Smithson: What is so private about computer misuse in the workplace?

Employers may have been left scratching their heads by the court’s thoughts on the topic of last week's column.

Last week, my column addressed the reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada relating to employees’ use of their employer’s computers for non-work purposes.

Employers may have been left scratching their heads by the court’s thoughts on this topic.

The court, in a situation involving a teacher who was charged criminally with possession of child pornography and unauthorized use of a computer, seemed to determine that employees have some rights of privacy over personal data they store on workplace computers.

Among other things, the court stated: “While workplace policies and practices may diminish an individual’s expectation of privacy in a work computer, these sorts of operational realities do not in themselves remove the expectation entirely…”

I say that the court “seemed” to recognize a right of privacy because those reasons were given in the criminal context, to which Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies.

But the Charter does not apply when there is no governmental actor involved, so the great majority of employer-employee relationships are beyond its reach.

Time will tell whether the court’s comments will be extended to private as well as public employment relationships.

Critically, the court made the following statements. “(O)perational realities may diminish the expectation of privacy that reasonable employees might otherwise have in their personal information.

“Even as modified by practice, however, written policies are not determinative of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

“Whatever the (employer’s) policies state, one must consider the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether privacy is a reasonable expectation in the particular situation.”

This is, surely, what will have employers scratching their heads.

It seems that creating a working environment in which the employer can be assured that employees who misuse workplace computers can be dealt with appropriately may be a difficult thing to achieve.

In my own experience, most employers aren’t totally freaked out by the fact that employees make some casual personal use of workplace computers.

It’s just a fact of modern life that people are going to send and receive personal emails on their computer, download a recipe or some song lyrics from the internet, horde links to entertaining videos, etc.

I really don’t get the sense that employers are overly worried about this kind of activity.

I certainly don’t receive many calls from managers who are upset because a staffer has accumulated a cache of brownie recipes.

What employers are upset about is when casual, harmless personal use of computers crosses the line.

The high school teacher who uses his laptop to access and save lewd photos of a female student is definitely an issue.

What employers don’t want to have to do is waste a whole lot of valuable resources on continuous surveillance of what their employees are doing on their workplace computers.

Employers tend to be in business for a reason, and relentless monitoring of workplace computer contents tends not to be that reason.

What employers want to be able to do, when the circumstances call for it, is search an employee’s computer to locate objectionable material.

When that search turns something up, employers want to be entitled to rely on those materials as proof of wrongdoing.

They don’t want to have to dilly-dally around with bickering about whether the offending employee’s privacy has been violated.

And, in my own view, they shouldn’t have to. Because the practical truth of the matter is that an employee downloading inappropriate materials onto his or her workplace computer is knowingly engaging in misconduct and is assuming the risk of being caught.

This, to me, is the rule the court should have arrived at: Every person who is intelligent enough to operate a computer can be deemed to be intelligent enough to know the risk he or she takes by using that device for inappropriate purposes and, as such, employees who make inappropriate uses of their employer’s computer equipment have no entitlement to an expectation of privacy.

Just Posted

West Kelowna family builds 9-foot tall snowman

A family in Glenrosa is making the most out of the snow

Okanagan College launches Indigenous cooking training

The program will infuse Indigenous-knowledge in its professional cook training

Okanagan Shuswap weather: Hold on to your toque, wind and snow today

The sun will be hiding behind the clouds for the next few days

Creekside Theatre offers unique experience for cinephiles

The Lake Country theatre shows movies and documentaries twice a month

It’s time to prune berry bushes to help wildlife in Okanagan

Pruning will help keep wildlife away and be easier to pick when the berries are ripe

Branching out: learning to ski at Revelstoke Mountain Resort

It’s the first time at the hill for the editor of Revelstoke Review

Okanagan College to launch Indigenous-knowledge infused professional cook training

Okanagan College is turning to Indigenous knowledge keepers, chefs and foragers to… Continue reading

Okanagan ‘pot-caster’ talks politics and weed sales

Pot podcaster Daniel Eastman says B.C. has kind of dropped the ball as far as legalization

Do you live with your partner? More and more Canadians don’t

Statistics Canada shows fewer couples live together than did a decade ago

B.C. child killer denied mandatory outings from psychiatric hospital

The B.C. Review Board decision kept things status quo for Allan Schoenborn

Searchers return to avalanche-prone peak in Vancouver to look for snowshoer

North Shore Rescue, Canadian Avalanche Rescue Dog teams and personnel will be on Mt. Seymour

Market volatility, mortgages loom over upcoming earnings of Canada’s big banks

Central bank interest hikes have padded the banks’ net interest margins

Shuswap plastic bag ban expected to begin July 1

Salmon Arm bylaw would impact approximately 175 retail stores and 50 food outlets/restaurants

Hearings into SNC-Lavalin affair start today, but not with Wilson-Raybould

She has repeatedly cited solicitor-client privilege to refuse all comment

Most Read