...
首页> 外文期刊>Information systems security >Email Privacy and the Wiretap Act: U.S. v. Councilman
【24h】

Email Privacy and the Wiretap Act: U.S. v. Councilman

机译:电子邮件隐私和窃听法:美国诉议员

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Studies have shown that more than 75 percent of major U.S. corporations routinely record and review employee communications and activities in the workplace, including employee telephone calls, email usage, and computer files. In virtually all workplace cases, private employers have prevailed. Employees should use extreme discretion when using their emails, business phones, and corporate computers for any personal activities. As one commentator phrased it, never send an email from work that you would be afraid to "read the next day on the front page of a newspaper."The Councilman court refused to allow snooping outside the employer-employee relationship. In the absence of a court order, email providers may not intercept and read email, even though the Wiretap Act was vague as to its actual meaning. As is so often the case, legal analysis and legislation is far behind the latest advances in technology. Privacy experts hope that Councilman will be the first of many cases that cause the courts to realize that the Internet has forever changed our cherished right to privacy.
机译:研究表明,超过 75% 的美国大公司会定期记录和审查员工在工作场所的通信和活动,包括员工电话、电子邮件使用和计算机文件。在几乎所有的工作场所案例中,私人雇主都占了上风。员工在使用电子邮件、商务电话和公司计算机进行任何个人活动时应谨慎行事。正如一位评论员所说,永远不要在下班后发送一封你害怕“第二天在报纸头版上阅读”的电子邮件。议员法院拒绝允许在雇主与雇员关系之外进行窥探。在没有法院命令的情况下,电子邮件提供商不得拦截和阅读电子邮件,即使《窃听法》对其实际含义含糊不清。通常情况下,法律分析和立法远远落后于最新的技术进步。隐私专家希望,议员案将成为众多案件中的第一个,这些案件使法院意识到互联网已经永远改变了我们珍视的隐私权。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号