|
Online sex chat is privacy
(Shanghai Daily)
Updated: 2005-12-09 10:07 When the computer surveillance
department of an international bank in Shanghai monitored and spread the
contents of private online chat of a female employee, it undoubtedly violated
her right to privacy.
The sad thing is the 28-year-old woman had to quit her job after trying in
vain to get an apology from the computer guys who willfully had gossiped about
her occasional "sweaty" chats in the office with her boyfriend on MSN.
All the excuses the bank's computer guys offered were flimsy at best and mean
at worst.
According to a lengthy report in the Shanghai Morning Post yesterday, the
computer department offered three excuses as to why it has to monitor what
employees say on MSN.
First, the bank is afraid that its employees may leak business secrets to
outsiders on MSN.
Second, because the bank owns the computers, it has the discretion over how
they should be used.
Third, the bank has told all employees that MSN cannot be used for private
chats.
Sounds reasonable, right?
Let's pierce those excuses one by one.
Yes, the bank can monitor all online information to prevent leaking of its
secrets. And in so doing the computer guys inevitably encounter employees'
private affairs if the employees break the bank's rule of not using MSN for
private purposes.
But private affairs haven't anything to do with the bank's business secrets,
do they?
Yes, you can monitor what I say, but you cannot spread my private affairs
without my prior consent. And if I were caught leaking business secrets on MSN,
you would call the police.
Certainly the bank owns all the computers. That only means no one can take
them home or damage them intentionally. A telephone is also part of corporate
assets and no one can seize it as a personal belonging. But does that mean a
company can monitor and spread whatever an employee says over the phone?
The final excuse seems most powerful. But the proper punishment for using MSN
for private purposes is to deduct an appropriate amount of the employee's salary
or bonus because he or she is not focused on work.
In no case should the bank spread gossip about its employees' private affairs
against their will.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The Shanghai Morning Post identified the victim as Lisa, probably a
pseudonym. In late September, she did not realize that her occasional passionate
chats with her boyfriend were providing her co-workers with fodder for their
lascivious "fun."
She was asking what her boyfriend would do during the upcoming seven-day
National Day holiday. He said he hoped to stay in bed with her all seven days.
Her face flushed, and she told him not to be that explicit. He then asked how
he could be implicit.
She said she would understand if he said he wanted to eat rice noodles. Then
her boyfriend burst into laughter on MSN and said jokingly that he wanted to eat
rice noodles for the whole seven days.
She kidded back: "Are you not afraid of eating too much?"
As she emerged in the office after the long holiday, she found herself
surrounded by weird smiling faces. One computer surveillance guy could no longer
hold it back and he asked her: "Did you have rice noodles today?"
She didn't get it at first but about a month later she realized what had
happened. She burst into the office of the computer guys to find that all
employees' chats were being monitored.
Despite the above three excuses, the bank admitted that it had never notified
the employees that their MSN talk would be monitored, the Shanghai Morning Post
said.
But even if the bank had notified them, it still simply has no right to
spread an employee's private talks around the office. This evil invasion of
privacy must be stopped.
The rights to privacy are much broader than the rights to reputation. The
former means the rights to be let alone, even though one's reputation is not
harmed.
It's a pity that China has yet to have its privacy law in an age when what
used to be whispered behind closed doors is now often proclaimed from the roof
tops.
But any employer who wants to take advantage of the legal vacuum will only
have its own reputation tarnished. If a bank disregards the privacy of its
employees, how can it win the trust of its customers?
quote: "If a bank disregards the privacy of its employees, how can it win the
trust of its customers?"
|
