Privacy Concerns! (internet data)

[garman]

What are the rules when it comes to internet data. Does any company have the right to read my personal mail like yahoo or hotmail when it obviously does not belong to them. So for example can any company retrieve data sent from hotmail, yahoo and read it when it is intended for Joe who works for lets say Apple and Joe uses Apple's network to read his email sent from yahoo or hotmail. -garman

[jimmalenko]

AFAIK it would depend on the individual company's policies. To continue with the analogy provided, if I were an Apple techie, I'd be making sure that part of our "Use of the internet" policy mentions that all email and web traffic / URLs are monitored. If your workplace is supplying the connection then they have every right to control what it is used to access IMHO.

For example, one company I worked at had a "no personal use" policy, whilst another had a "personal use is fine, but please keep it to a minimum" policy. For the former, we were empowered to log and review all websites accessed and had the power to suspend peoples' internet access if we deemed it necessary. For the latter, we still kept logs in case of emergency but did not actively police anything unless requested.

The easiest way to negate all this is to not use work's internet connection for personal items at all. Then you won't have any issues

[offline]

Your expectations for email privacy under law would be low. Adam would be able to go into detail. Basically, don't expect anything you send via email (especially google/yahoo etc.) to be private. If you want some protection - encrypt your mail. For everything else, you are only covered by the company's privacy policy and your countries information or privacy acts. In other words, be careful.

[drewzor]

deleted

[offline]

Dont do shit from work!

Wise words. Even better still, don't do shit at all

Everything, even so much as a mouse fart, is logged in one way or another. Something you did or said yesterday could come back and haunt you years from now.

[garman]

My thought is that Yahoo or hotmail is not a Apple company, do you not think that receiving or sending mail from Yahoo would be a private matter. I was thinking if the network is theirs does that mean the Hotmail meesage with my name on it is fair game. In that same respect why doesn't apple put cameras in restrooms, it does belong to Apple. But as a person I do believe when I use Apple's restrooms that privacy would be assured. Would that not apply to the email issues as well? -garman

[thecoalman]

But as a person I do believe when I use Apple's restrooms that privacy would be assured. Would that not apply to the email issues as well? -garman

But it's not... there's no gauratee the maintenance didn't set up a camera in the restroom to view your activities. Same goes for any unecrypted e-mail no matter where it's coming from or going too. Treat as if it's open for anyone to view. Just as an example I have dmin priveleges for a website I run for some friends of mine. I can view any email that resides on the server whether it be in their inbox, sentbox or whatever. I don't even have to login to their account, I can simply copy it rom the server via FTP. I don't view their e-mail but I did make them aware of the fact that I can... Anyhow the same is going to apply no matter where it is, if someone has access to the server they can certainly view your e-mail.

Only way to insure it's private as mentioned above is to encrypt it.

[ZAPPER]

I was fired for emailing reviews of the products i sold to people. the company said that it was against their policy (no employee can have an opinion) needless to say they came to my house and went through my computer to delete photos and any evidence of proof the statments i made (whether it was good or bad) I was then told that i was under gag order or i'll be sued for breach of copyright because i used images with logos of the blands i reviewed. Dont do shit from work! trustme you dont want to go through that ordeal

WHAT?

Austraila must have some different ways of doing things.

Come to my house and say that you are gonna check my computer and Ruby Ridge and Waco are gonna look like picnics! And I don't have anything to hide. It's the principle! I suppose that anyone clever enough could check the contents of my E-Mail and whole computer remotely without me even knowing, but big deal, like I said I have nothing to hide. If the law shows up at my door with the proper paperwork and due process to assist them in an investigation involving me or not, I'll consider the matter, but to just come and say that we are taking and you can't have it.....Well there will be a widow or two that night, theirs or mine!


I would assume that any gov't could gain access to your records and files without us even knowing, legal or not. I don't know why they would waste time and manpower to do it any other way. But a private company? Here I am, come and get it.

[offline]

WHAT?
Austraila must have some different ways of doing things.

Things are interesting here. Industrial relations laws are severe. Private companies can do many things. I can't comment further without it being political, but imagine having one political party (does not matter which - Democrats or Republicans) having complete and absolute power over federal government - thats us. We have no "bill of rights".

[thecoalman]

Things are interesting here. Industrial relations laws are severe. Private companies can do many things.

A private company could not do that here, the cops would need a search warrant signed by a judge for something like that. Only time they can enter a house without one is they have probable cause to believe there is illegal activity, someone is in danger etc.... a company saying you did something doesn't even come close to that.

[garman]

But as a person I do believe when I use Apple's restrooms that privacy would be assured. Would that not apply to the email issues as well? -garman

But it's not... there's no gauratee the maintenance didn't set up a camera in the restroom to view your activities. Same goes for any unecrypted e-mail no matter where it's coming from or going too. Treat as if it's open for anyone to view. Just as an example I have dmin priveleges for a website I run for some friends of mine. I can view any email that resides on the server whether it be in their inbox, sentbox or whatever. I don't even have to login to their account, I can simply copy it rom the server via FTP. I don't view their e-mail but I did make them aware of the fact that I can... Anyhow the same is going to apply no matter where it is, if someone has access to the server they can certainly view your e-mail.

Only way to insure it's private as mentioned above is to encrypt it.

Lets take this further. How about the email from hotmail that I encrypt. Does Apple have the right to decrypt my data. Now knowing that I have encrypted it, does that not give Apple the impression that this mail is private and knowing that can they still open it. Lets say I leave my knap sack on a chair at the office, can my company ask me to open it even if they do not have any justifiable cause or can they open it themselves without my permission knowing that chair/office is a possesion of Apples.
Here's another one, what about companies who take corporate wellfare, do the tax payers have the right to pier into employees emails.
I just had another thought regarding tax payers. On that same issue of ownership and privacy. What about the taxpayers, we fund the police force, governement, etc... we all have partnership in them. Why can't we look at thier emails.
Where is that Janitor when we need him.
-garman

[drewzor]

deleted

[ZAPPER]

First off, I would not consider any form of electronic comunication secure, encrypted or not. If it is, then the NSA is not doing what my tax dollars are paying for.

Privacy may actually end up being a legal term and not an actual condition.

In the US there is the slim chance that you can veiw public records records under the "freedom of information act" and on the other hand there is supposed to be the "Privacy Act" to keep your information from being exposed.

There are basically two schools on confounding the system. Either never get into it in the first place, or overwhelm it to the point that any of the information is useless. Both of which are most likely illegle.

The best bet is to keep your nose clean or have enough money to buy justice.

[thecoalman]

Lets take this further. How about the email from hotmail that I encrypt. Does Apple have the right to decrypt my data. Now knowing that I have encrypted it, does that not give Apple the impression that this mail is private and knowing that can they still open it.

If it's encrypted and they attempt to decrypt they would be breking the law AFAIK, That's irrelevant though cause they can't.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110841,00.asp
The technical difficulty in breaking PGP was described by an expert witness at a trial in the U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington, in April 1999. Steven Russelle, a detective with the Portland Police Bureau, was asked to explain what he meant when he said it was not "computationally feasible" to crack the code. "It means that in terms of today's technology and the speed of today's computers, you can't put enough computers together to crack a message of the kind that we've discussed in any sort of reasonable length of time," he told the court.

Russelle was asked whether he was talking about a couple of years or longer. "We're talking about millions of years," he replied.

----------------------

Lets say I leave my knap sack on a chair at the office, can my company ask me to open it even if they do not have any justifiable cause or can they open it themselves without my permission knowing that chair/office is a possesion of Apples.

I guess that would depend on the companies policies, if you signed an employment agreement tht stated they could do that I would imagine they could. Just for example when you enter a US military installation there are signs that state your vehicle and person are subject to search and seizure at any time, you can either turn around or enter the base. It's your choice but once inside the base you have given up that right that protects you from search and siezure.

Here's another one, what about companies who take corporate wellfare, do the tax payers have the right to pier into employees emails.
I just had another thought regarding tax payers. On that same issue of ownership and privacy. What about the taxpayers, we fund the police force, governement, etc... we all have partnership in them. Why can't we look at thier emails.
Where is that Janitor when we need him.
-garman

I think you've crossed the line there.... there are no laws that say you can't view someones e-mail if you have access to tehm AFAIK but there certainly isn't any that say you have a right too.

[BJ_M]

Things are interesting here. Industrial relations laws are severe. Private companies can do many things.

A private company could not do that here, the cops would need a search warrant signed by a judge for something like that. Only time they can enter a house without one is they have probable cause to believe there is illegal activity, someone is in danger etc.... a company saying you did something doesn't even come close to that.

this is no longer true in the USA - but I dont want to get political ...and expand on this further ...

[thecoalman]

[
this is no longer true in the USA - but I dont want to get political ...and expand on this further ...

I have a vague recollection of some legislation recently passed that gave the athorities a little more power for entering a house but again they need a pretty good reason to do it... As far as a private entity coming into your house I would like to see any information you have to such legislation because as far as I know it doesn't exist.

[BJ_M]

bounty hunters for one can enter a house -

officials of some agencies can enter a house (or tap) or monitor a subject under current laws without a search warrant - currently under review somewhat ...

customs agents can search anywhere without a warrant under some circumstances.

[Abbadon]

What are the rules when it comes to internet data. Does any company have the right to read my personal mail like yahoo or hotmail when it obviously does not belong to them. So for example can any company retrieve data sent from hotmail, yahoo and read it when it is intended for Joe who works for lets say Apple and Joe uses Apple's network to read his email sent from yahoo or hotmail. -garman

If you are using your employer's computer, they have the right to do whatever they want, it is their equipment and in normal circunstances they give you a document for you to sign where you state you undertand and agree with company policy and blah, blah, blah.

To make things worse, most companies or offices log internet activity such as:

1. Time spend surfing
2. Places visited
3. Type of electronic activity (Posting in forums, chat)

I have even heard of a couple of bosses who have installed applications to monitor their employees such ( Spector ?) http://www.spector.com/

They actually don't need to hire a lawyer to go about your hotmail and yahoo.com because the tecnology to watch is out there.

[adam]

bounty hunters for one can enter a house.

Well... the reason they can do this is because their target has agreed to it via a contract. Bounty hunters work for bond companies. When the fugitive bonds out they grant the bond company the right to come get them anywhere they can be found. Also, if the bounty hunter is coming for them there must be a standing arrest warrant anyway (issued as soon as they violate the bond). So the police already have the authority to enter their premises to get them...its just that they are not going to pursue it like the bond company is since its not their money on the line.

Its the same deal for repo-men.

[ViRaL1]

I'd welcome any non-government or government sanctioned agency to enter my home in an attempt to sieze my personal computer with anything less than kevlar.

I have to agree with the 'don't do shit' philosophy. When you're using your employer's equipment, their network, or their time for your own personal activites, it's likely to bite you in the ass; and there's really no defense. Although I do recall a case recently where a judge ruled internet use was akin to normal everyday activity like reading a newspaper or making a phone call and as such should not be treated like misuse of company time / property. However something tells me that it won't stand for long.

As far as cameras in the restroom, the company would have to notify you in some for or another be it signs or paperwork that you signed, that you were being recorded for the recordings to be worth anything to them. Aside from that, I believt that they would have to allow you the time and opportunity to travel elsewhere to use a restroom that is not monitored if you chose not to be subjected to having your restroom usage monitored.

[thecoalman]

bounty hunters for one can enter a house -
.

The laws regarding bounty hunters vary from state to state.... If they have a contract saying they can go ito the house so be it, but they certainly can't come into my house if they think the guy is there.

[ZAPPER]

bounty hunters for one can enter a house -
.

The laws regarding bounty hunters vary from state to state.... If they have a contract saying they can go ito the house so be it, but they certainly can't come into my house if they think the guy is there.

Oooh, tuff call. I don't really know the law, but I would wonder if they are actually deputized agents of the law or not, and then I bet they would get you for harbouring a fugitive or some crap like that.

I know from what I have seen that mommies house and grandmas house is where they usually go first to get their quarry. (possibly the only ones dumb/kind enough to bail the kids out in the first place)

I also know that repo men will go anywhere to get a car. Gated apartments, pay parking decks mommies, grandmas, work, freinds houses, deep in the woods and deep in the ghetto. Personally I don't think it is worth 150 to 250, but what a rush. I ride with my brother maybe once or twice a year. We will do a drive by to survey the lay of the land and take a guess on the risk. Usually the ride to the joint is the scary part, once you see the car it is just a matter of taking it.

[adam]

Bounty hunters are not peace officers, or otherwise granted any special authority. They have a purely contractual right to take the person into custody, and that includes going into any property they own...like their house. They cannot enter someone else's property without permission. Well they can, and arrest the guy/gal and there is nothing that fugitive can do about it, but the owner of the property can sue for damages later. When bounty hunters trap somebody on another person's property they usually ask permission to enter the premises or wait til the person finally comes out.

[thecoalman]

I also know that repo men will go anywhere to get a car. Gated apartments, pay parking decks mommies, grandmas, work, freinds houses, deep in the woods and deep in the ghetto. Personally I don't think it is worth 150 to 250, but what a rush. I ride with my brother maybe once or twice a year. We will do a drive by to survey the lay of the land and take a guess on the risk. Usually the ride to the joint is the scary part, once you see the car it is just a matter of taking it.

Don't do it in Texas, a repo guy got shot for coming onto someones property and trying to repo his car. If I remember correctly the homeowner was never even charged...

[adam]

That's actually very common everywhere. The debtor still has the right to protect himself and his property even though the repo man has a right to reclaim it. That's why repo men have to be so sneaky. Its a dangerous job. The amount they get paid is often based on how dangerous a repossession it is.

[ZAPPER]

I have heard that Texas law says that it is reasonable to assume that people that come on to your property uninvited after dark may be there to cause you harm. So that is supposed to be the out for shooting repo men. However the last big case that I heard about was the repo man leaving the property and being shot in the back through the back of the truck after he already had the repo-ed car on the hook. Even the crazy Texans that I know say that should have not been allowed to stand in court. But hey, when in Rome...

Cops and repo men don't always get along. There are alot of differnt takes on the repo world as far as what the laws actually are. It usually takes the cool headed understanding of a judge to straighten things out when they go sour. The cops are just trying to the best that they can on the spot and often think that the defaulter is the victom, and often times it is someone that they know locally while the repoman is the outsider.

Control of the property. Who is in physical control of the car to be repoed? If the defaulter is in the car, they are in control and you don't put a hook on it. (until you talk them out of it) (a clever trick to keep the defaulter out was to break cheap keys off in the lock before they can get in)

If the repo man gets a hook on the car before the defaulter gains entry into it, the repo man is in control. And usually the cops respect this arrangement round these parts.


As soon as you take the car, you are supposed to call the local cops and tell them that you have it. This stops them from looking for a stolen car, if reported as.

Just guessing, probablly 90% of the repos are peaceful and most folks are kind of relieved that it is over. A few will cry and beg, a few will make threats and in ten years my brother has ever only once seen a gun. He tells me that he told the guy that "If you shoot me, my troubles will be over and yours will just be starting" and that was his very first repo!

Anybody can repo a car, but how about the guys that repo mobile homes? Or the guys that repo furniture? Now that's NUTS!

[gadgetguy]

I was once sent by a former employer to repo a burglar alarm system. I was met at the door by a man with a gun who told me I couldn't take it. I decided for less than 7 bucks an hour that he was right.