Increasingly, companies are firing employees for misusing the Internet at their workstations, where employees violate company policy.  Will the trend extend to government workplaces?

A recent survey by the American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute reports that a quarter of employers have fired someone because of email misuse, and an additional third have fired an employee due to other kinds of Internet misuse.  

Thus over half of all companies have fired an employee for using the Internet inappropriately on (or through) the job.  From this, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a business interest in limiting Internet access.  After all, the more time an employee spends violating company policy, the less work he is completing and the more chance an important client will walk in on him violating company policy.  (Think one hundred times worse than when your mom walked in on you ‘violating company policy.')

The Bill of Rights, remember, does not protect individuals from private intrusion, but only from governmental interference. Because you have rights, the government cannot punish you for uttering an obscenity at the top of your lungs in your place of work (unless, of course, you work in the ear trauma ward of a hospital).  However, the way your private employer punishes you for the outburst is another thing.  Your first amendment rights mean nothing to him.  Legally speaking, liberty is a subjective thing.

The largest employer in America is the government, employing 2.7 million federal workers and 16 million state and local employees.  Three out of every fifty people in America are government employees. In the offices of those employees, should freedom to surf be seen as a right or a privilege?

As of now, government agencies seem to err on the side of liberty.  

A memorandum to all Department of Justice (DOJ) employees describes DOJ's specific policy, which "allows personal use of most office equipment, including the Internet, where there is negligible cost to the government and no interference with official business," so long as said Internet use does not constitute "partisan political activity" or illegal activities.

"The policy on personal use," the memo continues, "is subject to the overriding expectation that an employee will give the government an honest day's work, and that Departmental resources should not be used for activities that are offensive to co-workers."  There is no indication that DOJ would fire, or has fired, offending employees.

The Department of Commerce, like other Cabinet agencies, holds a similar policy that states workers can use the Internet for limited personal use so long as that use does not detract from the user's efficiency.

"Limited personal use of the Internet during working or non-working hours, including the use of e-mail, World Wide Web access, and the use of personal computers, networks, and printers to support such access, is authorized, provided it does not interfere with official duties or consume excessive resources."

The policy does ban certain activities, including:

• Pursuit of private commercial business activities, partisan politics, fundraising, lobbying, or illegal activities
• Use that could result in an additional charge or expense to the Government
• Using or creating sexually explicit material (unless the act is part of one's investigative duties)
• Use of Government e-mail addresses in a manner that will give the false impression that the Department authorizes an employee's personal communication.

The exception to the rules appears to be the Defense Department, which often bans website use its leaders view as potential sources of security breaches.  In May of 2007, DoD blocked access to "Internet entertainment sites" like YouTube and MySpace that allow users to share video files.  Crackdowns on personal blogs are also fairly common throughout the military service branches.

DoD aside, if there is such good reason to limit Internet use in the workplace-because of efficiency and, well, because the majority of businesses are doing it-should the government still be allowed to infringe on employees' liberties if it cannot exert the same influence over average citizens?  Targeting one and not the other might be an unwise disincentive for public servants, not to mention a significant inequality issue.

Thus the government proceeds with caution on the issue of Internet freedom.  Though this is a characteristic backstep away from the private sector norm of efficiency and effectiveness, it is a bold step in the direction of personal freedom.  

What is the government's motivation for promoting this liberty?  Did a policy wonk in the Department of Justice find the freedom to surf somewhere between free speech and assembly? Do we live in an era where multi-tasking is the norm? Or, is the American government simply pro-Internet?

Maybe we shouldn't complain as long as men and women can still access www.ohmygov.com.  But the second they cannot, our objections might come too late.  

So for the moment, let us appreciate the government's shirking of private sector norms while noting that it constitutes one more way in which it is harder for bureaucrats to be fired.  But then again, this is just another reason those in positions of power tend to keep it.