header-logo header-logo

Fatal distraction

08 April 2016 / Daniel Kavan
Issue: 7693 / Categories: Features , Data protection , Employment
printer mail-detail
istock_000033647750_web

When does killing time at work become an invasion of privacy, asks Daniel Kavan

In my previous career as a lawyer, before I started working in e-discovery some eight years ago, I often used to send personal e-mails from my work e-mail account. Sometimes they included jokes which may have embarrassed me if read by someone else, especially out of context. But now I never send personal e-mails from my work account. Not even innocent messages to my mum. Years of working on investigations and litigation matters where entire corporate mailboxes—including extremely personal e-mails—were reviewed by teams of lawyers, have cured me of any naivety on this subject: someone will trawl through my work mailbox one day. But what if they could also access everything I write on my personal webmail, including instant chats?

Business or pleasure?

While the nationals of some European countries, for example Germany and France, have an expectation of privacy even in their work e-mails (and investigations which require the reading of such e-mails require permission of the individual custodian of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll