Running Wireshark might be an option, although I can't remember whether it requires admin privileges to capture network traffic.

It does, but you don't actually have to run it on the machine in question. Proxy your connections through a second box and run wireshark on that (or make the second box the router for the local network).

+1 for frob's comment. It's probably prohibitively expensive to check up on you all that intensely (the risk of your misuse of equipment/data would have to be fairly high to pay someone to track all of your activities). But that doesn't mean that your use isn't being reviewed shallowly and regularly. I think it's also a good idea generally not to underestimate some manager's penchant for allocating resources poorly.

Because it isn't your computer you are only going to have so much ability to control it and what it does. I am consistently annoyed at the limitations on my work computer which prevent me from doing basic maintenance to keep it running well for my work needs, especially since those limitations wouldn't do much to stop me if I really wanted to cause trouble. But since it's theirs, I have to tolerate it.

If you don't want your employer to know that/when/how often you check your personal email or use skype you should use a different computer, one that you own. Your employer probably has the ability to check a log of your activities at any time, at a minimum. Even if you could reliably get around this monitoring, I would advise against it. Going out of your way to avoid having your activities tracked on a work machine will be extremely suspicious and impossible to defend.

Pfft, nobody's monitoring your life. Your secrets are safe.




But I will say that your wallpaper is a bit over the top. And you might want to stop calling that one woman late at night.


Also: midgets? Really?

Did you attach a monitor to your PC? I assume so. So, yes, your PC is monitored!

When you're done folding your tinfoil hat, you probably ought to line your walls with lead, to prevent EMR snooping of your monitor's contents through the walls.

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.

I think perhaps some things may be wrong here in the thread.

It is illegal in the UK for companies to monitor CCTV in their office without reason. I assume this applies to all personal data. If you are reading your emails they cant read your emails without reason. They can record it but they cant read your emails for a laugh. Its still breach of privacy. Surely if this wasn't the case what is stopping starbucks from reading plain text msn messages on their network. After all its their property, their business and you are there on their behalf.

They can detect you are on gmail.com but they cant go deeper than that,

They have the tools, they dont have the rights. This depends on the law in your country.

I think perhaps some things may be wrong here in the thread.

It is illegal in the UK for companies to monitor CCTV in their office without reason. I assume this applies to all personal data. If you are reading your emails they cant read your emails without reason. They can record it but they cant read your emails for a laugh. Its still breach of privacy. Surely if this wasn't the case what is stopping starbucks from reading plain text msn messages on their network. After all its their property, their business and you are there on their behalf.

They can detect you are on gmail.com but they cant go deeper than that,

They have the tools, they dont have the rights. This depends on the law in your country.

But on Starbucks/McDonalds/etc. you are a customer -- at work, you are an employee. There is a large gap between the two. I don't think anyone's saying: "hey, you're at work, so it's totally cool if they take your phone and check your texts" -- which would be an obvious breach of privacy. Rather, I think the message is: "if you're at work, using a computer provided to you by the company to execute work, expect zero-privacy given the 'business' nature of the deal."

I would hope that the employer is forbidden from breaching your privacy. And, honestly, you shouldn't just cave "because it's a business relationship". I call bullshit on that. Being an employee does not make you a slave to your manager / the business owners. You remain a human being with all the rights that go with that, even as an employee. (This really should go without saying, but it seems like in this day and age, it needs to emphasized again.)

Now, they may have the right to fire you because you checked private email during work hours. But even if they have that right, you should still be able to sue them for compensation if they violate your privacy by reading the private mail you accessed.

At least, that's the "how it should be", from an ethics point of view. Obviously, how it actually is according to the law is going to depend on which country you're in. The differences are surprisingly large.

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.