# Evesdropping on the computer. Legal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 20, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evesdropping-on-the-computer-legal/208552 "2003-10-20T17:43:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ascrivey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f05b48/32.png) [@ascrivey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ascrivey)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evesdropping-on-the-computer-legal/208552/1 "2003-10-20T17:43:19Z")
I live in Illinois and am a school teacher. I always thought that it was legal for my administrators to be able to pull up my school e-mail accounts and look at my messenger (MSN, aol, yahoo, etc.) messages. Now we have a teacher who is calling the Atty. General about it. Another says it’s not legal. Anyone know the answer to this? ---
**Author:** ![susie426](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/41988e/32.png) [@susie426](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/susie426)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evesdropping-on-the-computer-legal/208552/2 "2003-10-20T18:05:25Z")
Ascrivey, As I understand it, as long as the district owns the computer, the email account (domain name) and the server in which you obtain online service, they have full legal right to “browse”. I also understand that anything you do on a school computer or server during your contracted work hours are up for grabs as well. I don’t know the exact law or group of statutes stipulating that, but there are these kinds of situations in business everyday. Contact your local teachers union --they should have the answer. It may be a state-to-state issue, but I think it’s a pretty standard one. Also, your district may have in policy somewhere concerning computer and internet use. If a district has a policy, it will hold up in court as law as long as it is constitutional. As far as administrators being given the authority to do that, it depends on delegation in your district and how much “big brother” power they may have. Hope this helps! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Belrix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed655f/32.png) [@Belrix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belrix)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evesdropping-on-the-computer-legal/208552/3 "2003-10-20T18:36:01Z")
I can give you an answer from the corporate world. The computer and all the information on it is the property of the company. Our EEO trainging assues us this has been tested successfully in court. All the email, pictures, messages, & plans for world domination on my hard drive (or our supporting servers) is all the company’s business. ---
**Author:** ![daere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@daere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/daere)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evesdropping-on-the-computer-legal/208552/4 "2003-10-22T03:28:13Z")
I agree with Belrix, since it is a school computer and school server, the school can read them. Unfortunately, most people aren’t aware that their work email is neither secure nor private. I work in the securities industry. My company is obligated by the SEC (or NASD?) to scan our emails for words and phrases associated with insider trading… and to keep them archived for about 3 years. So at least we know up front that it’s not private. Most people have figured out the “workaround” of using a hotmail, yahoomail, or other email account we can access with Internet Explorer/Netscape. Since it doesn’t go through the work email server, it’s at least a little more private. However, since it’s still the company’s computer, it’s still not a guarantee. ---
**Author:** ![cletus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@cletus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cletus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evesdropping-on-the-computer-legal/208552/5 "2003-10-22T08:16:12Z")
I believe any applicable laws would be referenced in your school policy manual. If there are no state laws that specifically say “they have permission” then the laws will probably side with the school board’s policy. The school board’s policy, in turn, will most likely state the administrators have permission to view a teacher’s online records. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evesdropping-on-the-computer-legal/208552/6 "2003-10-22T09:35:42Z")
The short of it is, without knowing the specific situation and circumstances, it’s not possible to say that they absolutely don’t have the right to read the mail. However, it appears likely that they would, despite the indignant protests of your co-workers. From an old, but decent site still: [http://www.rbs2.com/email.htm#anchor222000](http://www.rbs2.com/email.htm#anchor222000) We have a summary, then quotes summarizing two “classic cases” I refer to for this when I need to. > [@](#): > > The law regards each of these situations as distinct. > > 1. Interception of e-mail during transmission is prohibited by federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2521 and also some state wiretap statutes. The federal statutes were amended in 1986 by Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to include e-mail. > > 2. Reading e-mail during storage on a computer system is prohibited by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2701-2711, Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), provided that the system is “providing an electronic communication service to the public.” This means, among other things, that your e-mail messages are confidential when stored on a computer owned by an ISP that offers to any member of the public the ability to send e-mail and you pay for the account yourself. But there is no protection in 18 U.S.C. § 2702 for e-mail stored on a computer system operated by a corporation primarily for its own business communications. So, if you send e-mail to a company (e.g., [jdoe@ibm.com](mailto:jdoe@ibm.com)) and the e-mail is stored on that company’s computer, you have no privacy rights under this statute. > > 3. The recipient of e-mail is generally free to share the information in the e-mail with anyone, subject to legal obligations that are mentioned later in this paper. > [@](#): > > Shoars v. Epson and Bourke v. Nissan > The first two cases of privacy of e-mail in the workplace both occurred in California. > > The Epson corporation, which made dot-matrix printers for computers, had no written e-mail policy. When Shoars, the administrator of the company e-mail, discovered in 1989 that her manager, Hillseth, was reading employee’s e-mail, she confronted Hillseth. When Hillseth refused to stop reading employee’s e-mail, Shoars reported his activity to Epson’s general manager. Hillseth terminated Shoars’ employment, because of her alleged “gross insubordination.” Shoars sued Epson under claims for wrongful discharge (because Hillseth’s monitoring of employee e-mail was wiretapping and eavesdropping under state law, and hence contrary to public policy), conspiracy, and slander. The trial court granted summary judgment to Epson, and the appellate court affirmed except on the count of slander. The wiretapping/eavesdropping basis was held to be inappropriate, because employers had a right to monitor communications in the workplace. The case was not published in any reporter, however a copy of the 1994 appellate court decision is posted on the Internet. > > Bonita Bourke and Rhonda Hall, who established and operated an e-mail system for Nissan, were found by Nissan to have sent e-mail containing inappropriate jokes, soft-core pornography, and language that contained disparaging remarks about a supervisor and the company. Nissan terminated the employment of Hall and allowed Bourke to resign. Bourke and Hall sued for wrongful discharge, invasion of privacy, and violation of state statutes prohibiting wiretapping and eavesdropping. The state court granted Nissan’s motion for summary judgment on all counts and the appellate court affirmed. The unreported case has the citation Bourke v. Nissan, No. YC-003979 (Cal.Super.Ct., L.A.Cty.) aff’d, No. B-068705 (Cal.Ct.App. 26 July 1993). > > Neither of these cases can be cited as precedent, but they are consistent with later cases (e.g. Smyth v. Pillsbury) that give employees no privacy rights for e-mail on a computer owned by their employer. The cases of Shoars and Bourke were decided under California state statutes, not the ECPA. If they had been decided under the ECPA, the court would probably have found a “business use exception” for the interceptions and found that 18 U.S.C. 2702 does not apply to computers owned by the employer for the employer’s internal e-mail system. > [@](#): > > Smyth v. Pillsbury Co. > Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., 914 F.Supp. 97 (E.D.Penn. 1996) is the first reported case of privacy of an employee’s e-mail on a company’s computer system. Pillsbury maintained an e-mail system “to promote internal corporate communications between its employees.” Pillsbury “repeatedly assured its employees, including plaintiff, that all e-mail communications would remain confidential and privileged.” Id. at 98. Smyth sent e-mail to his supervisor that, among other things, “concerned sales management and contained threats to ‘kill the backstabbing bastards…’” Id. at 98-99, n.1. Smyth’s employment was then terminated for “inappropriate and unprofessional comments over defendant’s e-mail system.” Id. at 98-99. > > The court dismissed Smyth’s complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The court noted that Smyth was an at-will employee, which means that Pillsbury could terminate Smyth’s employment at any time for any reason. > > The court said > [W]e do not find a reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mail communications voluntarily made by an employee to his supervisor over the company e-mail system notwithstanding any assurances that such communications would not be intercepted by management. … [P]laintiff voluntarily communicated the alleged unprofessional comments over the company e-mail system. We find no privacy interests in such communications. … Moreover, the company’s interest in preventing inappropriate and unprofessional comments or even illegal activity over its e-mail system outweighs any privacy interest the employee may have in those comments. > Id. at 101. > > Pillsbury had assured its employees that “e-mail communications could not be intercepted and used by defendant against its employees as ground for termination or reprimand.” Id. at 98. The court held that this representation did not estop Pillsbury from ending Smyth’s employment. Id. at 100, n.2. > > The court’s published opinion does not mention any reference to either 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. or 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. I do not see any valid claim for “interception” of e-mail, since Smyth sent the e-mail directly to his supervisor. Although the opinion does not discuss this matter, the supervisor probably gave copies of the e-mails to others in the company. That is not “interception” as the term is used in 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. ---
**Author:** ![ascrivey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f05b48/32.png) [@ascrivey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ascrivey)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2003, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evesdropping-on-the-computer-legal/208552/7 "2003-10-22T13:16:14Z")
Thanks for all your help. The woman called an lawyer and found out that they can look at it but cannot use anything we said ie. Mr. X is an idiot, against us. I appreciate all the replies.