Les Jones

It’s going to hold up. It’s consistent with other judgments as to what creates exemptions to privilege.

One of the primary exemptions is the presence of a third party. If you have been informed that a third party may be monitoring your communication, either on the phone or by email, you accept implicitly that privilege doesn’t survive.

The problem isn’t the fact of this, it’s that people don’t expect, know, or understand it; when they really should.

Expectation of privacy is simply not absolute; and most people do not understand what courts consider a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Chris Byrne´s last blog ..How do you fisk one giant 90 minute lie?

I have to agree with Chris. Using a company computer means the company can and is watching and likely recording every keystroke, every internet page viewed and every moment spent playing solitaire. Most companies allow casual computer use that does not interfere with work, but I have never seen a company that allows private, confidential use of their company computers without any possible oversight.

As an even more restrictive employment situation, using a government computer for anything at all other than government work is cast-iron grounds for firing at the whim of the government employer.

“As an even more restrictive employment situation, using a government computer for anything at all other than government work is cast-iron grounds for firing at the whim of the government employer.”

I’d imagine that depends entirely on the organization’s acceptable use policy. If no government employee was ever allowed to use any government computer for personal use period there wouldn’t be many government employees left.

I’m told there’s case law dealing with the personal use issue as it relates to company telephones. There’s supposedly a reasonable personal use recognized by law with regard to telephones that’s analogous to computer use.

Note that in the case linked above the issue wasn’t that the guy used work computers for personal use. I don’t even see where that is alleged. The issue was that he didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy.