my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Company reading company issued phone text messages. (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Company reading company issued phone text messages. Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Weigel Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1062 From: Edmond, OK, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Scott D. Neff Theatre Dork Posts: 919 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Oct 1999 posted 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...  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 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  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.