In Australia, Bosses May Get Power To Snoop On Emails

Numerous readers noted the proposal by the Australian government for legislation to allow employers to snoop on employees' email and IM conversations. This is being proposed in the name of protecting the infrastructure from terrorism. The attorney-general cited the Estonian cyber-attacks as a reason why such employer monitoring is necessary in Australia — never mind that the attacks were perpetrated by a lone 20-year-old and not by a foreign government or terrorist. The law permitting intelligence agencies to snoop on citizens without permission expires this June, leading to the government's urgency to extend and expand it. The chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia said, "These new powers will facilitate fishing expeditions into employees' emails and computer use rather than being used to protect critical infrastructure. I'm talking about corporate eavesdropping and witch-hunts... If an employer wanted to [sack] someone, they could use these powers."

really?

[ILuvRamen (1026668)]

I had no idea it was illegal now! Here in the US it's like if you don't own the computer cuz it's a work computer and you're on the work's connection, they can spy on you all you want. It seems completely logical to me and not even really an invasion of privacy cuz you should be ohhhh you know, DOING WORK lol.

Re:really?

[QuantumG (50515)]

uz you should be ohhhh you know, DOING WORK lol.

Talking to your union rep is doing work.

Re:really?

[JustShootMe (122551)]

Then don't do it on company resources.

In that situation, you should consider anything the company owns as being enemy territory - and consider it the same as talking to your union rep while the boss is in the room. Find some other way. There are plenty. Maybe take your laptop to a starbucks and send an email there.

Re:really?

[QuantumG (50515)]

You have a right to talk to your union rep on company resources... in many companies the union rep is paid by the company.

Not everything in the world is the same as it is in the USA, kids.

Re:really?

[QuantumG (50515)]

Which is why employers shouldn't be permitted to read employee email.

Thanks for catching up with the rest of us.

Re:really?

[JustShootMe (122551)]

No, which is why you shouldn't send sensitive personal emails over a corporate network.

Thanks for being condescending.

Re:really?

[wvmarle (1070040)]

As an employer actually I consider it a right to know what my employees are doing. When using company resources (telephone, e-mail, Internet, whatever) then of course an employee has a right to use it for personal matters, but that should be limited to the necessary.
For example, if they have to call their bank, then it always always must be done during office hours. But calling their lover that can be done after office hours.
For e-mail: most people these days have an e-mail address already. Personal things they should send using that e-mail address. Work things are for the company provided address.
It would be scary for me to not be allowed to check on my employees, to see that they are doing what they are paid for. Scary to be never allowed to read their e-mails, when I deem necessary (hasn't happened yet but it's possible) - the most likely situation for me would occur when a customer says "I sent that to this employee", who happens to be on vacation then, upon which I'd start looking through their company mail box.
An employee should know that this is company resource, and the company also should have a right to check/limit the usage.

Eh.

[JustShootMe (122551)]

If the company owns the machines and the network, then the company is able and allowed to watch everything you do - particularly if you signed an employment agreement consenting to it.

This is not news. Frankly sometimes I think privacy advocates overreact - and I think this is one of those times.

It's a beatup about a non-story.

[Jacques Chester (151652)]

First I rang my local member, who referred me to Julia Gillard's office (she made the original idiotic statements). Her office referred me to the Attorney-General's office, as that's where it's coming from.

The nice functionary I spoke to there said it's a media beatup. Under Australian law it's illegal to intercept the communications of a third party without a warrant. There was some wondering about whether passing emails through a virus scan qualified as warrantless interception.

Rather than going through some court case about to settle the matter, it was felt that it would be easier just to amend the Telecommunications Interception Act instead.

So that's it. There's actually no story here at all. Though it did provoke me to write an angry rant [clubtroppo.com.au] before I started doing what the journalists should have done in the first place - check the facts.

Re:

[SHaFT7 (612918)]

can't you already do this in the states?

Re:

[speedingant (1121329)]

Also in NZ. It makes complete sense! They have every right to see what is going on inside their own company, and what activity is going on inside their network.

Re:

[JustShootMe (122551)]

Funny story - where I work there is a very liberal network use policy - you can use it how you like as long as your manager is happy with your work and you don't shut the network down.

Someone shut the network down, I think with a P2P site.

The network guys sit right next to me. They were having a great time tracking down the culprit. And even funnier is people were coming out of the woodwork saying "my bad!" when it wasn't even them!

But I was very much OK with that. That person was saturating the network

Technology will overtake this

[countach (534280)]

Technology will overtake this. When everyone has an iPhone or like in their pocket, who is going to send potentially compromising emails through their employer?

Re:Technology will overtake this

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

I will.

But then again, I'm a self-employed masochist.

Re:In Kiwi New Zealand

[Cassius Corodes (1084513)]

Its not so much the new rules that anger me, for employers have previously just asked you to sign an agreement giving them that right, its that way they are introduced as to "fight terrorism". If I was osama I would be laughing my head of every time a new law is introduced to fight terrorism. We are just handing them moral victory after victory and they are just sitting in a cave somewhere.

Re:In Kiwi New Zealand

[MrNaz (730548)]

It's not about fighting terrorism. It never was. It's about power pooling into the hands of the few.

Re:In Kiwi New Zealand

[Cassius Corodes (1084513)]

Its not so much that he cares about civil liberties, champ (can I call you champ?) its that he is a terrorist, and his main job is screw with your head. When people are willing to be inconvenienced, champ, for the sake of protection from terrorism - he has succeeded for he has made an negative impact on your life. Now whether or not osama really knows or cares about this is largely irrelevant.

P.S. I'm not sure what sort of intellectual masturbation led you to assume I empathise with osama but rest assured that its wrong.

Re:In Kiwi New Zealand

[MrNaz (730548)]

As a small business owner in Australia, I would like to make it clear that I would never read my employees' emails even if I thought they were stealing from me. I consider privacy invasion to be wrong, and as the phrase goes, two wrongs don't make a right. Invading privacy to stop them stealing is as wrong as breaking into their house to steal back whatever they took.

It is not possible for employees, in the modern day and age, to sterilise themselves personally when they walk into the workplace. They still have friends they talk to, they still have families they think about, they still have pressing non-work issues they need to deal with. Expecting this to all disappear at 9am and reappear at 5:30pm is unreasonable, and as a business owner, I don't expect it of my staff, even though (assuming it's even possible which it isn't) it may increase productivity.

If I have an issue with a staff member stealing or doing something else that breaks the boundaries or law or morality, I don't want to deal with that issue by breaking the boundaries of law or morality. I can and will intervene to protect my business, but only if I don't violate their rights in the process. I have yet (in 8 years) to come across a scenario where I was not able to protect myself and still follow this principle. I don't believe I ever will. This experience affirms my belief that one does NOT have to trade freedom and/or morality for security and/or order.

Sheesh. This feeling of "anything goes" in the pursuit of security and law and order has gone way too far.

Re:In Kiwi New Zealand

[Moridineas (213502)]

I am not a small business owner, but I work at a small business in the US, and I would just add that at my company, there's little to no privacy. There are only about 15 people, and if someone is out sick, on vacation, on a business trip, etc--someone else will read their email to see if there's anything that has to be replied to immediately.

This goes for the bosses computer+email too.

There have never been any problems that I've heard of--I mean the general standard is, if you're reading someones email and you see its personal, dont read it. Just look at the business email. Not always possible, but it hasn't been a problem in my experience.

I don't really think most people use their business addresses for personal email very often incidentally--everyone seems to use yahoo/gmail/whatever. (I know I do)

Re:Sound stupid to me....

[holophrastic (221104)]

Um, hi. My name is Bryan. I run a business in Canada. It's my business and I'm accountable for everything that it does -- as an officer of the corporation. And yeah, you'd better believe that I read my employees' e-mails. How on Earth would you expect me to be accountable for something that I don't know is occurring? There are plenty of ways to get an e-mail address. The one that I give to my employee is for business, it's a convenient tool.

And it's no different than the paper "inbox" on their desk -- which is, of course, also owned by me, both the box and the desk itself. And the fact that it's clean.

Re:Sound stupid to me....

[JustShootMe (122551)]

Bah. You should not be sending personal emails through a business address for exactly this reason. It's not the fault of the business for snooping, but the fault of the employee for being stupid.

Re:

[setagllib (753300)]

Hey, take it easy on the MCSE :)

Re:Sound stupid to me....

[DustyShadow (691635)]

You should use https://www.gmail.com [gmail.com] for a secure connection

Re:

[JustShootMe (122551)]

Oh, but it you're using a CRT, make sure you're in a faraday cage too. And I'm not sure what they can do as far as listening on LCD displays, but I'm sure there's something.

Re:

[_merlin (160982)]

Corporations have EVERY right to watch what you do at work.

No they don't. In fact, in most of the world, they aren't allowed to spy on you without your consent. The USA just has a pathetic lack of privacy laws. Judging from your post and others like it, they've also brainwashed the population into accepting it. I don't want my freedom eroded any more than it already has been.