The legal risks of uncontrolled IM use

Nest of vipers


White paper Everyone loves instant messaging, the chat-cum-presence tool of choice of the masses. And that love extends to the workplace...IM should overtake email as the preferred method of business communication by the second half of 2010, an IDC survey found last year.

But IM can create enormous headaches for their employers. We have selected this whitepaper from the Reg Library to tell you just how big that headache is.

The legal risks of uncontrolled IM use

This is in spite of the fact that many organizations - President Obama's White House among them - ban the staff use of IM for security and compliance reasons.

Blanket bans such as this may engender a false sense of security, according to this white paper prepared by a London law firm for Messagelabs (reg req'd).

“A younger workforce is adept at using IM and such usage is likely to continue to grow. IM tools are sophisticated and may enter networks, notwithstanding the fact that firewalls are in place, or obvious ports locked down,” the authors write.

A devious lot, the young.

Companies that do embrace IM are often much slower to assess its on their corporate risk profile, and therefore have no agreed policy on its use.

But monitoring staff use of IM is essential, for legal reasons:

A key consideration is that an employer can be liable for the acts of its employees, even if the acts have been expressly forbidden. From this we can conclude that an employer will not necessarily escape liability arising from IM use, even if a) the use of IM is forbidden, or b) the IM software used was not provided by the employer. This is why employers need to take the risks arising from IM seriously, even if they have a policy of forbidding its use, or simply no policy at all.

UK employers can be sued for the actions of their staff under the concept of vicarious liability for harassment; breach of confidentiality; infringement of IP rights; data protection; freedom of information; and defamation. Also they must keep records of IM conversations to comply with sundry regulatory requirements.

So where does Messagelabs fit in with all this? The Symantec subsidiary provides a dedicated hosted IM security service which allows customers to actively monitor and control IM use and in "many cases, provide a defence to actions brought on as a result of use of public IM systems".

The sales spiel is softly spoken and the content is instructive. Recommended.

The legal risks of uncontrolled IM use

Similar topics

Narrower topics


Other stories you might like

  • DigitalOcean tries to take sting out of price hike with $4 VM
    Cloud biz says it is reacting to customer mix largely shifting from lone devs to SMEs

    DigitalOcean attempted to lessen the sting of higher prices this week by announcing a cut-rate instance aimed at developers and hobbyists.

    The $4-a-month droplet — what the infrastructure-as-a-service outfit calls its virtual machines — pairs a single virtual CPU with 512 MB of memory, 10 GB of SSD storage, and 500 GB a month in network bandwidth.

    The launch comes as DigitalOcean plans a sweeping price hike across much of its product portfolio, effective July 1. On the low-end, most instances will see pricing increase between $1 and $16 a month, but on the high-end, some products will see increases of as much as $120 in the case of DigitalOceans’ top-tier storage-optimized virtual machines.

    Continue reading
  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022