Emails and death: Legal issues surrounding post-mortem transmission of emails.

The paper is a first thorough examination of what happens to one's emails on death. The paper demonstrates that some content of emails can be protected by copyright and transmitted on death accordingly. The paper then analyzes the contractual provisions of the main email providers, Google and Microsoft, in order to determine how these contracts, regulate the transmission of emails on death. The author finds that these provisions complicate the issues of property and transmission of digital assets and do not offer a meaningful control over the assets for their users. The paper adopts a novel focus introduced in the author's earlier research, the idea of post-mortem privacy that is the right to privacy after death. This concept serves as an argument against the default transmission of emails on death without the deceased's consent, whether through the laws of intestacy or by requiring the service providers to provide access to the deceased's emails. Finally, the paper canvasses a solution which combines law and technology. It is argued that much more control should be placed in the hands of emails users. Post-mortem privacy, a potentially contested phenomenon, only accentuates the need to better account for the interests of the deceased, having in mind the volume of personal data and personal nature of emails. Therefore, an in-service solution is promoted, backed up by policy and legislation.

Professional e-mail communication among health care providers: proposing evidence-based guidelines.

E-mail is now a primary method of correspondence in health care, and proficiency with professional e-mail use is a vital skill for physicians. Fundamentals of e-mail courtesy can be derived from lay literature, but there is a dearth of scientific literature that addresses the use of e-mail between physicians. E-mail communication between providers is generally more familiar and casual than other professional interactions, which can promote unprofessional behavior or misunderstanding. Not only e-mail content but also wording, format, and tone may influence clinical recommendations and perceptions of the e-mail sender. In addition, there are serious legal and ethical implications when unprofessional or unsecured e-mails related to patient-identifying information are exchanged or included within an electronic medical record. The authors believe that the appropriate use of e-mail is a vital skill for physicians, with serious legal and ethical ramifications and the potential to affect professional development and patient care. In this article, the authors analyze a comprehensive literature search, explore several facets of e-mail use between physicians, and offer specific recommendations for professional e-mail use.

Social work practice in the digital age: therapeutic e-mail as a direct practice methodology.

The author addresses the risks and benefits of incorporating therapeutic e-mail communication into clinical social work practice. Consumer demand for online clinical services is growing faster than the professional response. E-mail, when used as an adjunct to traditional meetings with clients, offers distinct advantages and risks. Benefits include the potential to reach clients in geographically remote and underserved communities, enhancing and extending the therapeutic relationship and improving treatment outcomes. Risks include threats to client confidentiality and privacy, liability coverage for practitioners, licensing jurisdiction, and the lack of competency standards for delivering e-mail interventions. Currently, the social work profession does not have adequate instructive guidelines and best-practice standards for using e-mail as a direct practice methodology. Practitioners need (formal) academic training in the techniques connected to e-mail exchanges with clients. The author describes the ethical and legal risks for practitioners using therapeutic e-mail with clients and identifies recommendations for establishing best-practice standards.

What's that, you say? Employee expectations of privacy when using employer-provided technology--and how employers can defeat them.

Two 2010 court cases that determined the effectiveness of policies governing employees' use of employer-provided communication devices can be used to guide employers when constructing their own technology policies. In light of a policy that stated that "users should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality," one case established that the employer was in the right. However, a separate case favored the employee due, in part, to an "unclear and ambiguous" policy. Ultimately, employers can restrict the use of employer-furnished technology by employees by: 1) clearly outlining that employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their use of company devices; 2) stating that any use of personal e-mail accounts using employer-provided technology will be subject to the policy; 3) detailing all technology used to monitor employees; 4) identifying company devices covered; 5) not exposing the content of employee communications; and 6) having employees sign and acknowledge the policy.