Mr. Janssen, as you know, we are working on a global media use policy for JansCo. I've done some preliminary research on the topic of privacy in the workplace and have summarized what I learned below. Privacy in the workplace has always been an issue, but now, with the introduction of computers into the workplace, the possibility of collecting employee data has increased significantly. If an employer wanted, every action of every employee could be collected and analyzed. This type of monitoring is not acceptable, however, but there are guidelines that can be followed to define what is acceptable. First, we can divide privacy into two main categories. Information Privacy and Physical Privacy. Information privacy itself can be broken down into three subcategories. The first being sensitive information. This is information about an employee that is clearly personal, including information about family life, health, and religious and political beliefs. This information is prohibited to employers. Collecting data of this type could jeopardize employees' professional relationships. Their relationships should be defined by their work and what they choose to share. The second category is information that is normally private, but would not damage a relationship if exposed. This is where it is difficult to draw the line. It is easy for employers to get more from the employee than they should in this category because the employee has little defense if the employer demands this information. Between employees, however, this information is normally considered private out of respect. In what's called "civic inattention," colleagues are expected to ignore potentially sensitive conversations if they're in the middle of a sheet of paper. This can prevent copyright infringement lawsuits, which have recently targeted companies because of their deep pockets. In some court cases, records of employee activities via email or the Internet may be required, and the company may be punished if it is unable to present the requested records to the court. In this scenario, not having a CMS can have serious consequences. Since the employer owns and provides Internet and email services to the employee, the employer has the right to install monitoring software of its choice. In the case of Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., it was decided that employees had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace (Eivazi, 2011). As you can see, there are many issues related to computer privacy in the workplace. I will continue my research on the subject and present a full report with recommendations to you by the end of the month..