Australian insurance giant trampling staff e-privacy

A major Australian insurance company used -illegal" and -inappropriate" tactics to monitor employee email use and punish staff, the Australian Privacy Foundation has said.

Sources told ZDNet Australia that senior managers at Melbourne-headquartered insurance company CGU surveyed employee emails then contacted by telephone people whose names appeared in their personal messages.

Managers then removed email access from employees whose messages contained names they considered unrelated to corporate purposes, the sources said.

The number of staff affected by the practise - believed to be instigated by the company's human resources department - was not known.

Australian Privacy Foundation chairman Tim Dixon said the tactic was illegal according to federal privacy legislation - even if the company's email policies dictated that all employee emails were company property.

Dixon said it was illegal to contact an employee's acquaintances without the employee's consent.

-It's self-evidently a fairly intrusive and unacceptable practise," he said.

-I don't think it gives any respect to a person."

He said employees whose privacy was breached in this way were entitled to call the practise into review.

He added that it took less time to communicate a message via email than via telephone.

-There's a whole lot of reasons why people have to communicate during the work day," he said.

-People don't cease being humans when they start working."

CGU's staff email policy dictates that -all in-bound or out-bound messages will be inspected using software... to determine whether it is business related."

-Any e-mail falling out of these bounds will be quarantined with the intended recipient being notified that it is available for collection."

CGU did not return ZDNet Australia's calls.

Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!

Talkback 4 comments

  1. This is clearly an example of a gross breach of privacy and negligent exercise of power by an organisation. I truly feel sorry for the people responsible for the decision because they have truly destroyed any credibility they had with their employees and Anonymous -- 01/10/01

    This is clearly an example of a gross breach of privacy and negligent exercise of power by an organisation. I truly feel sorry for the people responsible for the decision because they have truly destroyed any credibility they had with their employees and people of the free world.

  2. Obviously this story is flawed. How would an organisation have time to do this or even care? Anonymous -- 01/10/01

    Obviously this story is flawed. How would an organisation have time to do this or even care?

  3. As an employee of the above company I can say I believe the following is true. Software is being used to monitor all emails internally and externally. It is my understanding that a fairly junior (IT?)person monitors the emails and then releases email Anonymous -- 01/10/01

    As an employee of the above company I can say I believe the following is true.
    Software is being used to monitor all emails internally and externally. It is my understanding that a fairly junior (IT?)person monitors the emails and then releases emails which have been quarantined, after you request its release with some explanation. As I have experienced, normal business emails are also captured but I don't know what the criteria is. I have not heard of staff contacting the sender of emails, but it does not surprise me. The human resources staff do appear to be inexperienced. When a company becomes inwardly focused they do then have the time for this.

  4. I very much doubt any company has the resources to accurately monitor employee email activity. If so this would be an extremely expensive process and as with all business processes this activity would have to prove a cost benefit or it would not be u Anonymous -- 02/10/01

    I very much doubt any company has the resources to accurately monitor employee email activity.
    If so this would be an extremely expensive process and as with all business processes this activity would have to prove a cost benefit or it would not be undertaken.

    Should it be done??. If I were paying people to spend a reasonable portion of their day to email friends, potentially infect my environment with viruses, porn and the myriad of other games etc. which reduce the productivity of any and all companies..

    Hmmm
    YEP, with in reason.

Add your opinion


Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Alex Serpo 64-bit Windows: It's time to get serious
    What do Windows 7 and Windows NT have in common? Despite being separated by 16 years, they're both available as 32-bit operating systems; and it's time for Microsoft to move on.
  • Array IE patch: Microsoft's eight days of hell
    It's always funny watching an event force a company to break old habits and this IE zero day was enough for Microsoft to do it. As Microsoft Australia's strategic security advisor Stuart Strathdee said "we pulled all stops to get this patch out".
  • Array Fowl play foiled, Telstra's fairy tale is over
    Like many, I expected Telstra's dismissal was inevitable, given that it had openly flouted the NBN's guidelines and attempted to bend the process to its own wishes. But who would have expected it so soon?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured