More than a century ago in their definitive work “The Right to Privacy” Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis highlighted the challenges posed to individual privacy by advancing technology. Today’s workplace is characterised by its reliance on computer technology, particularly the use of email and the Internet to perform critical business functions. Increasingly these and other workplace activities are the focus of monitoring by employers. There is little formal regulation of electronic monitoring in Australian or United States workplaces. Without reasonable limits or controls, this has the potential to adversely affect employees’ privacy rights. Australia has a history of legislating to protect privacy rights, whereas the United States has relied on a combination of constitutional guarantees, federal and state statutes, and the common law. This thesis examines a number of existing and proposed statutory and other workplace privacy laws in Australia and the United States. The analysis demonstrates that existing measures fail to adequately regulate monitoring or provide employees with suitable remedies where unjustifiable intrusions occur. The thesis ultimately supports the view that enacting uniform legislation at the national level provides a more effective and comprehensive solution for both employers and employees. Chapter One provides a general introduction and briefly discusses issues relevant to electronic monitoring in the workplace. Chapter Two contains an overview of privacy law as it relates to electronic monitoring in Australian and United States workplaces. In Chapter Three there is an examination of the complaint process and remedies available to a hypothetical employee (Mary) who is concerned about protecting her privacy rights at work. Chapter Four provides an analysis of the major themes emerging from the research, and also discusses the draft national uniform legislation. Chapter Five details the proposed legislation in the form of the Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring Act, and Chapter Six contains the conclusion.

大法官在釋字第689號解釋中，首次在解釋文中引進美國法上的「合理隱私期待」概念，以作為人民是否受到憲法隱私權保障的判定標準。事實上，「合理隱私期待」的概念在我國法上並不令人感到陌生。例如，通訊保障及監察法第3條第2項即明確規定：「前項所稱之通訊，以有事實足認受監察人對其通訊內容有『隱私或秘密之合理期待』者為限」。 除了尾隨、全天候視覺監控等類似的古老方法，隨著科技的進步，諸如以衛星為基礎的汽車導航系統、以基地台為基礎的行動電話定位服務等低成本、高效率的定位科技，可以更輕易且嚴重地侵害我們的私生活及隱私。當定位科技成為我們每天生活的一部分時，如何在這樣的脈絡下正確地操作「合理隱私期待」概念，已成為一項重要的議題。 惟國內學術文獻對於如何正確地操作「合理隱私期待」，似乎欠缺全面性地研究。為了填補國內的空白，本文進行了美國及台灣案例法之深入比較分析，尤其是關於合理隱私期待及定位裝置的判決。本文指出了以往我國及美國法院判決的問題，以及邏輯矛盾之處。為了達到更加一致、正確的判決結果，本文認為，在操作合理隱私期望概念時，法院應著重於四個因素，其分別是：「資訊的性質」、「侵害的手段」、「侵害的場所」及「第三人原則」。 / In J.Y. Interpretation No. 689, the Constitutional Court , for the first time, employs the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy”, originated from the United States, in order to determine whether an individual enjoys a constitutionally protected right to privacy. The concept, however, is not new to our legal system. For example, Paragraph 2, Article 3 of the Communication Protection and Surveillance Act provides: “The communications referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be limited to those for which there is an adequate showing of facts that a person subject to surveillance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy or confidentiality with respect to the content of the communications.” In addition to tailing, around the clock visual surveillance and similar old-fashioned methods, with the advance in technology, our private life and privacy could be more easily and greatly intruded by low-cost, high-efficiency location positioning technology, such as satellite-based car navigation system and cell sites-based cellphone positioning service. When location positioning technology becomes part of our everyday life, how to properly apply the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in this context has also become an important issue. So far, there seems to lack a comprehensive study on the aforementioned issue in domestic academic literature. To fill the gap, this thesis conducts an in-depth comparative analysis of both U.S. and Taiwan case law, especially those involving reasonable expectation of privacy and location positioning devices. This thesis points out the problems and logical inconsistencies in past decisions in both jurisdictions. In order to reach a more consistent and appropriate result, this thesis argues that when applying the reasonable expectation of privacy test, courts should focus on four factors which are: “nature of information,” “measure of infringement,” “the place where the intrusion happens,” and “third party doctrine.”

Afrikaans text / The Canadian and South African legal systems established equivalent constitutional values and principles pertaining to searches conducted with or without a valid search warrant. It creates the basis for a comparative study on this particular aspect. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R v A. M 2008 S.C.C 19 random sniffer dog searches conducted without neither a reasonable suspicion nor any legislative authority on learners enrolled in public schools, is unconstitutional due to its infringement of a learner's reasonable expectation to privacy, as protected in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. South African learners are randomly search by law enforcement officers by using sniffer dogs for purposes of detecting the possession of illegal drugs in instances without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority. The search is subsequently conducted in terms of the common law. The common law is not regarded as law of general application to limit a fundamental right in terms of the limitation clause. By taking into consideration the ratio in R v A. M (supra) the conclusion is subsequently that random sniffer dog searches conducted on learners in South African public schools, without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority, is unconstitutional which infringes section 14 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. / Die basis vir hierdie studie is ontleen aan die ooreenstemmende vereistes en beginsels in die Kanadese en Suid Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van deursoekings met of sonder 'n wettige lasbrief uitgevoer. In die Kanadese beslissing van R v A.M 2008 SCC 19 is die grondwetlikheid van ewekansige deursoekings met behuip van snuffelhonde op leerders sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, deur die Supreme Court of Canada as ongrondwetlik bevind aangesien 'n leerder wel oor 'n redelike verwagting op privaatheid beskik. Indien leerders sonder 'n redelike vermoede en statutere magtiging met behuip van snuffelhonde deursoek word, geskied dit ingevolge die gemenereg en dit word nie beskou as 'n algemeen geldende reg om 'n fundamentele reg kragtens die beperkingsklousule te beperk nie. Met inagneming van die ratio in R v A.M (supra) kan daar dus tot die gevolgtrekking gekom word dat ewekansige deursoekings met behulp van snuffelhonde op Suid Afrikanse leerders in die afwesigheid van 'n redelike vermoede asook sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, tans ongrondwetlike optrede daarstel wat op artikel 14 van die Grondwet van 1996 inbreuk maak. / Law (College) / LL.M.

Afrikaans text / The Canadian and South African legal systems established equivalent constitutional values and principles pertaining to searches conducted with or without a valid search warrant. It creates the basis for a comparative study on this particular aspect. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R v A. M 2008 S.C.C 19 random sniffer dog searches conducted without neither a reasonable suspicion nor any legislative authority on learners enrolled in public schools, is unconstitutional due to its infringement of a learner's reasonable expectation to privacy, as protected in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms. South African learners are randomly search by law enforcement officers by using sniffer dogs for purposes of detecting the possession of illegal drugs in instances without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority. The search is subsequently conducted in terms of the common law. The common law is not regarded as law of general application to limit a fundamental right in terms of the limitation clause. By taking into consideration the ratio in R v A. M (supra) the conclusion is subsequently that random sniffer dog searches conducted on learners in South African public schools, without neither a reasonable suspicion nor statutory authority, is unconstitutional which infringes section 14 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. / Die basis vir hierdie studie is ontleen aan die ooreenstemmende vereistes en beginsels in die Kanadese en Suid Afrikaanse reg ten aansien van deursoekings met of sonder 'n wettige lasbrief uitgevoer. In die Kanadese beslissing van R v A.M 2008 SCC 19 is die grondwetlikheid van ewekansige deursoekings met behuip van snuffelhonde op leerders sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, deur die Supreme Court of Canada as ongrondwetlik bevind aangesien 'n leerder wel oor 'n redelike verwagting op privaatheid beskik. Indien leerders sonder 'n redelike vermoede en statutere magtiging met behuip van snuffelhonde deursoek word, geskied dit ingevolge die gemenereg en dit word nie beskou as 'n algemeen geldende reg om 'n fundamentele reg kragtens die beperkingsklousule te beperk nie. Met inagneming van die ratio in R v A.M (supra) kan daar dus tot die gevolgtrekking gekom word dat ewekansige deursoekings met behulp van snuffelhonde op Suid Afrikanse leerders in die afwesigheid van 'n redelike vermoede asook sonder statutere magtiging uitgevoer, tans ongrondwetlike optrede daarstel wat op artikel 14 van die Grondwet van 1996 inbreuk maak. / Law (College) / LL.M.