RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: RAINdrip: Quon vs. The City of Ontario
From:
"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
[log in to unmask]
Date:
Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:59:29 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines) 
Am I missing something in regards to the Quon decision? &nbsp;Isn't the point that if an employee uses a device from an employer for personal purposes-- or for professional purposes-- the employee does not have a right to privacy? &nbsp;It's a no-brainer. &nbsp;More disturbing is the fact that 25 out of 28 daily texts were personal. &nbsp;I wonder if the other 3 &nbsp;messages were related to lunch or breaks.

As for the explicit nature of the texts to his mistress and wife, is there an obscenity law prohibiting that in the same way that the FCC regulates over-the-air radio&amp;tv transmissions? &nbsp;
Is it the device (pager/cellphone) or the messages that are at issue?


David Kay
--
On Jun 18, 2010 9:58 AM, Graves, Mark &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt; wrote: 

Yes, I think the juicier issue regarding privacy will definitely be around social networking.  When it reaches the courts, I'm sure the major issues will be around the nature of the network (there are BIG differences among Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn), and whether the employee is identifying him/herself as an employee of an organization.



Scenario 1: Employee posts, "My company is run by well-dressed orangutans" on Twitter (public posting, anyone can read it).  In past Twitter postings or in his public profile, the same employee identifies which company he works for.



Scenario 2: Employee posts, "My company is run by well-dressed orangutans" on Facebook (private status message, only open to friends and friends of friends).  Employee never identifies what company he works for.



Ideally, the employee in scenario 2 would be afforded much more privacy protection than employee in scenario 1.  I'm not a lawyer or a psychic (that I know of), but I'm sure the private sector privacy pendulum will swing the other way when a scenario 2 employee wins a major wrongful termination suit.



Mark Graves

Omaha, NE



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]



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]

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]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2