I have a friend whos office administrator (non IT but has access) likes to read all incoming\internal emails Is a firm aloud to do this

example: an email was sent but not to her, she has then replied to one of the recipients about it surely this is abusing her position ?

I know the company I work for check for content, virus, spam etc but we dont just read them cos we are nosey. We also get authorisation from the person should someone else need access to their inbox.

Does anyone know or have a link to whats aloud and whats not ?

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-445 sums things up. As said there, depends on the nature of the 'monitoring' and company policies (they need to be clear, and actually issued to workers). Personally, I don't think someone other than the recipient should be replying to other people's emails, but would depend on all of the above and the content/nature of the email.

 

my company actually publishes that page I know the guy who writes it Thanks Bong

 

The employer provides the email facility, the server, the computer the employee uses, the seat he/she is sat on, the desk, the carpet, the office, etc and not to mention pays for his/her time while he is sat there.

That means I think they can do what they like with their system and any employee who doesn't like it can deal with their personal email when they get back home.


Is that a bit harsh of me?

 

Not if that's what your policy states

 

Providing the company your friend works for, has notified them that monitoring of the IT system will take place, then theres nothing they can do really.

I have a systems policy document that I issue to anyone who wants to use any IT resource across the company I work for. Lays out the rules and one of those is all systems are monitored and logged at all times, which they are. If they break the rules then they're open to disaplinary action.

They're told that if they want to send personal email then they can do it in their personal time and not company time.

 

this is a small company no employment contracts are signed and nothing is said when they use IT systems leaving them selves wide open to a visit to court imo

 

in that case fuck em