This is a topic that has been covered many times here, and as said before,
the answer is a definite

IT DEPENDS...

If there is a written policy for incidental use of an employer's computer
equipment and networks by employees while at work that specifies WHAT an
employee is (and is not) allowed to use the systems for, and the employee
has reviewed and signed (or clicked to agree to) it, then there should be no
questions.  In addition, if the policy states what expectations of privacy
the employee should expect for this information (and it generally does, if
it's well written) then that also should not be called into question.

Some employers have a more generous policy than others, however employees
should not abuse that policy... and there are things you can do to have some
degree of 'privacy' about this type of information, like setting up folders
to isolate it from other content, and periodically copying it off to a CD,
DVD or other removable media, then deleting it from the system.  Naturally,
if your system is on a network that is periodically backed up that won't
prevent your information from being on the backups, but it will prevent you
from 'clogging up the system' with non business information.  Also, as
backups are recycled, it will eventually disappear.

And this advice is not intended to suggest you circumvent the policy
regarding improper computer use, only to provide an alternative to having
your 'personal information' strewn all about the system.  If you keep a copy
of the removable media  in the workplace, you can always access the
information from it without having it "live" on the system in the future.

The comments about municipal and other systems controlled by local or other
Government entities and Sunshine, FOIA, and other regulations are completely
correct... there should be NO EXPECTATION of privacy on these systems, as
they belong to "the people" who paid for their purchase and to support them.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

And about that CA case (Quan vs Arch), this was an exception to the rule, as
in many cases there were determined to be extenuating circumstances and a
technicality... essentially, the case turned on the determination that
although the subscriber was the City of Ontario (the employer) Arch was not
allowed to provide the content because they were classified as an "ECS", not
an "RCS", so it truly did not rule on the basis of the Forth Amendment 
http://snipurl.com/gx9qr  

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]