Re: Employer Probing Precedents?

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 9:51 PM 12/27/95, "Jason D. Livingood/WSC"@hks.net wrote:
>To Whom It May Concern:
>
>I was curious as to where I might find some electronic freedom legal
>precedents.  If, for example, an employer was planning to probe file
>systems on
>PCs in the off-hours and employees began encrypting their hard drives, what
>legal precedents would support the employees or would support the employer in
>blocking the encryption?

Think of it another way.

I have a PC which is for the use of my employee. It is my computer. I am
his employer. He runs the programs I authorize him to, or at least I trust
him to run programs needed to do his job and not use my computer to run a
numbers racket or to manage his drug business. Thus, I reserve the right to
inspect my own computer as I wish. He is free to accept this condition, or
of course to leave.

There can be no valid or reasonable law which says that my computer, which
he uses, is no longer accessible to me because his "electronic privacy"
takes precedence over my property rights. Nor any valid or reasonable law
which says I cannot restrict what encryption programs he uses on *my*
computer.

(There are several on this list who disparage what they call the
"libertarian emphasis on property rights over human rights," or somesuch.
Fact is, property rights are central to all human rights. In the case of my
employee using my computer, the concept of "his" human rights makes little
sense: there is no "democracy" in corporations, as we normally think of
democracy. Nor is there any "right of free speech," and so on. You may not
like this, but this is the way it is, and should be.)

I can't cite case law about "employee privacy," not being a lawyer, but I
know that companies routinely restrict the uses to which their computers
are put (video games, gambling, accessing porn are some obvious examples)
and employees have very little to say about it. Furthermore, companies may
need to look at hard drives to see if pirated software which could expose
them to millions of dollars in damages (and raids by the SPA cops).

I may not _like_ the fact that my employer (if I had one) is rooting
through my hard disk, but it is, after all, his computer, and his liability
if I am using his computers for illegal or unprofessional purposes.

The courts have granted certain types of employee privacy, about things
like the contents of purses and briefcases (though both of these examples
can and do face inspections, as I faced when I worked for Intel). And
monitoring of phone conversations now has a set of rules associated with
it.

But employers can always restrict what kinds of programs can be run on
their computers.

--Tim May

Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."