There is no doubt that new technological means of communicating and entertaining are invading the workplace. The question thus arises as to any steps that should be taken by employers to grapple with and potentially control blogging, instant messaging, and the use of iPods and camera phones by employees.

Blogging

Blogs are tantamount to personalized Internet diaries. It has been estimated that there were more than ten million blogs created within the United States by the end of 2005, with more than eight million US adults having created blogs. Recent estimates conclude that at least 20,000 blogs are created daily. Plainly, this is an emerging and exponentially growing form of communication.

So, what are employers to do with respect to blogs created by their employees? Employers legitimately might be worried about disadvantages related to blogs. For example, they could be concerned that blogging can distract employees and sap their productivity.

They also could be disturbed by the potential for inappropriate content that could be contained on blogs that could harass other employees, impugn the reputation of their companies, defame others and that improperly could disclose confidential company information or trade secrets.

On the other hand, employers should be mindful that in certain settings employee blogs can be beneficial. Blogging can serve as an important means of communicating between company partners, customers and employees. Blogs can be the spark for innovation and development.

Thus, many companies may not want to outright ban blogging by employees (which also could be a PR nightmare). Instead, they would be smart to incorporate blogging activities into their (hopefully) existing computer and Internet policies.

These policies should be updated specifically to address inappropriate and appropriate blogging. The key to such policies is effective communication so that employees clearly understand proper blogging parameters and so that they buy into a company's approach up front.

Employees should understand from such policies that company confidential information and trade secrets must be protected, others cannot be disparaged or defamed, a company's brand and image must be honored, that their blogging activities will be monitored and that they have no expectations of privacy in work-related blogs, the time limits at work placed on blogging, the types of blogging content that is acceptable for a company, and that violation of a company's policies could lead to discipline and even termination.

Employers need to take blogging quite seriously, as there are circumstances under which they can be held responsible for the blogging content of their employees.

There already have been instances of employers terminating employees for blogs that have been perceived as harassing, defamatory, disclosing trade secrets and whereby employees have spoken out on very sensitive and controversial subjects.

Certain terminated employees have turned around and sued their employers for alleged retaliation and discrimination. It is important that employers enforce their policies evenly with respect to employees engaging in the same conduct.

Instant Messaging

Instant Messaging (IMing) is a real-time dialogue between two or more people on the Internet. Many of the same issues raised by blogging by employees apply with equal force for employers regarding employee IMing.

However, some IM platforms do not provide for a retrievable record. This can have a number of consequences.

For example, tracking and later proving who authored specific messages that might be the subject of harassment, defamation or trade secret disclosure claims might be very difficult. Plus, because such messages can be printed but not saved on the transmitting resource, they can be susceptible to manipulation.

Moreover, once specific litigation is contemplated or initiated, companies have an obligation to preserve relevant evidence, otherwise they could be charged with evidence spoliation. Companies therefore have to struggle with how their document and data retention policies are drafted to encompass IMing.

iPods

Yes, even iPods have workplace consequences. More and more people are living their lives to their own soundtracks through their iPods. Here, too, employers should consider clear policies so that their employees understand what is permissible.

Certainly, listening to an iPod can be distracting and can decrease worker productivity for certain types of jobs. iPod usage could even be a safety issue for some jobs if failure to pay attention could lead to accidents and injuries.

On top of this, now that videos now are available on iPods, improper content, such as violent or sexual content, could lead to claims by others of improper and hostile work environments.

Camera Phones

It is estimated that by the end of this year 80% of cell phones also will be cameras. Employers also need to deal with this development.

Camera phones can be used to photograph sensitive, confidential and trade secret company information.

Furthermore, camera phones can be used to photograph other workers in embarrassing situations and can cause other employees to feel a loss of privacy.

Completely banning camera phones may not make sense, as employees will want access to the phone part of their device, even if they do not use the camera.

Again, policies should be developed and articulated that make sense for a given company.

Technology will keep moving forward, and employers need to work with employees so that everyone knows what is permissible and appropriate and what is not.

Biography

Eric Sinrod is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris. His focus includes information technology and intellectual property disputes. To receive his weekly columns, send an e-mail to with the word "Subscribe" in the subject line.

Disclaimer: This column is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's law firm or its individual partners.

Reprinted with permission of Findlaw.com