[BC] IT troubles

[JYRussell at academicplanet.com]

Well, I wasn't really highlighting the 'privacy' part as much as the
'reasonableness' test bits.  An employer is not the government (this is
about like arguing that your employer is not a Tax Assesor-Collector,  I
know...)

  I know for a fact that in the last DoD contractor place I was, even the
restrooms were not 'private'.

  My point on it all comes down to how you have no control over that
'reasonableness' part.

sure, your employer has the right to protect their stuff, (including
intellectual) but how does that give them the horsepower to 'search you and
seize you'?  Only by the idea that employees jeopardize the company one way
or another...

if the employers are told by the Fed what they may NOT do, does it follow
that (by assention or omission ) they are also being told by the gov't what
they MAY do?... but how does that include what they SHOULD do (USC 18.01 et
al) outside areas of national interest...?

How often are the employers required to turn in what the record for gvt
perusal??

  IE-It would make sense to monitor conversations on a Keyphone (or any
other COMSEC environment).  Or, monitor calls in and out of a DoD plant.
Sure. there's a documentable reason for it all in a place like that.

Doesn't really seem to make sense to record everything every employee ever
says on any telephone every day at a place like Home Depot though. (but,
they do it.  I promise.  And yes, every employee has a camera on them at all
times.  WHY??? freakin loss prevention for the company.  They can't legally
get too carried away dealing with theiving customers... but they can do
anyting they want with employess.) That is NOT the point of  the law, nor is
it 'in the interest of national security'... to me.

   How do you know the difference between 'necessary and prudent'
monitoring, with some sort of legal due cause... and the employers who 'do
it because we can'... ?


Jason