EU Companies Can Monitor Employees' Private Conversations While At Work (softpedia.com) 127
An anonymous reader writes: A recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights has granted EU companies the right to monitor and log private conversations that employees have at work while using the employer's devices. The ruling came after a Romanian was fired for using Yahoo Messenger back in 2007, while at work, to have private conversations with his girlfriend. He argued that his employer was breaking his right for privacy and correspondence. Both Romanian and European courts disagreed.
It's your company's equipment (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to argue with your girlfriend, use your own cellphone. Jesus.
Re:It's your company's equipment (Score:4, Interesting)
warning: may seem sexist but it's my experience
in my experience, it was always the women who used company email for private communication. as a former admin of such things, it annoyed the hell out of me. whenever a new employee took over an old mailbox (with a new name alias), they had to (for years) deal with stupid emails about - Mindy's wedding, Georgina's ugly baby, meet me for coffee beautiful, my period is late, etc. i never understood why they did it. they were always told to keep their mailboxes in a condition that would allow other people to use them in their absence, yet without exception, they treated their mailboxes like personal property and cursed me to hell for letting other people access their emails. i hated that job. people... what a bunch of bastards.
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't changing the alias to the mailbox have kept anyone from the previous user from being able to reach that inbox? Or were your employees stupid enough to give out their email to their friends as "support@evil.org"?
Re: (Score:1)
Shouldn't changing the alias to the mailbox have kept anyone from the previous user from being able to reach that inbox? Or were your employees stupid enough to give out their email to their friends as "support@evil.org"?
you need to keep the old mailbox alias so that people that were communicating with the old mailbox owner will not find his e-mail bouncing back just because the person left and the person who replaces it and does the exact same job isn't on everyone's mailing list...
Re: (Score:2)
That does make sense from a support perspective. Although, I'd probably slap an autoresponder on that mailbox that this person is no longer there and to contact support@evil.org. Maybe to ensure continuity of service, I'd manually monitor the mailbox for a few weeks and then delete it. You don't want to be responding to mails sent to sally@evil.org forever, even if they are proper support mails.
However, the person did say that they changed (not added) an alias to the mailbox, so I simply presumed that th
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. You use work equipment for work. You use your equipment for non-work. This is not complicated. If you do it on an employers system then can (and probably will) know this. The options are many. I dealt with it by simply giving unfettered access to the web, locked down systems (security), least permissions, and didn't give a shit unless there was an issue that popped up. Then again, by the grace of FSM, I didn't hire idiots.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you alias boxes to new names instead of just giving the new names their own boxes and retiring the old names?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you alias boxes to new names instead of just giving the new names their own boxes and retiring the old names?
Exactly my thoughts. I'm like WTF does what the OP describes?
Re: (Score:2)
isn't it obvious? (in case it isn't, see above)
Re: (Score:3)
because logic. if email bounces and potential customer has to take additional steps to reach us, they are likely to open up a browser and research alternatives.
instead, email will reach us anyway (old aliases are still in place) and a new person will respond and introduce her/himself as their new account manager.
Re: (Score:2)
So make everyone's "personal" work mailbox visible to everyone in the same team. Don't be subtle about it, make them show up as folders in the mail client. In other words, make public spaces public, not private-ish.
This could be integrated into - o
Re: (Score:2)
warning: may seem sexist but it's my experience
in my experience, it was always the women who used company email for private communication. as a former admin of such things, it annoyed the hell out of me. whenever a new employee took over an old mailbox (with a new name alias), they had to (for years) deal with stupid emails about - Mindy's wedding, Georgina's ugly baby, meet me for coffee beautiful, my period is late, etc. i never understood why they did it. they were always told to keep their mailboxes in a condition that would allow other people to use them in their absence, yet without exception, they treated their mailboxes like personal property and cursed me to hell for letting other people access their emails. i hated that job. people... what a bunch of bastards.
Its not sexist because I've seen the same thing with mailboxes owned by men who dont care. Emails from lads mags, alerts from carsales, pics of some minging celebrity (OK, I'm pretty sure this kind of bollocks is unisex), sporting scores, betting sites, lotteries, so on and so forth.
Vain, vapid and idiotic men are just as annoying as vain, vapid, idiotic women.
Some people just dont get that when you use your companies services (phone, email and what not) there is no expectation to privacy. I'd go as f
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
In the 80s and 90s being fired for having AIDS was an issue; but I really hope it isn't now.
Let me crush those hopes for you [businessinsider.com].
Re: (Score:2)
that escalated quickly
Re:It's your company's equipment (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting. And would you feel the same way about someone who was fired for having AIDS because they were talking with their doctor on the only phone available to them, the one in the office?
Well, that's kind of a ridiculous argument, a non-sequitur. Employers by and large do not care if you use office equipment to do a call to your wife or doctor, or to do online banking during your lunch break at your cubicle. They care when people continuously abuse it - constantly chatting with your girlfriend, or for watching pr0n, or using the printer constantly to print brochures for your on-the-side job.
Things like that. That is what both rulings are about. But hey, feel free to believe your slippery-slope hypothetical of one person not having a cell phone and having to use the one and only office phone for a life-n-death event intercepted by the mythical pointy-haired chupacabra boss actually applies to this case.
Re: (Score:1)
In the 1990s I was paying programmers (very specific subset) well in the 6 figure range. At that same time, my copy room cost more than a single programmer - not counting our separate plotter room. We used rented/managed/supplied/maintained services (fuck Xerox). We also needed to publish high quality material.
I don't think I ever fired anyone (ever) but I did get a few to turn in their resignations. I'd have been right pissed if someone was hiding their using the copy room to do their own projects. On the
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to argue with your girlfriend, use your own cellphone. Jesus.
Funny enough. Contrary to the misreported article. Using company email and telephone for private affairs is legal in most EU countries, and the company is NOT allowed to intercept or snoop on it in any way. But apparently not in Romania, and the non-EU human rights court does not think it needs to override Romanian law on the issue.
Well Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Europeans are slow like that... LOL
Re:Well Duh! (Score:4, Informative)
How is it common sense that it's allowed to record and log a private conversation without prior consent? Even call centers have to let you know you are being recorded, why can an employer do it without consent?
Company equipment or not, I don't think it's ok to record my conversation without my consent or knowledge.
If it's in my contract, fine. I signed that and it's now with my consent.
If my employer doesn't want me to use the equipment for private conversations, let me know or fire me. Don't just violate my rights.
Court or not, this is unacceptable in my opinion.
The call center isn't notifying their employee that the conversation is being monitored. That's a given. They're notifying the "customer" on the other end of the line that the conversation is being monitored. It's not forced on you, you can find another job where you are not provided computers and telephones. Then you won't have to worry about it. For example, if you get a job digging ditches, they probably won't be monitoring your shovel.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would find another job if I found out my employer logged my private conversation without my knowledge.
If you are going to record and log all my activities, include it on my contract.
I'll happily sign it, I understand the reason behind.
But don't do it without my knowledge or consent.
That's a violation of my right, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked at several companies that provided equipment and I always had to sign a document stating that 1) it's not my equipment 2) the equipment is not to be used for non-work purposes (although in practice, everyone checks their gmail, facebook, etc on it), and i"m sure there's a disclaimer that there's no expectation of privacy using their equipment and that you should use your own for anything you deem sensitive. I think that's fair; it *is* their equipment. But with BYOD becoming more prevalent, I
Re: (Score:1)
actually, while emphasis is one thing that can be interpreted as, it seems valid to interpret it as "I'm going to use the term customer to indicate one use case but it doesn't have to be a customer, but I just don't feel like using 'person' instead".
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a wildly incorrect usage of quotes. Instead, you would use the appositive particle, "e.g.".
Re: (Score:2)
True, but it's a different wildly incorrect usage of quotes :) Quotes for emphasis are a pet peeve of mine, but this didn't trip my breaker and I'm just explaining why :)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about expectation of privacy.
Let's take the equipment out of the equation and make it a face-to-face conversation. If you are in a public place like a store, or restaurant, or a company's office, there is no "expectation of privacy" since you are in a location that other people can access and any conversation could be overheard or recorded. This is why the police can record conversations that happen in the street but need a warrant to plant a bug or tap your phone line.
Re: (Score:3)
Three things.
First, internal networks are managed by your company and their network admins. The network admins will inspect traffic to ensure that the network is working properly and there are no attacks or other bad behavior going on which reduces the usefulness of their network resources. You have zero expectation of privacy over a corporate network because there is no way that they can afford to give you any. If the network admins are trying to do their jobs and you have a "private" conversation on th
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on a fundamental level, but then include it in the work contract. ....".
"Your activity on company equipment MAY be logged and recorded
Done, bases covered.
I object against the non-consensual part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it should absolutely be spelled out, if only because as a boss, I don't hire people to fire them, I want them to be successful so all of us are successful. That is more than enough reason to spell it out.
However, I just think that making the company bear the burden by default isn't really fair. There's too many ways to get sued out there and a company is a much juicer target than just about any private individual. I also have a low tolerance for people who aren't making the effort to be aware o
Re: (Score:3)
Company equipment or not, I don't think it's ok to record my conversation without my consent or knowledge.
Privacy is something you have a right to in your own home, really. Not that I necessarily agree, but that's he way it is - the employers argument is that you are not only using their resources to do it, but any communications can, in principle, be traced back to the company, so in the extreme case the company could end up somehow being associated with something they do not agree with. A bit like using company letterhead for your private letters. No, I don't like it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to myself, after discovering some key information:
From TFA: "The ruling also said that, from now onwards, companies should also explain and notify employees if they monitor and log all their Internet activities, and they should also get consent from the employee in writing."
So they can't do it without consent, which was my initial concern.
Alright then :)
Re: (Score:3)
If you want private, use your own device. Do it from home. Or use encryption they can't bypass.
But I haven't seen a company in years which didn't say "we can and will monitor what happens on OUR equipment, and if you don't like it TOO BAD".
It has been upheld in a lot of places already that when you use your employer's equipment, you play by their rules.
Re: (Score:2)
"prior consent" is the key thing here.
And I've already discovered that the ruling included that.
Prior consent is required from now on.
So entire thing is moot.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it common sense that it's allowed to record and log a private conversation without prior consent?
Company equipment on company time for company business it stands to reason that it is being recorded. In case you didn't know your internet access is logged too.
Even call centers have to let you know you are being recorded, why can an employer do it without consent?
When you get called by a call centre or call one, it's not your personal equipment doing the monitoring. You aren't borrowing someone else's equipment doing stuff for them on their time.
Re: (Score:3)
The case in question from which the ruling refers to, the employer used a "work" account for personal messages. Anyone who thinks they would have any right to privacy in that case is a moron.
See the following for a case summary in fairly easy to read English.
http://us6.campaign-archive2.c... [campaign-archive2.com]
Basics are use my work account for personal correspondence and your employer is entitled to look at anything and everything in that work account. If you want your correspondence to be private then use a private account d
Re: (Score:2)
You sign the contract or you live on the streets. That kind of "consent" is utterly worthless. That's why it was the Human Rights court which decided the issue.
Re:Well Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they liked the guy's work they wouldn't have fired him. It was probably only a contributing factor and a convenient reason to put on the HR form.
This.
Anyone who thinks it's impossible to fire someone in the EU (or Australia) is living in LaLa land.
If a company wants to dismiss you for any reason (I.E. pissing off the boss or just trying to downsize without redundancy) all they have to do is start putting you under the microscope. Even if they cant pin something on you, they'll just give you new tasks with difficult to impossible deadlines and each missed deadline becomes a written warning. Three warnings and it's out the door. We call this pro
Re: (Score:3)
Probably just an excuse to fire a worker that wasn't doing his job...
Re:Well Duh! (Score:5, Informative)
You can't even be bothered to read the submission above?
The court case wasn't if he was fired for "wasting time", it was whether the company has the right to monitor what happens on their own computer systems.
As for how much time he wasted, for all you know he spent half the day talking to his girlfriend. I doubt it was simply a quick 5-minute chat during a mid-morning break.
Re: (Score:2)
And it wasn't that either..
It was more like, we "accidentally" found out some information about an employee, can we use it in a disciplinary. - Answer yes.
It sounds like some chat logs or similar were saved on the work PC and came up in an investigation, seems fair enough.
This isn't the mega ruling it seems.
Jason.
Re: (Score:1)
You're not completely right. The court decided whether it is a violation of basic human rights that the company monitored the communication, it could still very well be disallowed by another law. This particular court does not have any other mandate than to decide if something violates human rights or not
Re:Well Duh! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense.
Don't like my work? Fire me.
If I get the work done, it's none of your business whether I am wasting time chatting with my girlfriend or drinking coffee or smoking. Why is it okay to fire people for the former but not for the latter? I don't drink coffee or smoke, and every day I watch people waste almost a full hour doing the latter.
If you use company equipment to chat with your girlfriend, it is the companies' business. Didn't you read the summary?
That said, you're right. If what you say is true, you should be fired. Save them the trouble and quit.
Monitor (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it enough to RTFA to discover whether he was fired for the having non work related conversations during work or for the actual content of those conversations?
Because I see some difference between monitoring the activity and monitoring the content.
Re:Monitor (Score:5, Informative)
I just read the first link above, and it seems to be just the activity itself, not specifically any "inappropriate" content such as phone-sex.
But it also didn't say how much of the workday he spent talking to his girlfriend. I would assume it was quite a bit, since he went out of his way to avoid the employer's messenger account, and used his own which he figured was safe from monitoring. If it was simply a message here and there, why fire him? It was probably dozens of messages all day long.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was simply a message here and there, why fire him? It was probably dozens of messages all day long.
OTOH, if it was because of his performance, they would not have to refer to his use of company resources as an issue; to me, it smells more of him expressing some views or intents that were sufficiently alarming to warrant firing him. In Europe - at least where I have worked - an employer can't just fire you on a whim; unless there are very serious, disciplinary problems, you have to go through a procedure where you essentially try to rectify the problems, and only if that fails can you fire the employee.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about Romania, but at least here in Finland, you cannot really fire a single employee for bad performance. If the guy cannot do his job at all, then maybe, but just for being the bottom of the barrel is not cause for firing. On the other hand, if the company does not need the employees work any more, they can fire him, but then they cannot immediate hire someone else to do it.
All this means is that when a company wants someone to leave, they 1) sometimes offer money if you resign or 2) try to f
Re:Monitor (Score:5, Informative)
He was using a company provided email account to discuss his STDs with his girlfriend. The company policy was not to use the company email account for personal business, and it was in his contract. They asked him if he was using it for private use, he said no, they checked and found he was so fired him. He complained that it was an intrusion on his right to privacy (which is a human right in the EU), but the court felt that as it was a company computer and email account he couldn't expect privacy.
It's all down to the use of his employer's property.
Re: (Score:3)
He was fired for using a work related account that should have been used exclusively for work related activities for personal communication. He was fired because the firm felt he should not be using a company account for private messages.
He tried to argue that the company should not have been looking at the contents of a work account, and the ECHR has ruled that argument is nonsense.
Oh and by the way the ECHR has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to do with the EU. I see Slashdot editors are as bad as the Daily Mail.
Time? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no indication that this was a single conversation. It might have been 40,
Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"No personal electronics beyond this point"
I mean, it's not a common thing or anything, but it is a bit frustrating. In the US they've long handled this with a click through screen that says you give consent to monitoring blah blah.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Informative)
That too was addressed in the ruling. From TFA:
"The ruling also said that, from now onwards, companies should also explain and notify employees if they monitor and log all their Internet activities, and they should also get consent from the employee in writing."
That, and with contractual agreement not to use th (Score:5, Informative)
The information presented here is, indeed, grossly miseading. There is no such thing as an employer's right to monitor private communications in the EU; on the contrary, at leastmin some European countries, like, say, Germany, illegitimately monitoring an employee's private communocation may actually land someone in jail.
Re:That, and with contractual agreement not to use (Score:4, Interesting)
Most international and US domestic employees include clauses in the employee contract that explicitly permit company monitoring of content on work owned or devices, including work owned telephones and networks. There is effectively no "private communication" on your corporate laptop or machines you use for work.
Re: (Score:2)
Most international and US domestic employees include clauses in the employee contract that explicitly permit company monitoring of content on work owned or devices, including work owned telephones and networks. There is effectively no "private communication" on your corporate laptop or machines you use for work.
And in much of Europe the employer would be breaking the law (wiretapping) if they did such monitoring. Ownership of the "thing" the employee is using isn't the issue here. I've worn plenty of work clothes owned by the company, does that mean that the company can ask me to strip? Or perhaps a better analogue, ask me to empty my pockets? Since, after all it's company owned equipment and I can expect any privacy as to the content of my pockets?
I, and fortunately the lawmakers where I live and work, think not.
Re: (Score:2)
> And in much of Europe the employer would be breaking the law (wiretapping) if they did such monitoring.
There was a fairly clear recent EU case about just this sort of use of work resources for private communications.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec... [telegraph.co.uk]
Quoting the article:
But on Tuesday the court ruled that it was not "unreasonable for an employer to want to verify that the employees are completing their professional tasks during working hours"
I'm a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that EU privacy laws and practices are widely misunderstood.
No argument there. Quoting from your own citation:
"The employer acted within its disciplinary powers since, as the domestic courts found, it had accessed the Yahoo Messenger account on the assumption that the information in question had been related to professional activities and that such access had therefore been legitimate."
Tom De Cordier, a lawyer at CMS DeBacker in Brussels, said the court had taken a "very liberal stance".
He said: "Much of the courtâ(TM)s decision seems to be based on the fact that the employee had claimed that the relevant communications were of a professional nature."
The case in question was one where the company had accessed communications in the belief that they were not private, as the culprit claimed they weren't. The court, when challenged, then said that that was not unreasonable (as I assume most would agree), as that it was reasonable to then take that information into account (which is dodgier but I'll let it slide for now). But as you're taught in the corporate world here in Sweden if you clearly mark something
Re: (Score:3)
Most international and US domestic employees include clauses in the employee contract that explicitly permit company monitoring of content on work owned or devices, including work owned telephones and networks. There is effectively no "private communication" on your corporate laptop or machines you use for work.
And those clauses would in invalid in Germany and many other countries and any company trying to enforce it would be commiting crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Most international and US domestic employees include clauses in the employee contract that explicitly permit company monitoring of content on work owned or devices, including work owned telephones and networks. There is effectively no "private communication" on your corporate laptop or machines you use for work.
And those clauses would in invalid in Germany and many other countries and any company trying to enforce it would be commiting crimes.
... unfortunately. Why is "work resources = work-related matters" so unreasonable?
Because we are not slaves?
Re: (Score:2)
The information presented here is, indeed, grossly miseading. There is no such thing as an employer's right to monitor private communications in the EU; ....
Can you clarify if you mean companies cannot monitor computer and phone usage on their own systems?
Re: (Score:3)
In short, the court found that the right to privacy (in the European Convention of Human Rights) is not breached by a law that permits companies monitoring communications from their equipment. This means that the Romanian law (that permits such monitoring) complies with the treaty. The German law (which, AIUI, forbids such monitoring) obviously complies with the treaty because it doesn't permit others to read personal correspondence.
Re: (Score:2)
The information presented here is, indeed, grossly miseading. There is no such thing as an employer's right to monitor private communications in the EU; on the contrary, at leastmin some European countries, like, say, Germany, illegitimately monitoring an employee's private communocation may actually land someone in jail.
We do, but not on company equipment: The upper court of Berlin and Brandenburg ruled on that, and so did the one in Hamm. [orrick.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's common sense. If you are using your employer's network even with your own device, it's monitored and you should have no expectation of privacy. If you have difficulty understanding why businesses monitor their own network, then you may have limited career growth.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My employer has given me a phone, a laptop, a tablet, and a VPN router, all of which I need to care for and feed regularly, outside of normal business hours and (usually) in my own home.
Does it seem reasonable that I need to maintain duplicates of those devices for personal use? And if I pick up the "wrong" iPad while still at home and in private, acc
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you want complete privacy in your activities from company oversight.
Re: (Score:2)
i'd say yes, to all, if you're doing something that you don't want others to see, then onus is on you to do it on your own device.
if it is their's then they can do whatever the hell they want with it. If it's yours same thing. in the case of BYOD, depends on who actually owns it, you cede certain considerations and rights when you opt in to a discount in my mind.
the phone, laptop and vpn router, are you caring for these things outside of normal business hours to do business-related activities? or for pers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Up north here in The Netherlands that policy has to be vetted and agreed upon by the Works Council and any time the employer has reason to snoop on the covered means of communication he has to inform (not consult!) the Works Council.
In this particular case there was a company policy, the Yahoo Messenger account was set up specifically for client contact and the employee lied when asked if he used
Cameras and mics (Score:2)
Such as a closed circuit camera mic? If the employer owns it and an employee gets close, technically they're using it, could be useful for your next employee review especially if they search for key words, facial expressions, body positions, and watch the highlights
Don't be an idiot. (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't use your company's email or other stuff for personal business. It's unprofessional, and you might get your personal communications subpoenaed should your company be involved in a court case.
Re: (Score:1)
More sane employers will have the "Not for personal use" with the caveat of "except for limited tasks such as coordinating appointments, checking in on family, etc". The issue at hand here is the court confirming that an employee's right to privacy doesn't extend to work when using the employer's equipment for uses expressly prohibited.
Welcome to 1990 (Score:1)
This was settled long ago in the US. Do your private stuff with your own communication equipment, preferably off company premises.
Misreported (Score:5, Interesting)
All reports miss an important part.
Nobody went out to look at this guys private messages. During the course of an investigation into his performance at work some private messages were discovered. He argued that this alone was a violation of his privacy. The judge decided that the employer did the right thing. The employer was not intentionally looking for private messages and he did not read them when he discovered they were of a private nature.
This is not a cart-blanche to spy on employee's.
Re: (Score:1)
Your UID so low, yet you keep reading TFA. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU
Misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
As some already reported, this is a highly misleading headlines.
1. It's not EU, but ECHR, so much wider (it includes non-EU countries such as Russia or Turkey).
2. The ECHR sets a minimal amount of human rights protection, not a maximal one - ECHR saying "we don't have any objection about it" doesn't mean it's legal in all ECHR countries, national government can pass higher levels of protection if they want.
3. The ruling itself doesn't say "it's all fine to spy on employees in general", it said that in that specific case it's fine - it was a work mail account (not a private one), ...
I advise you to read http://modulus.isonomia.net/la... [isonomia.net] for example, that gives a more detailed analysis on the ruling and reporting of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, Revers It On Them (Score:2)
Privacy on company owned assets (Score:2)
Dunno about your company, but mine is pretty adamant about letting you know that "The use of this computer system and / or network is subject to monitoring at all times" and that, by utilizing it, you consent to such monitoring. It's pretty much the gist of the login banner every morning. It's also present in every single device I log into throughout the day.
If you want to talk to your $person via IM, do it with your own device. Don't use company assets to do it with. Even if you get clever and encrypt t
My anecdotal evidence. (Score:1)
I work for 2 companies. (hired by one, doing projects for another)
One has recently changed the policy and has explicitly forbidden using emails for private needs.
But it can't just go and monitor my emails, what can happen at most is that if employee isn't available (say, ill) yet someone needs to urgently take over hist duties, mailbox could be used by the other person.
There are some funny rules too, it is prohibited to watch porn using your company notebook even if not working/at home. (afraid of viruses?)
Reported differently elsewhere (Score:2)
It seems the company was unhappy with his performance and noticed that he made a lot of phone calls during work time. They asked him about it, and
This is not the Europe you are lookig for (Score:2)
The title is wrong, both in the original article and in Slashdot summary.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is not a European Union (EU) institution. It stems from the Council of Europe (CoE) [wikipedia.org], a much larger organization that includes 47 states. A lot of them are not part of EU, such as Russia for instance
Re: (Score:2)
what was his favourite IDE?