Mmmmm, that is not completely correct, and no offense intended Efferri but just hear me out a sec. I have been dealing with legal issues like this for a major Fortune 100 Financial institution for years now and have a lot of experience in this area (preventing data leakage and prosecuting those who would sell your trade secrets).

 I have seen employees successfully sue their employers for tactics like that EVEN when their is a signed agreement acknowledging no expectation of privacy on company owned equipment. This type of tactic CAN fall into the realm of violating your employees rights even if you own the equipment and is very tricky to handle in court, because you have selected THAT employee for a level of monitoring beyond the rest of your employees it can also fall into the realm of discrimination.

Personally I would avoid this type of situation altogether and deploy a tool like Vontu as Don suggested. It is forensically sound, generally accepted as a standard in legal communities for IP (Intellectual Property) loss cases and keeps your company protected from discrimination responses from your employees.

-Jordan

No offense taken what-so-ever.  That's what these forums are for.  I don't claim to be an expert on the laws of the land (or even savvy).  I merely speak from personal experience.  I have had to resort to this two times in the past 11 years, and it has served me well.  Granted, we had a blanket disclaimer on all login screens notifying the user of monitoring, and also have them all sign a pretty lengthy Appropriate Use Agreement (which includes a CYA page of monitoring jargon.)

So, when I offered the KL suggestion, I was assuming the individual would be bright enough to check with his/her superiors before implementing anything.

 

yes, that is exactly my point, you have to be able to prove that you had not singled out the employee, hence blanket coverage is the best way to go IMO.