network monitoring

[Andy Green]

Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 June 2007 11:41:55 Andy Green wrote:
>>> As someone remarked about the US, employers here are legally responsible
>>> for the actions of their employees.  I can't tell you any specific
>>> circumstances where companies would decide that it is necessary.  I
>>> believe that companies where a lot of employees have Internet access do
>>> sometimes put this into their policy, not to use routinely, but in case
>>> they need to investigate a problem.  The key point is that employees must
>>> have been told in their contract that they can be monitored.  It cannot
>>> be legally done without the knowledge of the employee in question.
>> Another practical issue is that most IM traffic is encrypted nowadays
>> anyway.  You can run vnc to see their actual chat session visually or
>> turn on their chat logging and check the files on the client it but it
>> doesn't sound like it makes for a good work environment... it sounds
>> like the kind of thing they'll be wanting to complain about on IM...
>>
>> Seems to be another good reason not to be employed by a company...
>>
>> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2005/06/is_your_boss_reading_you
>> r_emai.html
>>
> I can assure you that it's not nice to know that you can be imprisoned for 
> something that an employee has done.  I'm glad I'm retired and will never 
> have to employ anyone again.

Yep no doubt.  But what does it mean?  It's now a reasonable duty
expected of the company to read all the employee traffic and you are
negligent if you're not doing it?  Don't worry it's just a rhetorical
question.

-Andy