|
Issue No. 132 | 19 April 2002 |
Brand Spanking
Interview: Generation Next Legal: We�re All Terrorists Now Unions: Holding the Baby International: Taking It To The Streets History: Off the Wall Economics: Financing International Development Satire: Queen Mum's Life Tragically Cut Short Review: Return of The People�s Parliament Poetry: Silent Night
Tobacco Giant's New Smoking Gun Evidence Proves McJobs A Reality Workers Die Waiting For Justice Sick As A Dog Or Pissed As A Parrot? Workers� Anthem � Hip Hop or Grunge? DOCS Crisis � At Risk Kids Slipping Through Net Call Centre Workers Stiffed - Survey South Coast Medical Centre in Della�s Sights Sydney Take-Off For Security Campaign Intel Faces Email Censure Challenge Megawati Reopens Marsinah Case
The Soapbox The Locker Room Bosswatch Week in Review
Where's the Silver Tail?
Labor Council of NSW |
News Intel Faces Email Censure Challenge
The case, now before the California Supreme Court, is seen as crucial by union organisers who want to use e-mail technology to campaign for workers' rights. While the right to use e-mail as an organising tool seems to be under attack in the USA British workers are set to win important protections against snooping bosses under a new code determining the rights to privacy at work.
In Britain, blanket monitoring of e-mails and internet usage in the office will be banned and hidden cameras can be used without staff consent only in criminal investigations where police have been informed, according to a new code under the Data Protection Act. Employers in the UK should give staff access to private e-mail and internet accounts, the code states, and not monitor e-mails where there is 'reason to believe' they are personal, even if sent or received on a work computer during office hours.
In the USA Intel won its District Court case against the worker activist on the basis of a legal argument called " trespass the chattels" a doctrine which prohibits others from interfering with personal property. Intel sued ex-employee Ken Hamdi because over a two-year period he had six times e-mailed employees attacking the company's treatment of its workforce. Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation - a civil liberties organisation working to protect rights in the digital world -have supported Ken Hamdi in an appeal, claiming that his right to free speech was violated.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues the 'trespass chattels' victory was an incorrect use of the doctrine because the interference must be intentional, physical contact with someone else's property that results in substantial interference or damage of the property.
The company acknowledged during the case that none of the messages had harmed Intel's computer systems and caused no delays but nevertheless a California District court ruled for the company that e-mails were an "illegal trespass."
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|