European Court rules against spying on staff
4 April 2007
On 3 March a college secretary from Wales, represented by human rights group Liberty, won a legal challenge against her employers and the UK Government after a senior member of staff at the college secretly monitored her personal communications for up to 18 months without her consent.
Liberty’s Legal Director James Welch said: “Employees don't leave their personal privacy at the front door when they come to work each day. This judgment makes perfectly clear that employers who spy on their staff are infringing their privacy.”
The European Court of Human Rights found (Copland v UK C-62617/00) that her employers violated her right to privacy when they logged details of her personal phone calls, analysed websites she visited and tracked her email correspondence.
Ms Copland’s personal communications were monitored by her employer between 1998 and 1999 at which time there was no general right to privacy in English law. The implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 legally protect privacy rights in domestic law. Following the European Court's decision, employers must now ensure that employees are aware that their communications could be monitored and, where they are, there is a good reason for doing so.
Hat-Tip to the Barrister Blog for pointing me in the right direction.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
5 comments:
Thanks for the comment over at the Snob. Great blog, by the way. I wish my blog, sweary as it is, actually used my legal talents (such as they are) for such good use.
RS
reactionary snob: Thanks for your reaction. And, indeed, the compliment. I aim to please. You will note that even I allow the odd "swear word" in here and there. Sometimes the old Anglo Saxon language does appear to be the only one appropriate.
I'll have to have a look at the 1925 act again, but you could well be right. I certainly don't think that it can be considered a loan if it was not subject to a commercial rate of interest.
Anyway, on Goldsmith - here are 3 old pieces of mine.
http://reactionarysnob.blogspot.com/2007/03/goldsmith.html
http://reactionarysnob.blogspot.com/2006/12/shameful.html
And while I'm at it, why not have a look at the Greek's view.
http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2007/02/his-masters-voice.html
Best
RS
RS: Sir Christopher Evans originally made a donation, a gift, to Lord levy, which was not subject to a commercial rate of interest. It only became a loan later on, after Lord Levy was arrested, as an attempt to evade prosecution. In my view, they can call it what they like. It's offer and acceptance, entering into a dishonest contract, the consideration was money on the one hand and a peerage on the other. Remove the politics from the legal analysis and they are caught bang to rights.
Wether or not anybody likes it, some git or machine is monitoring all types of communications be it personal or barbeque flavoured with chillie sauce. I say Fuckem and all that sail in them.
Ron the broken knee
Post a Comment