🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BuFKv7.FBJ@rice.edu> jaw@owlnet.rice.edu (Joseph A. Watters) writes:
>In article <huh?>, jpglori@srv.PacBell.COM (John P. Gloria) writes:
>|> >>>Question:  did the staff worker have the RIGHT to read Wang's email?
>|> >
>[...]
>|> >
>|> >It isn't a question of whether you have the _time_; the question is, do you
>|> >have the _right_?
>|> >
>|> >Unless it's in the contract, how can the answer be anything but "NO!"?
>|> >Why would it be in the contract?  Who would sign such a contract?
>|> >
>|> >-JTT
>|> >
>|> 
>|> The ramifications on this particular case will certainly test an
>|> individual's right to e-mail privacy vs the company's right to
>|> access employee's accounts.  The paper did not elaborate on exactly
>|> why the staff worker read the e-mail.  It appeared the worker, IMHO,
>|> was snooping around without just cause. Of course, a company policy
>|> could exist that gives them the right to peruse an account.  Afterall,
>|> Wang held a high office, and there could be some messages that needed to 
>|> be re-directed to his successor.  
>
>I'm sorry, but there seem to be some confusion about the facts in your
>original post.  Wang worked for Borland International.  He had an MCI
>Mail account.  MCI is the electronic communications service provider.
>An *MCI* staff worker was closing the account, not a Borland employee.
>At least, that is what I read from your post:
>
>> Apparently when Wang resigned, his MCI Mail account was closed.
>> According to the paper, MCI Mail saves messages for five days and then
>> deleted.  All these came to light when a staff worker was closing the
>> account and "looked" into Wang's account and was suprised on the
>> contents of the messages.  This started court orders to search
>> offices/residences on both parties.
>
My apologies.  The newspaper article was quite long and I shortened
the article considerably.  In doing so, I obvious left off some
vital information for sake of brevity.  Based on what I typed, I
can see how you interpreted it incorrectly.  I have included a couple
of paragraphs from the newspaper account as follows:

	Meanwhile, Borland is pressing civil lawsuit charging that 
	Eubanks and Symantec encouraged Wang to violate his "duties
	of loyalty, honesty and confidentiality" by engaging in
	electronic espionage that was discovered after a staff worker 
	at Borland closed Wang's MCI Mail account Sept. 1, when he announced 
	his resignation.

	"She looked at his account and went crazy", said Heidi
	Sinclair, Borland's vice president of communications.

>The MCI worker is part of the service provider and is explicitly exempt
>from the prohibitions on reading another person's stored electronic
>communications.  Unless I seriously misunderstand how MCI Mail works, I
>wouldn't think that a Borland employee could close/look into another
>person's MCI mail account.  If the mail messages were somehow stored on
>a Borland system before they were sent out to/through MCI Mail
>(although the original post seems to indicate something else), if that
>Borland employee's duties are to maintain the mail accounts, then
>he/she is still considered to be part of an electronic communications
>service provider, because in this case, Borland is also a provider.
>Thus, again, according to the ECPA, what the employee apparently did
>was legal.  It doesn't have to be in any contract.  Given the
>information we on the net have, I don't really think that we are in a
>position to determine (or decide for ourselves) whether what the
>person did was illegal or outside his/her "rights".
>
>
Well, you certainly know more about the legality aspects of the
laws, etc.  However, that is why we have a judicial system and
IMHO, it is an infringement, regardless if the court favors
Borland.  I am very interested in the outcome nevertheless and
I still believe this case could have ramifications one way or 
another. 

Cheers
-- 
  ---------  John Gloria - jpglori@sysengr.pacbell.com	--------	
  "I have great faith in fools - self-confidence my
   friends call it."        Edgar Allan Poe