1 Electronic Communications: , Voic , Telephones, Internet and Computers Key Points Put employees on notice through policies that they should have no expectation of privacy arising from their use of employer-owned/supplied communication devices, including: , voic , telephones, Internet and computers. As with Solicitation and Distribution policies, uniform application and enforcement is key. Electronic Communications Generally Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C , Title I, 18 U.S.C , ( Wiretap Act ): prohibits unauthorized and intentional interception of wire, oral and electronic communication. 18 U.S.C Definition of wire communications includes telephone calls and voice mail. Briggs v. American Air Filter Co.., 630 F.2d 414 (5 th Cir. 1980). Definition of electronic communication includes U.S.C. 2510(12). Title II, 18 U.S.C , ( Stored Communications Act ): prohibits unauthorized accessing of electronically stored communications. Exceptions: System Provider applies to entities that provide wire or electronic communication service. Courts generally hold that employer qualifies as a system provider with respect to its internal and voice mail systems. Courts are divided as to whether this exception allows employers to monitor employee use of on external servers (e.g., Hotmail, Gmail) accessed on employer s computers. One-Party Consent interception permissible where only one of the parties to communication offers consent. Consent can be express or implied. Implied consent is narrowly construed. Blumofe v. Pharmatrak, Inc., 329 F.3d 9 (1 st Cir. 2003). Consent is not judged by what a reasonable employee should have known concerning employer s monitoring practices, but rather is based upon notice actually provided by
2 employer to employee. Griggs-Ryan v. Smith, 904 F.2d 112, (1 st Cir. 1990). Business Use to extent employer qualifies as supplier and is acting in the ordinary course of business, employer monitoring of business calls may be permissible. Some courts have supported this proposition. Most all courts are in agreement that personal calls do not fall within ordinary course of business. Application to voice mail and is uncertain. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C Statute of broad application with criminal and civil penalties (including private right of action) where individuals access and/or destroy data without authorization. Limited success to date applying CFAA to employer claims against employees for computer-related misconduct. Massachusetts General Laws, Ch. 214, Section 1B: A person shall have a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce such right and in connection therewith to award damages. Balance between employer s legitimate business interests and employee s reasonable expectation of privacy. Trial court in Massachusetts held that employees may have an expectation of privacy in communications under this statute, in absence of explicit policy by employer putting employees on notice of monitoring. See Restuccia, et. al. v. Burke Technology, Inc., Middlesex Superior Court, C.A. No , 1996 WL (August 13, 1996). (Jury later determined that employer did not breach statute, where it put forward evidence that employer s monitoring practices were common knowledge and that s in question were reviewed for productivity purposes. See Restuccia, et. al. v. Burke Technology, Inc., Middlesex Superior Court, C.A. No (November 22, 1999), 28 M.L.W (Jan. 17, 2000). U.S. District Court in Massachusetts held that employees terminated for receiving sexually explicit did not have causes of action for invasion of privacy, unlawful interception of wire communications or
3 other claims. Employer had explicit policy, reminded employees of policy, and notified employees of periodic situations in which other employees were disciplined under the policy. Court found no reasonable expectation of privacy by employees. Court also noted that even if reasonable expectation were established, employer s obligations to prevent workplace harassment under federal and state anti-discrimination statutes would likely trump such privacy rights. See Garrity v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., No RWZ (D.Mass. 2002). National Labor Relations Act Evolving area of the law. NLRB has recently held that employees do not possess a statutory right to use employer s system for Section 7 purposes. The [Employer s] communications system, including its system, is the [Employer s] property, and was purchased by the [Employer] for use in operating its business. Guard Publishing Co., 351 NLRB 1110, 1114 (December 16, 2007), enf. granted in part, denied in part 571 F.3d 53 (2009). Employer policy prohibiting use of system for non job-related solicitations is facially valid. Id. Employee use of employer-provided system for union-related activity will be scrutinized for discriminatory application as with alleged violation of non-solicitation/distribution policies. Board adopts new test that unlawful discrimination consists of disparate treatment of activities or communications of a similar character because of their union or other Section 7-protected status. Id at Board notes: an employer clearly would violate the Act if it permitted employees to use to solicit for one union but not another, or if it permitted solicitation by antiunion employees but not by prounion employees. In either case, the employer has drawn a line between permitted and prohibited activities on Section 7 grounds. However, nothing in the Act prohibits an employer from drawing lines on a non-section 7 basis. That is, an employer may draw a line between charitable solicitations and non-charitable solicitations, between solicitations of a personal nature (e.g., a car for sale) and solicitations for the commercial sale of a product (e.g., Avon products), between invitations for an organization and invitations of a personal nature, between solicitations and mere talk, and between business-related use and non-business-related use. Id.
4 NLRB found discriminatory enforcement by the Employer with respect to one out of three s in question. The Board majority found that the Employer permissibly disciplined employees for two s that the Employer deemed group solicitations prohibited by its computer use policy. Notably, the U.S. Court of Appeals reached a contrary result finding, based upon the facts of the case, that the Employer s discipline of employees for sending all three s constituted discriminatory enforcement because the Employer s policy made no distinction concerning the organizational status of-mail usage. See Guard Publishing v. NLRB, 571 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2009). This case demonstrates that, as with solicitation, distribution and bulletin board cases, the issue is one of uniform application of a facially permissible policy. Changes to policy or enforcement of existing policy in the face of union activity will likely result in finding of unfair labor practice. Blogs Section 230, Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. 230 Broadly immunizes website owners ( service providers ) from liability based on content posted by third parties. Evolving case law in situations where employees create/maintain blogs discussing workplace. Screen Savers Screen savers bearing union messages may constitute protected activity, in face of discriminatory enforcement by employer. See St. Joseph s Hospital, 337 NLRB No. 12 (2001) (Board draws analogy between screen saver and traditional bulletin board). Telephones Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C : generally makes it unlawful for any person to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. 18 U.S.C Employer may monitor phone or oral communications with employee s consent. 18 U.S.C (c), (d).
5 Some court decisions have allowed employers to monitor/record employee phone calls, made in ordinary course of business, via a phone extension where legitimate business interests are present. Such interests have included concerns about dissemination of confidential/proprietary information and maintaining records of emergency calls. M.G.L. c. 272, s. 99: precludes interception of oral or wire communications without the consent of all parties to the communication. Limited development under case law, but see Garrity, supra., where U.S. District Court imposed narrow definition of term intercept and found statute inapplicable to received s. Mass. Wiretap Act applies to interception, and does contain service provider exception allowing employer to monitor its own systems in ordinary course of business. Text Messages Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 529 F.3d 892 (9 th Cir. 2008), cert. granted sub. nom. Ontario, California v. Quon, U.S. No (12/14/09) U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether: (1) police department search of personal text messages sent and received by police lieutenant on department-owned pager violates Fourth Amendment (search and seizure); and (2) whether wireless provider violated Stored Communications Act (SCA) by providing city with transcripts of text messages. Public sector case applicability to private sector is open question Police Department did not have policy specific to text messaging, but did have comprehensive policy warning that use of and computers was not confidential, could be monitored and that all website access would be recorded and periodically reviewed. Developing Policies: Internet Usage and Spectrum ranging from business purposes only to full usage for personal purposes Many employers develop policy detailing that Internet / are primarily for business purposes, but permit incidental personal use on non-working time that does not involve illegal or potentially offensive/harassing conduct. Uniform enforcement is key
6 Developing Policies: Monitoring Electronic Communications Explicit notice to employees is key no expectation of privacy in any communications made, transmitted, or received on employer-provided electronic equipment. Employer-owned equipment vs. non-employer-owned equipment Ensure compliance with applicable law (e.g., Mass. Wiretap Act) Uniform enforcement is key (e.g., Section 7) v1
Workplace Internet and E-mail Workplace Internet and E-mail Workplace e-mail and Internet use: employees and employers beware An employee s personal use of an employer s e-mail system and of Internet access
Workplace Monitoring Laws There are no federal statutes which regulate private employers on broad workplace privacy issues; however, federal laws do regulate specific aspects of privacy that arise during
Electronic Surveillance Issues November 2005 Stephen L. Harwood Senior Counsel Office of Enforcement Operations Criminal Division Department of Justice Table of Contents Legislation...1 Legislative History...1
THE EAVESDROPPING EMPLOYER: A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FRAMEWORK FOR EMPLOYEE MONITORING Corey A. Ciocchetti Assistant Professor of Business Ethics and Legal Studies, Daniels College of Business, University
HIGH SPEED INTERNET & VOICE SERVICES GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS...2 1. Introduction...2 2. Changes in Terms...2 3. Charges, Billing, and Payment...2 4. Installation by DNG...3
The & Computer Internet Lawyer Volume 28 Number 1 JANUARY 2011 Ronald L. Johnston, Arnold & Porter, LLP Editor-in-Chief* Cloud Computing: Recent Cases and Anticipating New Types of Claims By Mark H. Wittow
Technology Department 1350 Main Street Cambria, CA 93428 Technology Acceptable Use and Security Policy The Technology Acceptable Use and Security Policy ( policy ) applies to all CUSD employees and any
A Hogan Lovells White Paper Pan-American Governmental Access to Data in the Cloud A comparative analysis of seven Latin American jurisdictions to the United States by Christopher Wolf, Washington, DC Bret
CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS & EU DATA PRIVACY LAWS - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE COUNSEL SHOULD KNOW DANIEL P. COOPER, COUNSEL COVINGTON & BURLING This content is copyright of Daniel Cooper - 2008. All rights reserved.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00535-CV Tommy Adkisson, Individually, and Officially on Behalf of Bexar County, Texas as County Commissioner Precinct 4, Appellant v. Greg Abbott,
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ) ) ) ) CG Docket No. 02-278 REPORT
DOL-OSHA WHISTLE BLOWER INVESTIGATIONS: A LOOK INTO OSHA S INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES DIRECTIVE AND THE INDIVIDUAL STATUTORY PROCEDURES By: Joseph F. Spitzzeri Tier One Shareholder Johnson & Bell, Ltd. I-INTRODUCTION
ILLEGAL EVIDENCE: WIRETAPPING, HACKING, AND DATA INTERCEPTION LAWS EMILY MISKEL KoonsFuller, P.C. 5700 W. Plano Pkwy., Suite 2200 Plano, Texas 75093 (972) 769-2727 email@example.com State Bar of Texas
Prosecuting Computer Crimes H. Marshall Jarrett Director, EOUSA Michael W. Bailie Director, OLE Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section Criminal Division OLE Litigation Series Ed Hagen Assistant
Telephone Consumer Protection Act 47 U.S.C. 227 SEC. 227. [47 U.S.C. 227] RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT (a) DEFINITIONS. As used in this section (1) The term automatic telephone dialing
A Privacy Handbook for Lawyers PIPEDA AND YOUR PRACTICE Table of Contents Introduction...1 Privacy Issues in Managing a Law Practice...6 Privacy issues in Civil Litigation...16 Conclusion...26 Endnotes...28
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC94355 WELLS, C.J. JANE DOE, mother and legal guardian of JOHN DOE, a minor, Petitioner, vs. AMERICA ONLINE, INC., Respondent. [March 8, 2001] We have for review Doe v. America
Associated Industries of Massachusetts The Employer s Resource Group Employment Laws for Massachusetts Companies A Reference Guide 2014 Edition State & Federal Employment Laws Sponsored by Boston Bridgewater
NORTHWEST OHIO COMPUTER ASSOCIATION PROGRAM OF THE NORTHERN BUCKEYE EDUCATION COUNCIL NETWORK MANAGEMENT SECURITY POLICY The Board of Directors and staff of the Northwest Ohio Computer Association Program
South Dakota Parental Rights and Procedural Safeguards Special Education Programs Revised July 2011 Prior Written Notice... 1 Definition of Parental Consent... 3 Definition of a Parent... 3 Parental Consent...
1 BRINDLEE MOUNTAIN TELEPHONE COMPANY S ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between Brindlee Mountain Telephone Company ( Brindlee or Company ) and the person or entity who makes use of
Stowe Communications High Speed Internet Business & Residential Service Subscriber Agreement The cable service operating subsidiary or affiliate of Stowe Communications, serving your municipality ( Communications
ARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party 00451/06/EN WP 118 Working Party 29 Opinion 2/2006 on privacy issues related to the provision of email screening services Adopted on 21 February 2006 This Working
COVER SHEET PAPER PRESENTED AT THE TWENTY THIRD ANNUAL NATIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY CONFERENCE Title: Author: The Curse of Service: Civil Liability for Computer Security Professionals Arthur J.
117 STAT. 2699 Public Law 108 187 108th Congress An Act To regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY User Standards and Guidelines Manual May 2010 Division of Information Technology http://www.palmbeachschools.org/it/security.asp Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 4 2. Definitions...