across the bar

Interception and monitoring - the shoe on the other foot

by Steve - Posted 22 November 2005

When we talk about the interception and monitoring of electronic communications, most of the focus is on bosses snooping on their employees' e-mails or Internet usage. But what if the shoe was on the other foot? In the US, a former claims adjustor employed by the Bristol West insurance company was caught using a keystroke logger device that he purchased off the Internet to tap his employer's computer.

The device was installed on a secretary's PC in an effort to expose alleged anti-consumer practices by Bristol West, including the illegal canceling of client's policies. The whistle blower was charged under the US's federal Wiretap Act for unlawfully intercepting electronic communications transmitted over a system that affects interstate or foreign commerce.

However, the case was dismissed on the grounds that the employee's conduct did not amount to an unlawful interception in terms of the Wiretap Act. The judge ruled that the interception of keystrokes between the computer's keyboard and its hard drive did not meet the Act's requirement that the intercepted communication/s were being transmitted over a system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, even where that computer was linked to the employer's internal network and/or where the intercepted communications may have been e-mails.