Kevin Ratcliff wrote:
> Just kidding, of course. In many cases an employer has a right to
> monitor employee emails, at least according to articles I've read. I
> wonder what happens if the employer wants to read an email that an
> employee has sent using GPG (using the employers email server). If the
> employee refuses to provide the passphrase (or just decrypt the
> content) for the employer upon request, what happens? Could they
> terminate the employee? I have not idea how this might work.
>
Most people are at-will employees. This means that there employers can
fire them at any time for any reason (or no reason at all) except for a
small list of things protected by Federal Law. Thus, an employer can
fire a black employee because he does not like him, but not because he
is black. This makes for interesting jury trials. Most employers have
the good sense not to use their full powers under the law, because doing
so would upset the remaining employees. Companies where most employees
are upset tend to do poorly in the long run.
> I've read some articles about law enforcement forcing people to
> disclose passphases for encrypted content or face jail time. I find
> that scary, not becasue I'm hiding something, just because it seems
> like a privacy violation.
>
>
If you were paying attention when Starr was using the full power of his
office to try and cause Clinton trouble, you saw some cases somewhat
like this, except that it did not involve encryption. In the US you can
be forced to testify about most matters unless it runs afoul of the 5th
amendment. The courts have ruled that if you are offered immunity then
the 5th amendment does not apply. (I think this even applies with offers
of very limited immunity, but check with your attorney if it is
important to you.) The charge that will keep you in jail is contempt of
court. The good news is that they can keep you there only while the case
you want to testify in is active.
A woman who was suppose to know about Clinton's finances spent several
years in jail while Starr was investigating Clinton. According to her
side of the story, Starr wanted her to testify in a particular way. She
said that if she told the truth, Starr would prosecute her for perjury.
I don't know what was the truth in that particular case, put I do know
that I would be worried if Starr wanted to make my life difficult.
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
No comments:
Post a Comment