Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Company reading company issued phone text messages.

This is topic Company reading company issued phone text messages. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006102

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-17-2010, 11:17 PM:

Here's a goodie to share:

I know of an employee who was issued a cellphone by this employee's company. The employee was given the freedom to use the phone for whatever - in both text and call.

This employee was using the cellphone to do text messaging to a non-employee friend.

This employee was in communication, via text, of a situation that happened at work that was rather confidental to the non-employee.

In the middle of their text communication, a representative of the company sent a text to the employee, warning that the content that the two are in communication with, contains rather confidental information that shouldn't be discussed to the non-employee.

The employee suddenly went ballistic that a privacy issue has suddenly been invaded.

The employee suddenly called up the non-employee that their text discussion was being monitored and the content of the text messages were being read by the representative and mention the warning from the representative to the employee. Thus, the non-employee went ballistic and said that the "Invasion of Privacy" has been violated whom stated that "even my messages have been observed and read by that employee's company."

This was taken place without concent or notification by the employer. Also, none of the employees were told that any text conversation between two parties-both of employee to employee or employee to non-employee-was going to being monitored and read by the employer.

A definite case of "Invasion of Privacy"

..is this a legal, or an illegal act by the company to perform this practice to monitor and read the content of their employee's, that were issued cellphones, text messages?

-Monte

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-17-2010, 11:24 PM:

I think it technically may depend on weather or not it is in fact a text message. With blackberries and iphones, email has largely replaced texting. If the conversation was being had over email, then the employer is in the right. If it was via text message, then its a little gray. The recent fiasco with the schools that sent home monitored laptops may make for some interesting precedent here.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-17-2010, 11:25 PM:

Depends. But I'm gonna bet that if it goes to court, the company will win.

quote: Mike Olpin
If the conversation was being had over email, then the employer is in the right.

Not so sure. The only way they could even possibly read email is if it was sent from their servers and arguably could be accessible by the company. Plus, I've known of cases where companies suspected someone (but didn't know who) was giving away secrets and only through analyzing weird patterns in emails found the culprit (in one case it was where someone had been embedding corporate documents into a picture that was sent out as an attachment). And those companies didn't get in trouble for monitoring their own email systems.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-17-2010, 11:32 PM:

It's totally understandable with company email systems - that's usually the norm with large companies checking on what each location is doing...

The phones issued are just simple flip celphones.. no fancy internet phones. Thus, text messaging is the norm since the phone plan offers unlimited text messaging.

thx-Monte

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-17-2010, 11:46 PM:

I was assuming since most corporate blackberries and iphones are tied in via a company owned Microsoft Exchange server, that in fact it ought to be expected that email is monitored.

A friend of mine has two email accounts on his blackberry. I have been instructed only to use the company one (myfriend@hisemployer.com) for business, since the IT department can monitor it.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-17-2010, 11:48 PM:

BTW, at least Blackberry Enterprise Server has a feature which allows for logging text messages (sms). And the issue here is that someone could argue that company-issued gives them the right to monitor the stuff, since it is their property. And it also depends on what terms were given to him that you describe as him being allowed to use it for whatever. He might be communicating something to you that's not entirely accurate.

And I'm sure other similar corporate phone servers have a similar feature.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 03-18-2010, 01:30 AM:

As it stands right now it is a privacy violation, but pending the outcome of this case Quon v. Arch Wireless that could change.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-18-2010, 01:46 AM:

Even if the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case, leaving the appeal's court decision as standing, it won't necessarily apply to this case. That's because the appellete court made their decision based primarily "on a statement by the officer in charge of the text messaging program to the SWAT officer that the Department would not review his text messages if he voluntarily paid any overage charges resulting from excessive personal use."

And that's different from the statement here in the thread that the guy was told he could use it for whatever. That isn't communicating that they won't review his messages.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-18-2010, 02:12 AM:

quote:
the Department’s formal policy informed all SWAT officers that the Department might review their text messages.

..which wasn't the case with what I presented -no notice, warning .. nothing.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-18-2010, 04:36 AM:

If a company wants to monitor communication on company-issued phones, they should at least inform and have the recipient sign a consent form upon receiving the phone. There is no reason to be all sneaky. That way people will watch what they say from the start. Idiots.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-18-2010, 09:44 AM:

Always best to assume you have no rights. Unless they are clearly spelled out in legislation, even a court ruling is subject to interpretation. And even if it is spelled out in legislation, the monitoring could be going on without you knowing it.

The same old advice applies, always assume someone you don't want to is listening.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-18-2010, 10:52 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
If a company wants to monitor communication on company-issued phones, they should at least inform and have the recipient sign a consent form upon receiving the phone. There is no reason to be all sneaky. That way people will watch what they say from the start. Idiots.

First, I agree that it is better to tell people that their messages can be monitored because it just generates a more cooperative atmosphere instead of an adversarial one.

Second, if there is an incident where the company needs to use its privilege to monitor communication there will be no question about their right to do so because all parties have been given notice.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 03-18-2010, 10:55 AM:

Quite often in an employee manual you'll see something along the lines of "all company property assigned for your use is property of the company and therefore subject to search. No rights of privacy should be assumed." Traditionally this was inserted to cover the employer's right to search your desk or an locker. In this modern age I would assume that this covers my company issued phone and laptop. I think the company I work for even has something the specifically says all communications sent using company owned technology is property of the company... not sure though.

I do admit that I use my company issued phone to send personal comments to my friends and family but the company makes me reimburse them for all text messages sent, so I think I could make a case that I own those. Still, I try not to send tooooo many texts I wouldn't want to read on power point presentation in front of the entire company. Now when I'm drunk texting... that's a different matter... [Embarrassed]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-18-2010, 12:41 PM:

Yo Randy - Those were two most excellent comments that you presented here, for if those two were in force with this one employee's company, I wouldn't have inserted this discussion in this section of the forum.

Yet, as right now, there is so much hostility, finger pointing, and guilt ridden attitudes in this employee's company, it's a wonder that this company is still in business.

-thx Monte

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-18-2010, 02:55 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
..which wasn't the case with what I presented -no notice, warning .. nothing.

I know that's how it was presented. But things aren't always presented to you the way they really are. Like sometimes they say that a company gave them no warning when they got warning in writing but just didn't read through it, they forget an incident occurred, or they think because someone said to them "You can use this for personal stuff" it negates their previous statement.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-18-2010, 09:37 PM:

It is not usual for communications by cell phone or text message to be monitored in real time by a third party. Sure, it's possible but it is not a common occurrence.

Everybody knows or should know that communications can be monitored by the cell phone company or by the government but this normally only happens as part of an investigation of a crime or a problem in national security. Even so, a warrant is usually needed. Therefore, it is NOT common practice for cell phones to be monitored. It is not common practice for communication to be monitored in real time and it is certainly not common for communications to be monitored by somebody who is not the government or the cell phone company.

Therefore, a cell phone user could have a reasonable expectation of privacy and rightly believe that his phone calls and text messages are private.

I've got no idea what kind of company would feel the need to monitor other peoples' communications in real time like that. Are they a government contractor or a firm that has a stake in national security? Is it a nuclear power plant or something?

It doesn't matter whether the company has the right to monitor communications. It probably does. That's not the issue, AFAIAC. It is the issue of whether the person had fair notice.

Again, I don't think any ordinary company would have a policy of monitoring communications like that. I don't see why most companies would need to. And, because I think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, I believe that an ordinary person could rightly believe that his communication would NOT be monitored.

Because of this, I think the company should give fair warning and NOT by printing it in the back of an employee handbook somewhere or in small type at the bottom of a cell phone contract. The employee needs to have this spelled out to him. He needs to be specifically warned.

Yes, I think a company has the right to do so if it thinks this practice is in its best interest. I'll say it again, this is something that can ruin trust between management and employees and turn the work atmosphere into an "us versus them" mentality on both sides. Management would look down on and distrust employees. Employees would hate and distrust management. The place could literally take on a prison mentality where it is always the guards squaring off against the inmates.

The solution to all this is simple: Just tell people.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-19-2010, 01:35 AM:

quote: Randy Stankey
It is the issue of whether the person had fair notice.

Which this is the very simple case here.

Yet, what is very interesting that this company where this employee works at, screams on that fair practices should be implemented, yet they can do the Januvian Syndrome stunt by turning the other face to the employees and decide that they don't need to be treated fairly.

Major case of a double standard operation ...

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 03-19-2010, 01:38 AM:

One of our off duty officers that does security for us recently stopped using his department issued phone for personal business do the the fact that the Supreme Court is (and after consulting with FOP lawyers reasonably) expected to over turn the 9th Circuit decision because the policy was stated in writing even though a department head verbally stated something contradicting that written policy.

Either way, if I was issued a phone, I wouldn't use it to conduct personal business, because the company automatically has access to all communication logs since they pay the bill. The grey area is if they give you the option to pay for any additional features or overages.

I don't even fully expect privacy being part of a "family" plan, since the account is in my sister's name and she has access to each phone's statement detail.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-19-2010, 01:59 AM:

Communication logs and statement details are one thing.

Real time monitoring of communication by a third party who is not the phone company or who is not working for the government is a whole completely different thing.

If my company pays my cell phone bills, yes, they get the statement and, yes they can see a listing of the calls I make or a count of the number of text messages I send or the amount of data I transmit and receive. I fully expect that. However, I do not expect my phone calls to be monitored in real time, while they are in progress without due process. (e.g. A court order or warrant.)

I do not dispute that calls can be monitored. I do not dispute that a company may have the right to monitor calls. I DO expect I will be afforded reasonable privacy unless I am informed in advance that company policy is otherwise.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-19-2010, 11:47 AM:

When I worked at Allegiant Air, they made it very clear during new-hire orientation and quarterly after that, in writing, that the contents of any email or text messages which pass through the company's servers are considered company property. The contents can be read by company administrators at any time.

Under current law there is no such thing as a "right to privacy" covering employees in the workplace. Companies argue that since email and text capabilities are provided by companies for business purposes, companies have the obligation to monitor non-business use of these company-controlled assets.

Most companies, Allegiant included, have a fairly relaxed policy regarding non-business employee traffic on company servers and workstations. No one minded things like occasionally calling home or checking personal email or even web surfing as long as business was being taken care of. Generally, anyone logging a lot of such traffic had more work duties assigned to them.

But the point is the company certainly did check network logs and the contents of emails and texts. If they saw something they didn't like, they would certainly tell you, just as in the example being discussed here. Fair warning about no expectation of "privacy" involving company phones and other means of company-provided communication was and is routinely given.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-19-2010, 12:26 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Communication logs and statement details are one thing.

Real time monitoring of communication by a third party who is not the phone company or who is not working for the government is a whole completely different thing.

There's nothing to indicate that this is real-time monitoring. Just because I send a text to Bob and before he replies I get a message saying "We know you're talking to someone about stuff you shouldn't" doesn't mean that it was being tracked real-time, because they could've previously polled phones for their texts and saw my messages I'd sent to Bob earlier and just happened to send out their message while I was waiting for a reply from Bob or they could've polled the phones while I was waiting for the reply.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-19-2010, 03:01 PM:

Chris, you are probably right about the text being monitored in some automated way. We don't know the specifics.

The company does allow use of its phones for personal business by employees. That blurs the line. Do they turn the monitoring software off at 5:01 PM? What is the line between "personal" and "business" use and how do you know the difference? What if I work weekends or work at home? Does the company say that phones are monitored at all times? If so, then fine.

In other cases, there have been rulings to the effect that if the company allows the employee to read newspapers, magazines or other personal reading material while on break then an employee might also be allowed to use his company issued computer for personal recreational purposes while he is on break. The rationale is that reading news or other things on the computer is, in effect, the same thing as reading a newspaper. If one thing is allowed then it follows that the other might also be allowed. This further blurs the line between personal and company use.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-19-2010, 03:40 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
Chris, you are probably right about the text being monitored in some automated way. We don't know the specifics.

If it works anything like any other system that lets you monitor texts on corporate phones, it would be automated (short of someone telling the software "poll now").

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-19-2010, 07:45 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
There's nothing to indicate that this is real-time monitoring

..just that in this case that I began with this thread where the office personnel came in between the two partie's text conversation, I'd shake a bet that this was a real time observation and action.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-19-2010, 09:09 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
..just that in this case that I began with this thread where the office personnel came in between the two partie's text conversation, I'd shake a bet that this was a real time observation and action.

1) In the rest of my post I explained how it could easily be that they weren't monitoring it with some guy reading each text and still appear in the middle of the two's text conversation
2) How do you know they aren't doing some logging of text messages and having the computer search based on the content? Like it looks for certain words that they think likely are only used with someone talking about stuff they shouldn't and when it finds such a message it sends a copy to your boss who reads through it (and does nothing if it was a false alarm).

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-19-2010, 09:56 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
How do you know they aren't doing some logging of text messages and having the computer search based on the content?

You mean like: "President. Election Day. Explosion. 12:00 Noon. Carnivore."

That's what I thought at first but the message reply that interrupted the conversation threw me off. I suppose it could have been coincidence that it arrived at that moment. [Shrug]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 03-19-2010, 10:20 PM:

quote: Randy Stankey
That's what I thought at first but the message reply that interrupted the conversation threw me off. I suppose it could have been coincidence that it arrived at that moment.

Like I said, the server could've searched for the special words then automatically sent a message to the superior. So while he was involved in the convo, the computer alerted the superior to the content of one of the messages which he immediately noticed as a breach of confidentiality. Just an idea.