Title I of the ECPA’s restricts people and organizations from intercepting any kind of communication, be it oral, wire or electronic. Service providers and operators are rather exempted on condition that they are using the information in performing their legal normal employment duties. This includes them that the law has authorized to do so as provided by FISA. Casinos are considered private sectors and the law does not give them the authority to not to intercept or view their employee’s mails. The law also allows service providers to monitor conversations, this therefore guaranty Casinos to intercept if they are the providers of the communication channel.
ECPA has been in existence since its enactment in 1986. Since the government has the authority to intercept, people have complained about it getting into too much of their conversations on phone and emails. The government has defended itself against these claims saying that it is trying to offer privacy to employees. The act does not allow illegal access and unveiling of information. It also binds the government to follow legal procedures in obtaining electronic communication contents from a provider.
As much as the state is trying to prevent such practices, it has been identified that most employers breach this law. This especially happens where organization phones are used for personal conversations. The companies monitor the usage of such devices, which according to me, is alright. In case the employer is also the email service provider, the same E.C.P. A. allows monitoring of the conversations. The ACT has therefore not benefited the people but the government to enhance security in the state. It is therefore not an issue to employers since it is business as normal for employees, they keep crying for privacy.
The act has also received a lot of complaints from people that it does not match with the current technology and so, not much important to them. This has prompted a proposal to amend the act so that it caters for the current technology. This alone is able to show the dissatisfaction of members of the public with the Act.
Many organizations regulate the use of their computers for personal use. In many codes of conducts drawn, you shall find that limited personal use of laptops is encouraged for as long as it does not interfere with your service delivery it is very difficult to completely prohibit use of laptops and phones.
I also encourage my supervisor to allow limited use of company laptops. There should be a policy to define how much limited is limited. The employees should also be aware of the code of conduct are trained to adhere to it. In the code, the use of the laptop for personal use should not interfere with the normal duties of the employee to the company. In such a case, the company is allowed to check the kinds of work the user has been doing with the laptops since they are property of the company.
References
Preeo, Silverman, Green & Egle, P.C: Attoneys and Counselors At Law. (2013). Prohibitions Against Monitoring Employee E-Mail And Other Electronic Communications. Web.
Justice Information Sharing: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice programs. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2510-22.(2013). Web.
TECH.(2013). Electronic Communications Privacy Act: Patrick Leahy Hits Back At Report That Legislation Would Decrease Americans’ Privacy. Web.