Yes, there was a technicality in the type of provider and the application of a specific Federal law in that regard. This is why I'm not a lawyer, I look at all the issues and not the particular element of law that's being considered. In my mind, the public records aspect of the case was the controlling issue, above all other considerations, but that would have been a state statute and this case was argued on the Federal issue.

The Quon case is very messy because of the public records implications. If this were a private business looking at an employee's text messages, that would make for a better precedent, although I still hold (at least for the United States) that if the employer provides a device and / or a communications facility, the employee should not have an expectation of privacy, except as otherwise provided in law. And, of course, this assumes that the employer has provided notice to the employee at some point. For those of you outside the US who cringe at this suggestion, my apologies, but I've become pretty hard nosed on this issue. I do not want to suggest that an employer has unreasonable ability to look at anything for any reason and use it against the employee. And I certainly do not want to suggest that an employer can use this access to act in a discriminatory manner. But when there is good reason, an employer should be able to use those means that are
 necessary to protect other employees, the public, and the organization's assets.

 Patrick Cunningham, CRM
[log in to unmask]


"Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier." 
-- Colin Powell

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]