The Pros And Cons Of Workplace Privacy

If you're using your computer at work, and your company has a stated policy regarding monitoring your use (perhaps even absent that policy, depending on how you read the case law), then you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in anything that you do online using your work computer, whether that's during your work day, after hours, or while traveling. Your company can legitimately "eavesdrop" on anything you do with their equipment, and there's little you can do about it.

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term based on standards and norms about privacy which are held by a society. In the US, the case "Katz v. United States" was the first time the term "reasonable expectation of privacy" was used. What "...a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."[10] This decision provided a precedent to be used in future cases to determine what can be considered private, protected information. Further rulings based on this precedent have established that the expectations of a

employer would be at risk in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. A final issue is that of consistency.

This section of the employee handbook is provided as a guideline for employees to understand the company policy and procedures regarding privacy in the workplace. While this section cannot address every possible scenario that may occur, the general policy will serve as a basis of understanding the key workplace issues and employee privacy. This section addresses privacy issues related to personal background information, off-work activities, and the corporate policy on the use of electronic monitoring. These privacy policies are designed to both provide a clear guideline for employees on the difference between job related and personal privacy. The policies are designed to create a standard set of

The issue of privacy is a big concern in the workplace. With the expanding of new technology, many employees are concern about his or, her privacy in the workplace. Employees have the right to go to work knowing that his or, her employer will not invade their privacy. The rights to privacy in the workplace only provide limited protection for workers against monitoring and breach of confidentiality. The National Work Rights Institute states, under the federal law, "the limited protection the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 provides to employees' has been reduced because the statue has been outdated."

Katz v United States - If you have a reasonable expectation to privacy, you have a legal right to privacy.

Privacy is an especially equivocal idea, in particularly because invasion of privacy is a concept that is arguably questionable. Privacy has been defined as the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. While this definition serves as a quick start to the right of privacy, there are still several interpretations as to what may or may not constitute as an invasion of privacy. What one person may believe to be an innocent curiosity, another may feel as though it is a deliberate invasion of privacy. Often these disputes make their way into courtrooms and are subjected to controversy and evaluation.

Employers have the right and responsibility to monitor their place of business to protect themselves and their employees from invasion . The irony is that this can only be possible if an employer is able to monitor communications and exchanges . Therefore , for a company to be able to afford the protection that employees need , they must surrender in trust their privacy to the company

Every person has the right to privacy, and this right must be extended to the workplace.

Technology is constantly upgrading everyday and it creates unique challenges for individuals privacy rights while there are regulators looking to preserve both privacy rights and technological innovation. For awhile now society has been struggling on how to balance privacy rights and emerging technologies. For example, early as 1890, Newspapers and Photographs were on the rise and legal scholars called for added privacy protections, including enshrining those rights in criminal law. As people have a right to protect their privacy, it is still a struggle while promoting innovation in this fast increasing technology world we live in today.

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

"Privacy. There seems to be no legal issue today that cuts so wide a swath through conflicts confronting American society: from AIDS tests to wiretaps, polygraph test to computerized data bases, the common denominator has been whether the right to privacy outweighs other concerns of society…" This quote from Robert Ellis Smith explains, in one sentence, the absolute need to ensure privacy in the workplace. One of the most interesting, yet controversial, areas concerning public personnel is employee privacy. What limits are there to employers’ intrusions into, and control over, employees’ behaviors and personal properties?

Privacy in the workplace exists only to a certain extent essentially because the organization has the right to search and seizure their property and the employees which utilize it. Therefore, I believe employees generally are limited to the amount of privacy they have on the job. Generally, much of the equipment, devices, and resources utilized at work are the property of the employer and therefore they have the right to monitor what employees are doing. In essence, employers have every right to invade employee privacy while the employees are utilizing the organization's equipment and resources. Further, employee privacy is limited because essentially employees are trying to safeguard the organization from litigation and the erosion of the organization’s reputation.

The law supports the claim that employees have a right to access employees’ emails, although most employees are of the opinion that their employers should not access their emails. The courts have not found any reasonable expectation for the employees to have privacy in the same and therefore, they have always granted permission to the employers to keep an eye on the employees’ activities as well as reviewing it. In a case of Smith v. Pillsbury Co., the plaintiff had sued the employer on the ground that he had wrongfully discharged him after the employer intercepted an email message he considered inappropriate (Jennings, 2005). Smith being an at-will kind of employee, his suit centered on whether by being discharged, it went against Pennsylvania’s public policy thereby falling into the exemption under the general rule which indicate that employees who are employed on the at-will basis can have their employment terminated any time. The defendant was given motion from dismissal of the case since it failed to state a claim. The employer was therefore found not guilty of either invading the employees’ privacy or violating public policy when he terminated smith (Wolkinson & Block, 1996). The employer had created email communication system but had told the employees that it was privileged and confidential. The employer also informed the workforce that their emails would not be intercepted

In most states, employees have a right to privacy in the workplace. This right to privacy applies to the employee's personal possessions, including handbags or briefcases, storage lockers accessible only by the employee, and private mail addressed only to employee. Employees may also have a right to privacy in their telephone conversations or voicemail messages. However, employees have very limited rights to privacy in their e-mail messages and Internet usage while using the employer's computer system.