I have a very hard time believing that lol. Doesn’t matter what country, it’s still the companies property, and the work you’re doing in it is still considered their property. It’s not a personal device. What a pretentious statement.
Quoting from this article, which references the same supreme court case as the above article:
Mr. Justice Fish, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, delineated the following instructive principles:
Whether at home or in the workplace, computers are reasonably used for personal purpose and contain information that is meaningful, intimate and touching on the user’s biographical core;
The user may reasonably expect privacy in the information contained on their computer particularly where personal use is permitted or reasonably expected;
While ownership of the computer and workplace policies are relevant considerations, neither is determinative of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy;
The totality of all the circumstances will need to be considered to determine whether privacy is a reasonable expectation in any particular case;
Workplace policies and practices may diminish an individual’s expectation of privacy in a work computer; however they may not in themselves remove the expectation entirely;
A reasonable, though diminished expectation of privacy, is nonetheless a reasonable expectation of privacy, protected by s. 8 of the Charter and subject only to state intrusion under the authority of a reasonable law.
Accidentally deleted my post lol, but the court case ultimately ruled for the company, and that these laws aren’t very strong to begin with.
It is recommended that employers should implement clear policies that define, in unequivocal terms, the employer’s expectations surrounding workplace computer use, including smartphone use, if employers provide such equipment to employees in an employment context. Although Fish J., in R. v. Cole, stated that workplace policies are not determinative of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, if properly drafted a workplace policy combined with consistent employer actions in the workplace, may diminish, objectively, the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, where both the employer’s workplace policy and the employer’s actions in the workplace are consistent in prohibiting any personal use by employees of employer-issued computers or smartphones and where the employee has acknowledge receipt of employer’s policy that provides that any data sent, stored or received using the employer’s computer or smartphone is the property of the employer and the employer reserves the right to perform random checks or audits of the employee’s computer or smartphone use, the employee may be hard pressed to argue that he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
And the article you linked still suggests it’s a bad idea to assume privacy.
While it may be tempting to use an instant chat application for workplace gossip, it is best to follow the golden rule: if you wouldn’t share it with your boss voluntarily, it’s probably best saved for a face-to-face conversation.
This is more so to protect employees who are browsing facebook or something on a personal computer, that the employeer isn’t then allowed to snoop on their private social media accounts. For work related stuff, the rule still applies that it’s work property.
Unfortunately, words on paper frequently fail to prevent organizations, public of private, from doing things they are technically not allowed to do. See the security state apparatus of any of the nations around the world including the 5, 9 and 14 eyes, or any number of tech companies that claim and market privacy respective policies only for people to uncover later that what they pitch publicly diverges in spirit from what they do or what is in the actual terms of service.
Hopefully if people find their employer going outside the bounds of the contract they can catch it, catalog it and hold them to account. Accountability can often be tricky and costly though.
That’s not how it works in civilized countries that provide worker’s rights by law
I have a very hard time believing that lol. Doesn’t matter what country, it’s still the companies property, and the work you’re doing in it is still considered their property. It’s not a personal device. What a pretentious statement.
In Canada employees may have a limited expectation of privacy on work computers.
Quoting from this article, which references the same supreme court case as the above article:
Accidentally deleted my post lol, but the court case ultimately ruled for the company, and that these laws aren’t very strong to begin with.
And the article you linked still suggests it’s a bad idea to assume privacy.
This is more so to protect employees who are browsing facebook or something on a personal computer, that the employeer isn’t then allowed to snoop on their private social media accounts. For work related stuff, the rule still applies that it’s work property.
deleted by creator
Unfortunately, words on paper frequently fail to prevent organizations, public of private, from doing things they are technically not allowed to do. See the security state apparatus of any of the nations around the world including the 5, 9 and 14 eyes, or any number of tech companies that claim and market privacy respective policies only for people to uncover later that what they pitch publicly diverges in spirit from what they do or what is in the actual terms of service.
Hopefully if people find their employer going outside the bounds of the contract they can catch it, catalog it and hold them to account. Accountability can often be tricky and costly though.
This is why unions and NGOs exist.
So… not the United States. France, maybe? Germany?