🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 00:05:44 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
>Isaac wrote:
>> The employer doesn't get the employee's permission, they give
>> the employee notice.  Doesn't seem to me that the employee can claim to
>> own the account.
>
>It is hard to say.  One could reasonably interpret this chain of events as the
>employee giving permission, by using the account after receiving notice that
>such use was subject to the account being monitored or examined by the
>employer.  If such notice (and subsequent usage/agreement by the employee) is
>necessary for the employer to monitor and examine the account, than the claim
>of automatic ownership of the account and the information contained therein by
>the employer due to the employer's ownership of the equipment is called into
>question.

Apply that same logic to the company telephone which has the same rules.  
Would that same logic suggest that the employee owned the telephone
account?  

Things that suggest that the company owns the account.
1. Company can dictate use of account for company purposes and disallow all
non company use.
2. Company can monitor the account simply by giving notice that they are
doing so.
3. Company can terminate the account at any time.
4. Company controls and limits installation of software and has admin access 
at all times.  
5. Company never asks permission before accessing workstation.

Things that suggest that the employee owns the account.
1. Company must give notice before monitoring.
2. Employee doesn't get explicit permission before performing actions
on computer.
3. Employee can select own color scheme.  
4. Account has employee's name/password on it. (but so does his office/cubicle)


My point is that the arguments for employee ownership of an account are
very weak, and the strongest point has an alternate explanation based on
the account giving an expectation of privacy which the employer can
counter simply be letting the employee know there will be no privacy.
Perhaps there are some stronger arguments that the employee owns his
account.   But the account thing doesn't necessarily strengthen the
ownership argument because there is an alternate explanation.

Isaac