Office Email Privacy

Answer choices

1. A

   Compatible2% picked this

   A court rules that a government office’s practice of deleting its electronic mail is not in

   The passage spoke in the 2nd paragraph about the fact that there are people opposed to the idea of allowing government offices to delete their emails, since those emails usually contain info like "when it was sent / to whom it was sent" that paper versions don't contain. If a court were to find this rationale compelling, then it's reasonable that a court would say, "Yeah, they're right -- government offices, you're not allowed to delete email. It's in the public's best interest to have those emails available if needed."

   2%
2. B

   Compatible11% picked this

   A private-sector employer is found liable for wiretapping an office telephone conversation in which two employees exchanged disparaging

   The 1st paragraph says, "although it is illegal in many areas for an employer to eavesdrop on private conversations or telephone calls", so it seems very possible that an employer could be found liable for doing so.

   11%
3. C

   Correct71% picked this

   A court upholds the right of a government office to destroy both paper and electronic versions

   Why this is right

   The middle of the 2nd paragraph says that people who think government offices should be able to delete their emails point to the fact that these emails "already exist in paper versions whose destruction is forbidden." So it goes against something we were told if a court says, "Yes, government office, you're totally allowed to destroy paper versions of your in-house documents".

   Skill tested: Must be False · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   71%
4. D

   Compatible3% picked this

   A court upholds a private-sector employer’s right to monitor messages sent between employees over the company’s

   The passage spoke in the 3rd paragraph about a situation in which employees were disparaging their supervisor within in-house emails. The supervisor was monitoring those messages and fired the employees. The court upheld the supervisor's right to do that: "because the company owned the computer system, its supervisors had the right to read anything created on it".

   3%
5. E

   Compatible12% picked this

   A court rules in favor of a private-sector employee whose supervisor stated that in-house electronic mail would not be monitored but later fired the

   The passage spoke in the 4th paragraph about the fact that "courts have ruled that interoffice communications may be considered private only if employees have a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy when they send the messages". In this answer choice, the supervisor stated that "in-house email will not be monitored". That provides the employee with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, we wouldn't be surprised to hear that the court sides with the employee in this case.

   12%