Quoting from this article, which references the same supreme court case as the above article:
Mr. Justice Fish, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, delineated the following instructive principles:
Whether at home or in the workplace, computers are reasonably used for personal purpose and contain information that is meaningful, intimate and touching on the user’s biographical core;
The user may reasonably expect privacy in the information contained on their computer particularly where personal use is permitted or reasonably expected;
While ownership of the computer and workplace policies are relevant considerations, neither is determinative of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy;
The totality of all the circumstances will need to be considered to determine whether privacy is a reasonable expectation in any particular case;
Workplace policies and practices may diminish an individual’s expectation of privacy in a work computer; however they may not in themselves remove the expectation entirely;
A reasonable, though diminished expectation of privacy, is nonetheless a reasonable expectation of privacy, protected by s. 8 of the Charter and subject only to state intrusion under the authority of a reasonable law.
Unfortunately, words on paper frequently fail to prevent organizations, public of private, from doing things they are technically not allowed to do. See the security state apparatus of any of the nations around the world including the 5, 9 and 14 eyes, or any number of tech companies that claim and market privacy respective policies only for people to uncover later that what they pitch publicly diverges in spirit from what they do or what is in the actual terms of service.
Hopefully if people find their employer going outside the bounds of the contract they can catch it, catalog it and hold them to account. Accountability can often be tricky and costly though.
That’s not how it works in civilized countries that provide worker’s rights by law
Removed by mod
In Canada employees may have a limited expectation of privacy on work computers.
Quoting from this article, which references the same supreme court case as the above article:
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Unfortunately, words on paper frequently fail to prevent organizations, public of private, from doing things they are technically not allowed to do. See the security state apparatus of any of the nations around the world including the 5, 9 and 14 eyes, or any number of tech companies that claim and market privacy respective policies only for people to uncover later that what they pitch publicly diverges in spirit from what they do or what is in the actual terms of service.
Hopefully if people find their employer going outside the bounds of the contract they can catch it, catalog it and hold them to account. Accountability can often be tricky and costly though.
This is why unions and NGOs exist.
So… not the United States. France, maybe? Germany?