More From Eric Dixon at

Support Independent Investigations With Bitcoin:
Send Bitcoin Here: 171GMeYRD7CaY6tkXs8dSTjLbAtFazxhVL

Top 50 Twitter Rank of Worldwide Startup Advisors For Much of 2014
. Go to my professional site for solutions to your legal, business and strategic problems. The only lawyer who is a co-inventor of multiple, allowed-for-grant patents on blockchain technology!!! Blockchain and Digital Currency Protocol Development --
Top Strategic Judgment -- When You Need A Fixer -- Explore Information Protection and Cryptographic Security -- MUST-WIN: JUST DON'T LOSE -- SURVIVE!: Under Investigation? Being Sued? Handling Extreme Stress -- Corporate Issues -- Startup Issues -- Investor Issues -- Contracts To Meet Your Needs -- Opposition Research -- Intellectual Property, Media and Reputation Issues -- Independent, top-notch legal, strategic and personal advice -- Extensive ghostwriting, speechwriting, book writing, issue research, press and crisis management services. Listed by American Bar Association's Law Bloggers (Blawgers). Contact European Union audiences: This site uses a third party site administrator which may use cookies but this site is intended for AMERICAN clients and prospective clients only!

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Privacy Rights Upheld in Workplace, But Privacy Still At Risk

This past week the New Jersey Supreme Court (the state's highest court) held that an employee had a right to privacy and enjoyed the attorney-client privilege as to e-mails she sent to her attorney from her workplace computer.   The case is Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc..

I cannot help but think that the underlying conduct shows a dearth of common sense.   The employee was contemplating suing her employer, hired the attorney for the purpose of that litigation, and actually followed through with a lawsuit.   This means that the employee should have known that her employer could have accessed or monitored her computer and any e-mails she sent (even if through a personal e-mail account).  

The questions of whether the employee should have known, or whether the employer should have been able to monitor that e-mail in the first place, are irrelevant to the common sense fact that the employee left herself vulnerable to the practical, strategic error of allowing her adversary the opportunity to peek into and learn about her strategy, approach and arguments. 

Some litigation is won -- or lost -- well before the case ever hits the courtroom.   Strategic errors can make or break a case.  A smart investigative lawyer can piece together a lot of disparate facts, which in isolation may make no sense or seem entirely useless, to uncover a pattern.   In other instances, that same lawyer may be able to use reverse engineering to protect a client.

Employers will be able to snoop in on employees, through various means -- legal or otherwise.   True protection of privacy requires that people never assume that their potential overseers or adversaries cannot or will not take a particular course of action.   I fear this case will give a false sense of security to many innocent and perhaps overly trusting people.  

There is a difference between being able to do something (whether you can do it) and whether you should do it.   As I have said before, if you want to discover your best protection against your privacy being invaded, just look in the mirror. 

No comments:

Post a Comment