The topic of workplace privacy that relates with computers has grown and will keep growing even in Kansas over the next few years, according to A.J. Kotich (1999). This is due to the lack of laws or differences in how each organization views this issue. Some of the major issues are e-mail, computer files, Internet access, and other types of electronic eavesdropping through the computer. In this paper all these issues will be looked at through both the employee's point of view. The aspect of computer privacy will keep growing and be more challenged until explicit laws are put into place. This will help regulate what employers can and can not do when it comes to their employees' privacy.

As the work place is becoming more electronically dependent, employees are more worried about privacy and the lack of protection from employer snooping. There are several ethical issues dealing with computers and employer spying. One item that will be focused on is e-mail and how employees view it. Next is the issue of computer files and what employees see as acceptable ranges of privacy. Also included are the additional issues from Internet access at work. Last is the issue of electronic eavesdropping by the employer. With all the advancement of technology comes more worries from employees regarding employers spying and prying in employees' privacy, with e-mail being the leading topic covered in most articles and publications.

Employees want communications done by email to have the same privacy as that of a phone call or a sealed letter (Lawrence). E-mail at this time is the largest issue facing electronic ethical responsibility of both employees and employers. Some of the topics that are related are the ideas of work related e-mail versus personal email, old mail in legal cases versus leaving a job, and who owns what in e-mail. With e-mail in almost all companies and in most households the use of e-mail is a big topic.

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) believes that as long as personal e-mail does not "interfere with or conflict with business use," that it should be allowed (Woodbury). Employees make a point that if they are given the time to do personal matters with e-mail that it may actually cut the number of days taken off to do that same task or time taken to make a personal call. At the same time, those personal e-mails should not be viewed by managers but can be screened with programs for possible leakage of company documents or information. One such product that can help in the matter of censoring outgoing e-mail is Assentor, with a high checking rate it is ideal for this process. It looks for patterns and not just one key word. As stated by Thomas at Scott & Stringfellow, "If you can not put the language into context then we think you would be looking at too much. When you look at too much, it loses its effectiveness" (qtd. in Wallstreet.com). On the work side, lawyers need privacy for the lawyer-client confidentiality. If there is no privacy, then e-mail is not a possible means of communications for lawyers. This may hurt what cost savings would have been reflected from its use rather than having to rely on face to face or phone communications. Lawyers also believe that if email is treated like a phone system that they can then avoid the idea of having to use encrypting, which in many companies is not allowed (Woodbury). E-mail is both a work and personal tool needed in the opinions of employees and should be treated as a private content system.

Another topic in the e-mail debate is when should employers have a right to inspect old e-mail messages? Employees for the most part can understand that e-mail can be used in court cases for or against them and others. Only with due reason should employers view old e-mail messages, such as a case brought up by another employee who has already submitted email received by the other employee in question. Such cases would include harassment, defamation and other civil complaints. The employees believe that if an e-mail is to be used against an employee that it should be done in a timely mater and not suddenly brought up 2 months later. On the other hand, they believe that at the time of leaving a job, for non-legal reasons, that they have a right to all old email being removed from any sort of memory storage unit (Freidenrich). The employees find it unethical that managers at this time can just print up any e-mail and read them even if it is of a personal matter. When inspecting e-mail, one must also pay attention to property rights.

An issue not mentioned in any of the readings is a philosophical debate that comes to mind on who owns what. Yes, agree the employees that the equipment to transport the information and ideas belong to the company. They also have the belief that the employer does not own the ideas in those e-mails. The employees think of what they write in an email as a casual way of passing information, similar to an idea written on a piece of napkin or some plain notepad. The company can not just come and take all one's papers and claim them as the employer's property. Another way to look at it is the employer can not take ideas from one's head and say they belong to the company just because employees are using company time to think. So the employees believe ownership of equipment does not mean ownership of e-mail.

Computer files is another large issue when it comes to employee privacy. Many of the arguments used for e-mail also relate to computer files. Some of the focus in computer files is personal memos versus work projects and old files. Contrary to beliefs about log-on passwords, one still has no privacy.

It is nothing for a company to have technicians do checks on files even if you do have a password. This upsets many employees. They believe that a personal password should give them exclusive rights to privacy and personal reminder notes. The employee wants to be able to write reminders on the system and not worry about who will read it. Once again to the employee computer files are like memos on a scratch of paper when not disclosing any company secrets.

Employees feel that old files need to be treated as anything in a desk. When the time comes and the employee leaves, he/she is allowed to clean his/her desk out of personal items. When it comes to files employees believe, with the monitoring and help of a technician, that they should be able to remove any non-essential files form the system. The idea of someone snooping around their old files once they have left on good terms is disconcerting (Freidenrich). Sometimes they may have left something that could be taken the wrong way by the employer and then affect the good leaving relationship.

As the Internet has grown, the web has become an essential tool for research and communications. Most employees understand that pornographic material does not constitute either job related or personal task oriented matter. Employees want some freedom to research and not worry if someone is going to attack them just because a site they visited had obscene matter or graphics. Also, they want to take care of matters, such as paying a bill, buying a car, or ordering a meal for dinner, without the employer knowing every step and likes of an employee. Employees also feel that if an employer allows them to use the system for some private matters that this will save the employee from using personal days to do it or having to take time away from the job. The Internet, as employees know, can be a vast tool towards a more efficient life and work style.

With the passing of time, more cases of eavesdropping by employers will arise. For a time now, employers have used systems to follow keystrokes and knowing if a person was late or not due to their log-on. One abuse of this electronic eavesdropping occurred when a woman learned that her computer was being used to track her every move, even when she went to the bathroom (Zachary). Another case of eavesdropping happened when an employer used the microphone built into the computer to listen and record his conversations. For the case mentioned, the use of the recording was in context with a harassment case. In most cases the employer would find this as an invasion of privacy (Somerson). Along with the possibility of audio will be video as more employees will have teleconferencing capabilities built into their computers. An organization such as Computer Freedom Foundation is producing products to help employees protect themselves from such employer snooping (Somerson, Apr. 1999). The employee feels that such spying is unethical and should be illegal.

As one can see, employees face all kinds of challenges and are trying to find ways to protect themselves. Employees believe one way this can be accomplished is that the employers could set up a separate space where people could take care of person matters with computers. That way the employee has more freedom of communications without the employer having to worry about private files leaving the office (Recommendations). Some basic rules, such as no pornographic material, would still apply. This could help solve some of the issues of privacy with personal e-mail, computer files and web browsing, while at the same time avoiding other types of corporate eavesdropping.