Every now and then journalists are invited to attend roundtable discussions. Sometimes they're too early in the morning for most decent folk. Other times we just know they are going to be a boring snoozefest. In either case we end up giving them a big fat miss.

Today, however, BeerFiles really must confess that we initially regretted not making time to attend a roundtable held this morning when we received the post-event media briefing:

"Monitoring employee email and internet use raises security, privacy and intellectual property issues which make it hard for businesses to balance employer liability and employee rights."

This sounded like a promising start for a roundtable discussion. The communique went on:

"The Victorian Law Reform Commission's workplace privacy project prompted debate at a business briefing held jointly by (email security provider) Clearswift and law firm Clayton Utz in Melbourne today.

"'Balancing Employer Liability and Employees' Rights' looked at how businesses deal with security and privacy issues associated with electronic communication in the workplace.

"Speakers included Peter Croft of Clearswift, Emily Lett of Clayton Utz, Dale Wiese of Working Arrangements (whoever that is) and Professor Marcia Neave of the Victorian Law Reform Commission.

"They discussed risks and obligations of monitoring email and the internet at work, loss of productivity, legal liability, confidentiality breaches and employees' rights to privacy in the workplace."

This sounded like we really should have been there for the ride. Then we were treated to the following summary of the ensuing discussion:

Peter Croft, managing director Clearswift Asia Pacific said, "Businesses need to understand that detection is technology driven and action is policy driven. Effective systems depend on effective policy." (Policy? You mean businesses need to have a workplace policy?)

Emily Lett, senior associate of Clayton Utz, addressed legal and policy issues surrounding electronic communication in the workplace. "The number one issue for employers is ensuring that they have comprehensive policies in place which are effectively communicated to the workforce. Otherwise, while an employer may be able to detect wrong doing on the part of an employee, they may not be able to do anything about it," said Lett. (Communicate policies? You mean employers need to communicate their policies about internet and email use to employees?)

Dale Wiese, senior consultant at Working Arrangements, said "Internet and email resources are provided by employers to carry out business related functions in an appropriate and lawful manner and not personal or social activities.(You mean the internet and email at work are not there for employees to play games and keep in touch with friends?)

"Nonetheless, many employers do permit reasonable personal use of their internet and email facilities. In that regard, employers need to be aware that if such use is permitted, they will be held liable for any unlawful or inappropriate use by an employee, unless they can demonstrate that they have taken reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to prevent such things from occurring." (Finally, some useful information. Employers need to think twice about providing internet and email access to employees for personal use because they may be held responsible for any illegal acts.)

Professor Marcia Neave, Victorian Law Reform Commission chairperson, said a final report to government on an appropriate model for regulation would be finished in the second half of this year. "We are working from the standpoint that any potential workplace privacy laws must recognise that privacy is a human right, but must also take account of employers' need to protect their property and provide a safe and lawful workplace." (So employees are entitled to privacy. Then again employers have a right to ensure that employees are using the internet and email at work for work and not for private and certainly not illegal purposes.)

A group of legal and security experts gathered for this early morning meeting. Would it have been too much to ask for them to tell us something that we don't already know?