Recently Goldman Sachs reported that they had been scanning employee's work emails for the use of derogratory words such a 'muppet' to describe their clients.
While it is debateable as to whether 'muppet' is a derogratory word, the underpinning reasons behind the scanning were to identify behaviours that did not meet the values of the company.
It was thought that values of teamwork and integrity had been replaced with a culture where clients could be mistreated for profit and that using internal emails to discuss clients in a less than positive way was viewed by the company as destructive.
But if the client was not included in these emails, was it right for Goldman Sachs to scan their workers emails or should internal emails remain private?
In a world where many conversations that in the past would have been held face to face, now take place through email communications, to what extent should the account holders have to be accountable for email content that doesn't directly involve clients?
Read more here:
business.time.com/2012/03/22/with-muppet-hunt-will-goldman-sachs-end-email-smack-talk/It is proposed that companies should be allowed to scan their employees workplace email accounts without consent.