Privacy Group 1 Gerson De Conti II Robert Rhyne Chris Glasnapp Brian Roderick Jon Torres Tanh Nguyen Clif Gaus Group 1

Business Dilemma Monitoring vs. Privacy Interview with recent VT grad Employee felt uncomfortable with monitoring Employee was made aware by company Employer monitors for harassment Recent Supreme Court cases found that employers must take action against harrassment once made aware of harrassment E-mail is most common form of harrassment today

Current Law “All states have a right to privacy based on a 'reasonable expectation of privacy,’… But the courts have said that if there is a written policy notifying employees of monitoring, there is no expectation of privacy.”1 In case of recent grad, there is no expectation of privacy Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA) Protects users working only on private property, i.e., does not apply to persons in the workplace, operating on company owned machines. 1Michael Overly, “E-Policy: How To Develop Computer, E-Policy, and Internet Guidelines to Protect Your Company and Its Assets”

Proposed Legislation Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act (NEMA) Proposes that companies should be required to notify employees of monitoring before monitoring Proposed 2001, died in committee Expected to be re-introduce in 2002 Similar legislation vetoed twice by California Governor Gray Connecticut only state to have such legislation

Electronic Communications Privacy Act U.S. Reasoning Electronic Communications Privacy Act “The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 was adopted to address the legal privacy issues that were evolving with the growing use of computers and other new innovations in electronic communications. The ECPA updated legislation passed in 1968 that had been designed to clarify what constitutes invasion of privacy when electronic surveillance is involved. The ECPA extended privacy protection outlined in the earlier legislation to apply to radio paging devices, electronic mail, cellular telephones, private communication carriers, and computer transmissions.”  http://www.digitalcentury.com/encyclo/update/ecpa.html

U.S. Reasoning The Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Brazilian response A story about privacy Discussion about privacy

Brazilian response How the culture views privacy Business Outside the home Inside the home Conclusions about culture

Brazil reasoning Article 5, Sections 5 – 14, of the 1988 Constitution of Brazil Senate Bill proposed in 1996

Brazil reasoning Email issues Telecommunication issues

Comparison of U.S. and Brazil Laws of U.S. and laws of Brazil seem to indicate very different reactions. In reality, monitoring occurs in both countries. Brazilan Law says monitoring is illegal.

Comparison of U.S. and Brazil Corruption in Brazil allows monitoring. US Law has nothing prohibiting monitoring. Very few US laws apply to privacy in the workplace; laws protect corporations, not individuals.