email monitoring
Hey guys, I said something stupid in an email. I knew firms do monitor emails. Does anyone know if the monitoring is in real time or back logged? It has been a couple of months, is it safe to assume the email is not a problem at this point?
Bump, no one knows?
Thanks a lot! Any other comments? Anyone from IT compliance?
From talking to IT people, the vast majority of systems have real-time filters that pick up certain words. If you sent an email with words like "guaranteed financial performance" or racist terms, the filter would probably pick the email up and flag the email for review. Other than that, no sits there and reads all of your emails.
Thanks a lot for the comments! It's has been couple of months, but I am worried if it has been flagged but not yet reviewed? Trying to decide if I need to come clean and get to the front of this.
To echo Sil's comments (I have many colleagues in IT sec/compliance), they would've jumped on this already if it was truly an issue. The only thing you have to worry about is an audit that requires access to your emails. If that's the case, you will be notified before hand and then you may come clean. Otherwise, you will be fine.
Can you elaborate a bit on what you said? Either way if it is a couple months in the past now then you stand a good chance of being ok. There is content scanning of both the email itself and attachments so I tend to believe if it was a true "game over" moment you'd already be gone.
Thanks a lot for the comments! I sent out that stupid email about two and half months ago by mistake and it has been bothering me since. I agree with all the comments that the scanning of the emails is real time. Just worried that maybe the email is flagged but have not been reviewed yet. That was incredibly stupid of me and thanks everyone for your help!
If you haven't been flagged by IT word filters already, I think the only risk is that whoever you sent it to uses it against you, or forwards it and it lands in the lap of someone who uses it against you.
An example which may be relevant - we had a person in my team who was underperforming significantly over a long and sustained period and just didn't seem to give a shit. We wanted to fire him. HR made us have meetings with him, set performance targets with him and generally manage him out over a few months, even though we were fairly certain he'd never reach those targets (and he never got close).
The person also had severe shortcoming in professionalism and it was almost certain he'd put stuff in e-mail which was not workplace appropriate (less breaching business ethics, more just being unprofessional).
On simple internal policies breach level, we'd be almost certain to find that he'd mailed internal documents to his personal e-mail address at least once or twice - not for the purposes of evil, yet would still be a clear policy breach offence.
However, despite the clear shortfalls in this person, the fact that it was quite apparent that we'd have to get rid of him and the likelihood we'd find e-mails that would justify immediate termination in his outbox, no one suggested we look at his e-mails - neither us nor HR.
Unless we thought someone was leaking inside information, it's just not something we'd think of doing or want to do.
Thanks so much for the answer! Really appreciate it!
Sapiente distinctio sunt quidem. Inventore quo minima laborum voluptatem incidunt. Est minus laboriosam nisi reprehenderit. Harum quasi amet aut.
Voluptatibus harum nemo distinctio tempore. Temporibus reprehenderit dolorum minus ut delectus.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...