Personality Rights Law--
The Fourth Amendment influenced Louise Brandeis and Samuel Warren to write a draft of the Personality Rights Law, in the Harvard Law Review in 1890. Privacy Rights are entitled to all "Territorial or spatial privacy, personal privacy, and informational privacy." The exact laws were created so "individuals could protect their privacy from the prying eyes of the media, specifically tabloid press" and to protect personal property.
    Although property rights were created as relevant to all aspects of society, it is crucial to point out that they were constructed prior to the establishment of the Internet. As a result, the core of what is mentioned in the draft of the Privacy Rights is focused on the right to privacy at home: "Territorial claims were originally, legally, and conceptually tied to property, which meant that legal claims to privacy are largely confined to the home." Therefore, a lot of the points addressed in the draft of the Privacy Rights are too general to pertain to laws required for Internet use, primarily in the work place. (Ibid.)

Advanced Technology Creates
Inconsistency in Privacy Laws
The advancement of technology created inconsistency in privacy laws, which resulted in the promulgation of other Acts, which centered on Internet access. Many rules that have recently been created fall under the realm of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Title I Loophole
Title I says that it is against the law for someone to intercept any form of communication on the Internet without the permission of individuals: " . . . It is unlawful to intercept the contents of an electronic communication when the intercepting party has obtained consent of one of the parties to the communication." (Amy Kogers, Journal of Technlogy Laws and Policy)
    The Act claims that it is acceptable to intercept messages if it is specifically done to verify the parties that take part in the transfer of electronic communication. Therefore, it only becomes a violation when the third party reads the contents of the transfer. However, a contradiction arises because Title I also states that interception of electronic communication (even if the contents are read) is not a violation of Title I, if the employer intercepts the employee's electronic transfers on a regular basis.
     Under Title I, interception can only be violated in the transfer of electronic communication. Therefore, the use of e-mail is not protected under Title I, because the transfer of e-mail takes seconds, which does not give anyone enough time to "intercept" the message. Instead, e-mails are usually stored on a general server that can be easily accessed by anyone connected to the server.

Title II Had The Best Intentions . . .
Title II is intended to have more relevance to the privacy rights that employees have when using e-mail: " . . . an employer, assuming provider status, is free to access stored e-mail messages and other electronic communication irrespective of the nature (personal or professional) of the message and without regard to whether the employer has first received the employee's consent." However, this contradicts the purpose of the Act because the Act is intended to give employees some rights to privacy on the Internet, yet at the same time, it takes electronic communication privileges away from employees. (Ibid.)

Third Time's Not The Charm, Either!
Therefore, it seems as though Title II is useless in controlling Internet access in the work place, specifically with electronic mail. As a result, Title III was created in 1986 "to include all forms of electronic communication, including e-mail." However, this law does not address employees who use e-mail in the workplace. (Ibid.)

American Common Law Privacy Torts
American Common Law Privacy Torts also fall into the category of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The tort has three subcategories that determine whether employers have the right to control their employees electronic message transfers.
    The first part of the tort refers to "placing a person in a false light" that causes people's perception to stray from the truth. The second part of the tort talks about the misuse of a person's name in an incriminating manner. The third and fourth laws in the tort are about "publication of private facts and unreasonable intrusion into the seclusion of another." (Ibid.)
     Privacy Torts benefit the employer rather than the employee because they protect employers against Titles I and II. For instance, an employer can avoid a lawsuit, despite the violation of Title I or II, because one aspect of the tort says, "If an employer does not disclose private information learned while monitoring employees, it will avoid liability..." (Ibid.)

Employers Need to Establish Ground Rules
Because all the laws created to control the use of the Internet in the workplace contradict to each other, it is crucial for companies to establish their own policies and notify employees.
    First, employers must decide whether or not they will allow employees to go on-line for personal use. If the company allows employees to go on-line, but wants to restrict people from using the Internet for non-work related purposes, then the employer must state (preferably in a written document) that all Internet use "must" or "will" be in the company's best interest.
     In order to get the message across to all employees, it is wise for companies to refrain from using the word "should." By using "should" it "implies flexibility and leniency in the policy." However, "it is unrealistic for a company, particularly a large company, to expect all employees to refrain from any personal activity on such systems." Also, the company is at risk for lawsuits if they discriminate against one employee (by monitoring their Internet use) and not another. (Ibid.)
    If the employer allows workers to use the Internet, they should specify the time when personal Internet use is accessible to workers. A possible time to use the Internet at work for personal messages would be during lunch. However, employees must know that if they forward a personal message to anyone that relates to the company, it might unintentionally fall into the wrong hands. Nonetheless, the person who initially sent the message is responsible.