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

3. 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
is most common form of harrassment today

4. 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”

5. 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

6. 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.” 

7. 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.

8. Brazilian response
A story about privacy
Discussion about privacy

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

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

11. Brazil reasoning
issues
Telecommunication issues

13. 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.

14. 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.