Explain the implications of giving "notice" about monitoring.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Many recent court decisions with regard to monitoring specifically seem to depend on whether the worker had notice that the monitoring might occur. Since the basis for finding an invasion of privacy is often the employee's legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy, if an employee has actual notice, then there truly is no real expectation of privacy.
This conclusion was supported in K-Mart v. Trotti, where the court held that search of an employee's company-owned locker was unlawful invasion because the employee used his own lock. However, in a later landmark case, Smyth v. Pillsbury, Smyth sued after his manager read his e-mail, even though Pillsbury had a policy saying that e-mails would not be read. The court concluded, "we do not find a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of e-mail communications voluntarily made by an employee to his supervisor over the company e-mail system, notwithstanding any assurances that such communications would not be intercepted by management." The end result of Smyth, then, is to allow for monitoring even when a firm promises not to monitor. Evidence of the impact of this decision is the fact that only two states, Connecticut and Delaware, require employers to notify workers when they are being monitored.