Gov't/individual and employer/employee email privacy
| Topic area |
Privacy and Spam |
| Target audience |
Undergraduate and graduate IS/CS/CE/EE majors. |
| Activity type |
Reading assignment, worksheet, class discussion, web search. |
| Time required |
One 50 minute class session for discussion
1-2 hour student worksheet preparation outside of class
2-3 hours student web search and paper outside of class
|
| Attachments |
Worksheet |
| Additional materials |
- The three articles:
- "The Two Timothy McVeighs," by Frank Rich, in The Denver Post, January 20,
1998 Pg. C-07.
- "Re: ETCS(SS) Timothy Robert McVeigh, USN, " A letter to Navy Secretary John Dalton
by David L. Sobel, legal counsel, from www.epic.org/privacy/internet, January 14,
1998.
- "Electronic communications: they may not be as private as you think," by William
Bockanic and Marc Lynn, in Journal of Systems Management, November 1995, Vol.
46, No. 6, Pg 64.
- Standard References to look up legal terms
- Web access or other database access (e.g. lexis-nexis)
|
| Background needed to complete the assignment |
None. |
| References |
Secondary e-mail case reference:
- Anderson Consulting LLP, Plaintiff, v. UOP and Bickel & Brewer, Defendants.
- CYBER PROMOTIONS, INC. v. AMERICAN ONLINE, INC.
- Smyth v. The Pillsbury Co., 914 F. Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
- Bourke v. Nissan Motor Corp., No. BO68705.
- Other materials found from links at www.epic.org/privacy.
|
| Last modified |
August 1998 |
Abstract:
In this assignment students will read three short articles concerning e-mail privacy. The first
article is for background information concerning legal issues in e-mail privacy, concentrating on
the employer/employee relationship. The second and third articles relate an incident of
questionable government access to e-mail information by a government agency (the U.S. Navy), a
private e-mail service provider (America on Line), and an individual (Timothy McVeigh). This case
explores the rights and legal responsibilities of these three principal litigants with respect to
the requirements of the ECPA of 1989. A worksheet will help students learn terminology and think
about the ethical implications of e-mail disputes. The class discussion is intended to allow each
student to learn the opinions of his/her fellow students regarding the McVeigh case and other
related e-mail cases. A post-discussion web search and paper are intended to solidify the issue and
exercise student research skills.
Goals for the activity:
There are multiple goals for this activity. The students should understand the legal resources used
by the court to decide privacy issues. The students should gain some knowledge of their own e-mail
privacy. The students should understand the differences in the rights of employees, employers, and
the government under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. The students should
investigate and think about unresolved issues regarding e-mail communications.
Knowledge / skills / attitudes to be developed (behavioral objectives):
Students will develop a) an understanding of constitutional, statutory, and common law
considerations with regard to legal decisions involving privacy issues, b) a knowledge of their own
individual rights of privacy during e-mail communications, and c) an appreciation of the limits to
government and employer access to e-mail.
Procedure:
- Reading. The students are asked to read the attached articles and complete the
accompanying worksheet by the next class.
- Class Discussion. Class discussion begins with a discussion of relevant terms from the
worksheet. A discussion of the McVeigh case will follow. Further in-depth discussion will
explore issues as yet unresolved in the area of e-mail privacy, as asked on the worksheet. Students are asked to logically defend their positions on these issues.
- Post-discussion assignment (optional). Students are asked to find another example of
employer/employee or government/individual e-mail privacy disputes which may be found in
the attached secondary reference section. The students will then write a summary of the
case and render an opinion logically argued.
Assessing outcomes:
The outcomes of this assignment may be assessed in the following ways:
- The attached worksheet contains factual and more subjective information and is intended to
be used as a basis for part of the grade, and
- a post-discussion web search and writing assignment will assess the students' ability to
do research and logical thinking. The discussion may be graded at the instructor's
discretion.
Additional remarks:
None.
Author contact information:
Professor Ronald Foster
Electrical and Computer Engineering Dept.
Lawrence Technological University
21000 W. Ten Mile Rd.
Southfield, Mi. 48076
Email: foster@ltu.edu
Page maintained by: kwb@csee.usf.edu