Email surveillance
--- begin forwarded text
From: Somebody To: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah@shipwright.com> Subject: Email surveillance Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:15:54 -0000
UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ ----
Changes for draft snooping code By Jean Eaglesham, Legal Correspondent Published: November 26 2000 21:24GMT | Last Updated: November 27 2000 05:20GMT
The Data Protection Commission is taking a hardline stance on its proposals to curb employers snooping on their staff, despite pressure from industry and a very different government approach.
Elizabeth France, the data protection commissioner, said she "could not imagine" the commission's controversial draft code on workplace surveillance and other data processing would "change in its essence" when the final version appears next spring.
This uncompromising approach is a blow for industry. While the commission says it will take account of the responses to its consultation, business groups are lobbying for radical, not minor, changes to the code.
They warn that the code, barring employers from opening personal messages received at work, may force some companies to ban personal e-mails at work altogether.
Companies that breach the code face enforcement action and potentially unlimited fines if they fail to comply with that action. Businesses believe this legal duty to comply with the 60-page code adds to the regulatory burden on employers.
Industry pressure persuaded the government to back down over rules introduced last month under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. These give employers a largely free hand to snoop, provided that staff are warned their personal e-mails and calls may be monitored.
But Mrs France said the "perceived tensions" between the two approaches were largely a product of "unfortunate timing" - the draft code was issued just days after the revised RIP Act rules were announced, and reflected an earlier version of those rules.
Mrs France said the rules and code were a "two-hurdle test", with employers having to jump over the government's rules then the commission's code - an analogy the Department of Trade and Industry flatly contradicted last month.
She said: "We can't be held responsible for the nature and complexity of the law - it's our job to try and explain it. There is a lot of law out there - it's a matter to be addressed to government and ministers."
The commission's tough approach could also force employers to change their e-mail systems so that - unlike now - deleted messages cannot be retrieved from the hard disc.
David Smith, the assistant data protection commissioner, said: "Our view at the moment is that it should be possible for someone to delete information from the system."
The commission's concern is that it may be unfair to discipline employees for messages they have merely received and deleted.
But businesses are likely to oppose strongly any move to ban the hard disc back-up, which allows them to retrieve messages deleted in error as well as to monitor staff.
NATIONAL NEWS: Employer that refused to laugh off 'joke' e-mails Financial Times, Nov 27, 2000
Not all cases of e-mail abuse by employees are straightorward dismissable offences, writes Jean Eaglesham. Holset Engineering Company, a Huddersfield-based manufacturer of turbo chargers, recently received a complaint from an employee who had been sent a "joke" e-mail in error.
On investigation, the company found a distribution list of 40 staff members for such e-mails. The messages ranged from a cartoon frog in a blender to "sexually explicit cartoons, jokes and lots of innuendo", according to Sandra Bateson, its human resources director.
All 40 employees were disciplined, with the sanctions ranging from a severe reprimand for those who had only received the e-mails - but not deleted or reported them - to the sack in the two most serious cases.
"We took a varied approach. For those people who had distributed the e-mails, we looked at how many they had sent and how offensive in our view that material was," said Ms Bateson.
The two sacked employees claimed for unfair dismissal. However, an employment tribunal earlier this month unanimously rejected their claim, partly because the messages were in breach of clear policies and standards set by the company.
"It shows the importance of explaining to your employees what they can and cannot do and of having a fair process," said Catherine Prest of Hammond Suddards Edge, the law firm that acted for the company. "It is a question of degree (in matching the punishment to the severity of the crime)".
--- end forwarded text