The government however use a different approach and need ‘Interception Warrants’ which is a document giving legal consent in accessing private files and information. The government can demand that a public telecommunications (ISP’s, phone companies and even websites) service intercepts an individual's communications. When an ISP is served with an interception warrant, it has to comply and it may not reveal this fact to anyone ever, in turn, you wouldn't even know that the government was doing this to you.
How can this act be used?
Business employers may use this act under very limited circumstances, and mustn’t abuse them. Although the employees are paid to work for the company during business hours, there is no guarantee that they will comply with every rule and regulation and so, they may use the telephone for private uses and may even send private e-mail. If there were any suspicion that an illegal or inappropriate act is being carried out then it would be necessary to use the RIP act. However the ‘Data Protection Commissioner’ issued a draft code of conduct, which sets out strict rules on monitoring.
The government may use the RIP to monitor Internet traffic. This is because Internet traffic data falls under the definition of ‘communications data’. The government therefore can, gather information such as what websites you visit and when, who you email, who emails you, what newsgroups you read, all the phone numbers you call, what software you've downloaded, what documents you've downloaded, where and when you log on to a machine and from where you logged on, etc. Any government department or police officer can demand access to this information as long as it deemed to be required of under the various grounds such as national security, prevention/detection of crime, in the interests of the UK's economic well being, in the interests of public safety, for protecting public health and for preventing death/injury.
Effects/Solutions
Some employees strongly object that their employers should be able to access such information and that employees have a legitimate expectation of privacy. There are arguments that the Human Rights Act 1998 conflicts that of the RIP. Some firms fail to outline the policy (RIP) and this makes employees anxious to know whether or not they are being monitored and could lower worker motivation, therefore having an immediate impact on the firm itself. A way to overcome this may be to outline a policy that informs staff of intended monitoring, and that any action should be for legitimate business reasons.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Business Advantages (employers view)
- Able to monitor the actions of employees
- Able to act against the employees if an inappropriate action has been taken
Business Disadvantages (employers view)
- Strong objection from some employee’s
- Conflicts with Human Rights Act 1998
- Data Protection Commissioner issues a draft set of strict rules on monitoring
(Limiting the use of the RIP act)
Government Advantages
- The government can demand that a public telecommunications service intercepts an individual's communications
-
Served for purposes which relate to national security, preventing or detecting serious crime or safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK
Government Disadvantages
-
Need an ‘Interception Warrant’ to demand a public telecommunications service intercepts an individual's communications
- It is illegal for surveillance data to be used in legal proceedings
(Cannot be used within a court of law, and not even be mentioned)
- Some people (Hackers) are able to access private information about the government having used the same methods the government uses to access the information from us, the public.
