law prohibits virus checking

[kaspaas]

We are getting close to the point that if you want to start a business, your first employee has to be an experienced full time legal eagle. Otherwise, your venture will be closed down in no time because of non-compliance to hornets nets of laws.

After reading the material Buys et al referred to, I came to the opinion that it is illegal to test email for viruses unless you have the permission of your employees.

So much so for the wisdom om the law.

Employers take the risk, but they are stripped of their abilities to effectively manage their concerns.

I can see that this law will put a lot of people on the street. One snitch can wipe out a complete company just from the legal costs involved, nevermind the size of the fines.

The moral of the story: Employees be warned: If you complain, all your buddies can be out of work in no time at all.





South Africa needs World Class Broadband at World Competitive Prices.

 

[mbs]

Hhmm... interesting take. There is much truth in the assertion that laws seem to ignore the practicalities and realities of the scenarios they're intended to proscribe - however, that's why they're tested in courts and reviewed by Parliament. This process of continual review is designed to ultimately lead to better law, with complete relevancy to the dynamics of the society it regulates. Methinks no court of law will consider it acceptable that an employer be closed down due to inadvertent infringement or non-compliance - our unemployment rates are far too high, anyway...

 

[kaspaas]

The attorneys and advocates will wipe the company financially of the map before it even gets to court.

Thus the court will have no say in most of these matters.

Reality is, the law is for the very rich or those poor enough to qualify for legal aid. Us hard working entrepreneurs only have legal rights on paper, and none in practice. For us the only access to the "law" seems to be the barrel of the 0.45 as in the old Wild West




South Africa needs World Class Broadband at World Competitive Prices.

 

[regardtv]

Most companies have a computer use policy that indicates that NO communication on any office equipment (phones/faxes/computers) are private ... you either consent or don't work there ....

Works for most

 

[kb]

I fully agree with Kaspaas about the law working only for those with sufficiently deep pockets.

I also see the need for companies to implement policies to protect themselves.

However I have also seen to many employment contracts and policies that effectively remove an individuals rights in totality. Whilst many of these contracts would probably be unenforceable if tested in a court of law, as is so often the case - the man with the deepest pockets prevails.

 

[crbuys]

Hi all,

I cannot agree more. Although I never think Parliament wanted to make virus checking subject to prior employee consent, a careful reading of the RIC Act seems to require such consent. This Act, like the ECT Act, is neither well considered nor well drafted. When Buys Inc. pointed out some of the Act's absurd results, the then head of the Justice Portfolio Committee remarked that it "is not his job to interpret the law". Our letter was not even answered.

Laws should be simple, practical, clear and technology neutral. Also, small businesses should be encouraged and protected, not frustrated by the operation of the law.

But alas, I'm preaching to the converted! []

Cheers,

Reinhardt Buys

 

[donn]

It seems to me that the ECT act is currently toothless. If someone violates the act, there is nothign we can do about it.

Is the RIC act similarly toothless? i.e. should we worry?

<hr noshade size="1">
Donn Edwards <font size="2"><div align="right">MyWireless: Diva-style reliability, dial-up performance (or worse)</div id="right"></font id="size2">
<font size="1">“If our government ever goes bad, as sometimes happens in a democracy... As we extrapolate our [surveillance] technologies into the future, if the incumbency has that political advantage over their opposition, then if a bad government ever comes to power, <b>it may be the last government we ever elect</b>.” See http://privacy.4mg.com </font id="size1">

 

[dominic]

sittýng in istanbul so excuse me ýs some strange characters apprear ýn the text

like reýnhardt i am a lawyer ýn the ict space and i agree wýth hým that the ict laws beýng kicked out by parliament are scary in terms of lack of due consideratýon and unintended consequences

& while sectýons of the ect act may be toothless (others like the cybercrime provisýons are not) the new interception law ýs far from toothless

having saýd that ý am sure that no employer will be prosecuted for virus checkýng...also there wýll at least be a period of phasing in where the way in which the law is to be applýed wýll become clearer

i suggest no panic - as an employer keep a sense of propertionality...are you infrýngýng an employee's privacy by scanning for viruses? this is a legitimate business concern...ditto spam fýlters operated ýn an automated manner

for the moment as an employer look at informýng employees of the monitoring steps which you take and making sure that they undertsand why this is done and that you do not actually wish to read their e-mail...no need for a lawyer there....do some research on electronic communications policýes - at a base level this is probably the best legal investmöent for SMEs to make at this stage....should not cost more than 5k (and can be found for less as there are lawyers offdering affordabþe services to SMEs)

also bear in mind that those lawyers paying attention to thýs stuff cannot agree amongst themselves as to what it means (largely as a result of crappy draftýng) and wait for some precedent to arrive before spending money on a maybe fear..

oh and the law has always been a ass for the rich to ride...nothing special about the new ýct laws there...

....hard work on this keyboard ðþçöþiðþðþ

there are no experts - we are all flying by the seats of our pants

 

[georgelza]

Something someone said earlier,

i hate the way you have to sign a comanies acceptable use policy doc. some of these docs you actually sign legal rights away that i am sure no lawyer would normally allow you to do, but as was said, either you sign it or don't work hear, pretty heavy handed/black mail type of attitude.

G

You Have The Obligation to Inform One Honestly of the risk, And As a Person
You Are Committed to Educate Yourself to the Total Risk In Any Activity!
Once Informed & Totally Aware of the Risk,
Every Fool Has the Right to Kill or Injure Themselves as They See Fit!