Chat monitoring

[adam]

Hi anyone,

I have a network enabled in my home and in my working environment.

I'm trying to figure out a way to find what my employees chat on instant messengers during the office hours. And I want to track my kid's IM chat.

Just wondering wether there is application to do the needful.

Any help on this would be kindly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[StuartR]

There are tools that do this by inspecting network packets at the firewall, but you need to be very very careful about the privacy implications. In some countries this would be illegal unless you have documented proof that the employees have agreed that you will monitor their private communications.

[johjue]

I agree with Stuart that one would need to be very careful in this area. The entity that I work for requires a signed statement indicating that the employee acknowledges that all computer-related activity, as well as all communication equipment activity, occurring on employer-owned equipment, is subject to monitoring at any time, and that there is no expectation of privacy when using employer-owned equipment. The monitoring of one's minor children's activities on one's own equipment might also bring up issues, as the people that they are communicating with would not be subject to your parental authority. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd certainly see one before I proceeded.

John

[StuartR]

With my own children, I put all the computers in a public area of the house and discussed their activities with them as they grew up. This helped them to develop the maturity needed to use the internet safely.

[BobH]

I'm not an attorney and I've never played one on TV . . . or anywhere else.

But . . .

Why is it that if one goes out in public and his photograph is taken - and his likeness is not used for commercial or illegal purposes - that it is perfectly legal? My understanding of the premise behind that standing in law is that by going forth in public that the individual must presume that others cannot be constrained from making images that might or might not include his likeness; therefore the individual gives up any right to privacy by being in public.

My question is, "How does that differ from engaging in conversation, or writing, on a public network?" I realize the physical difference, but I don't understand how the law presumes that speech/writing must be protected as private in a public arena when one's appearance is not.

How does one's image differ from one's voice or one's thoughts expressed in writing under law, and why should one (image) be treated differently? Should all be treated equally at law?. (Personally, I would argue for the right to privacy in all arenas.)

Also, as I understand it, under US law, it is not illegal to record telephone conversations if the other party (or parties) is aware that he is being recorded but that such recordings may not be presented as evidence at law (maybe just criminal law; I'm not certain.) In fact, I think that you may record conversations that you engage in with or without the other party's consent but are restricted from using those recordings except for personal use, much as you are with photographs, without the other party's consent. Of course, laws are not rules but guidelines which apply generally but must be duly tried to learn how they apply in any specific instance. Any lawyers here will correct me, I'm sure.

Sorry, I don't mean this to take a political turn at all. I was just wondering if someone familiar with the treatment of these forms of personal identification and expression could explain the rationale behind their different treatment under law.

[DaveA]

Here in the US, it is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that is making all of this hard on everyone. They (ACLU) seem to think that we must be protected from everything and not be responsible for any of our personal actions. But the tax payer is to be responsible for all cost of anything that one may be deprived of.