I have a question. It's been established repeatedly that employees do not have a reasonable right to privacy on their work computers or phones. However, has it been settled whether the employees have a right to know whether monitoring is in place? There's two pieces to that: 1) are you required to notify them actively, or 2) are you required to answer truthfully when asked?
I am honestly curious. I could search the case law I guess, but meehhh.
Depends on the location.
In the US there are basically two considerations judges and juries need to consider. They need to ask if there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy", and they need to decide on the balance of the privacy interest of the individual vs the interest of the corporation.
IIf you would normally
HAVE an expectation of privacy, then as far as US electronic communications are concerned there is a three pronged test: there must be an established written policy, plus any one of the three conditions (1) one of the parties has given consent, (2) there is a legitimate business reason or (3) the company needs to protect itself.
f you would normally
NOT HAVE an expectation of privacy, then they would not need to provide notice. If a normal person would not expect privacy they generally don't need to tell you.
If the policy exists any one other condition is satisfied than US federal law permits archival and reviewing without further notice. If you ask, the federal law requires only that you point them to the written policy saying it is allowed to happen, not that you need to tell them if it is actually happening.
Naturally the state and local laws vary by location; some states require both parties to be notified if the notification route is followed, some states require annual disclosure, etc.
Some groups do not need permission to record things and can lie about it. For example, there was a long-held myth that narcotics officers were required to tell you if they were recording conversations when you asked. It was a very useful myth for police. The drug dealers would ask 'Are you wearing a wire?', the copy would lie 'Nope, and I'm not a cop or I'd have to tell you I was if I wanted it in court', the dealer would sell the drugs, the arrests were made, and the conversation was used in court.
Google has turned up a 100+ page book, "Compilation of State and Federal Privacy Laws" By Robert Ellis Smith, that seems to cover each of the cases about what various groups must disclose, who they must disclose it to, and what the different groups are allowed to lie about. It applies only to the US, but the fact that it is 100 pages of dense type makes me believe any answer will have location-specific and context-specific nuance.
