Customer Policy

customer policy©ilda

Consumer privacy, also known as customer privacy, involves the handling and protection of sensitive personal information that individuals provide in the course of everyday transactions. This involves the exchange or use of data electronically or by any other means, including telephone, fax, written correspondence, and even direct word of mouth.

With the advent and evolution of the World Wide Web and other electronic methods of mass communications, consumer privacy has become a major issue. Personal information, when misused or inadequately protected, can result in identity theft, financial fraud, and other problems that collectively cost people, businesses, and governments millions of U.S. dollars per year. In addition, Internet crimes and civil disputes consume court resources, confound legislators and police departments, and produce untold personal aggravation.

The World Wide Web Consortium sponsors the Platform for Privacy Preferences Project, which provides an automated method for Internet users to divulge personal information to Web sites with which they explicitly agree to share it. A compliant Web site posts a Statement of Privacy Policy that explicitly defines what will be done with information provided by the user. The policy statement is easily found, read, understood, and acted upon. Each user can create a unique personal profile if desired, and modify or delete the profile at will.

Other consumer privacy features commonly offered by corporations and government agencies include do not call list; verification of transactions by e-mail or telephone; non-repudiation technologies for e-mail; passwords and other authorization measures; encryption and decryption of electronically transmitted data; opt-out provisions in user agreements for bank accounts, utilities, credit cards, and similar services; digital signatures; and biometric identification technology.

Confidentiality and Secrecy

Directors, officers and employees are expected to treat information entrusted to them by clients and employees as restricted or highly restricted, privileged, confidential information.

This includes information contained in Bank’s books and formalities, correspondence, and in general all kind of information related to the Bank’s clients (including their names, assets and properties of whatsoever nature.

The obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the information continues even after directors, officers and employees are no longer employed by the Bank. The improper or personal use of confidential information may subject directors, officers and employees to be penalized.

Conflict of Interest

Due to the sensitive nature of our particular consultancy services, we will not provide a service to a direct competitor of a client, and we generally try to avoid any dealings with competitor companies even after the cessation of services to a client.

  • Directors, officers and employees are prohibited from seeking or accepting anything of value (including services, discounts or entertainment) from clients, suppliers or anyone else in return for any business (mainly granting loans), service or restricted information of the Bank. This includes gifts provided solely in gratitude for a previously provided service.
  • The Bank must offer products and services on a competitive basis and will not tolerate any use or attempted use of improper incentives to obtain business.


 Our contract will usually be in the form of a detailed proposal, including aims, activities, costs, timescales and deliverables. The quality of our service and the value of our support provide the only true basis for continuity. We always try to meet our clients’ contractual requirements, and particularly for situations where an external funding provider requires more official considerations and controls.

  • With regard to suppliers, the selection of products and services to be purchased by officers and employees for the Bank is based solely on the internal procedures covering best value and service.

Sample Case

Verizon fined by FCC

Verizon was fined$7.4 million dollars by the FCC for the violation of Communications Act of 1934, section 222. Verizon was using customer information for their marketing campaigns without disclosing to their consumers that they can opt out of these marketing campaigns if they didn’t want to be a part of it. These violations began in 2006 and were discovered by the FCC. Due to the violations of their customer’s privacy the FCC fined the company and released at statement to the media about the violation. Verizon responded back that the breach was internal and the problem had been rectified with the FCC.


B. (n.d.). Ethics in the work place. Retrieved April 9, 2016, from


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Code of Ethics: Privacy Policy


What is Code of Ethics?

A code of ethics is a guide of principles designed to help professionals conduct business honestly and with integrity. A code of ethics document may outline the mission and values of the business or organization, how professionals are supposed to approach problems, the ethical principles based on the organization’s core values and the standards to which the professional will be held.

Employees Privacy

Employee privacy has become a greater concern as more and more employees have turned to the Internet and other electronic media to communicate both on and off the job. Although many of these accounts may seem private, in reality employees have very little privacy. Employers can generally search through anything that happens on company computers. Below you can find information on employee privacy, both during the job application process and in the course of employment. Topics addressed include background checks, electronic surveillance, searches, eavesdropping, and more. Keep checking back here to stay up to date in this quickly changing area of law.

Internet and Email Privacy at Work

When you’re using computers, electronic devices, and networks owned by your employer, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This means that even private messages sent outside of the context of employment may be screened by your employer if they were sent using the company’s network and/or computer. Technically, employers must have a valid business reason for monitoring an employee’s email or Internet usage. But practically speaking, any non-work usage of work equipment may be considered improper usage (thus providing the business reason for monitoring).

Employees often sign disclosures that the employer reserves the right to monitor Internet and email usage at work (or on employer-owned equipment), even if the details are in fine print. Since employers typically don’t have the time or wherewithal to individually monitor each employee, they typically block access to Web sites deemed improper or use tracking software that alerts management to such occurrences. While email may not be checked regularly either, it is often archived in case it needs to be searched later.

Telephone Privacy at Work

For the most part, employers have the right to monitor telephone calls placed to and from their locations, with some limits. Specifically, the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) prohibits employers from monitoring employees’ personal phone calls, even if the calls were made or received on an employer’s property. The Act also requires the employer to disclose the fact that calls are being monitored, and also creates a civil liability for employers that read, disclose, delete, or prevent access to an employee’s voice mail.

Video Surveillance and Employees Privacy

The use of security video cameras has only increased as the cost of the devices has gone down, particularly among businesses. Generally, employers are required to notify employees (as well as customers and others in range of the cameras) that the premises are under video surveillance. Also, video recordings must not include audio, since it is illegal to record oral communications under federal wiretap law.

Since surveillance cameras must only be used where there is a legitimate business reason, such as deterring theft or violence, they generally may not be used in break rooms or rest rooms. Similarly, businesses may not use two-way mirrors in rest rooms, locker rooms, and other locations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRB), meanwhile, prohibits employers’ use of video surveillance to monitor the union activities of employees; this includes usage in a way meant to intimidate union members.

Drug Testing

Employers are generally free to require job applicants to take drug tests as a condition of employment, since they always have the choice to refuse such testing (which eliminates them from consideration for the job, of course). But many states restrict an employer’s ability to enforce drug screening of existing employees to just a few exceptions, including:

  • Employees working in jobs that carry substantial safety or health risks for themselves or others
  • Injured employees whose job-related accident is suspected to have involved the use of drugs
  • Employees suspected of using drugs on the job, such as slurred speech or bloodshot eyes

Social Media

Many companies have social media policies that limit what you can and cannot post on social networking sites about your employer. A website called Compliance Building has a database of social media policies for hundreds of companies. Some states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota and New York, have laws that prohibit employers from disciplining an employee based on off-duty activity on social networking sites, unless the activity can be shown to damage the company in some way. In general, posts that are work-related have the potential to cause the company damage. Anti-discrimination laws prohibit employers from disciplining employees based on age, race, color, religion, national origin, gender or sexuality.

Sample Case

Smyth v pillsbuty Januray 23rd 1996

In the case of Michael Smyth vs The Pillsbury Company, Mr. Smyth was terminated from his job by typing threating words in his company email. Smyth felt that his privacy was violated due the reassurance his boss always gave him that his emails were private although it was a company email. Smyth started to interact by work email with his supervisor on his computer at home and felt like this was a direct violation of his employee privacy rights. The judge ruled that his privacy rights was not violated and although his bossed promised him that all his emails were private it was only a promise and you cannot be promise liable in court against a company policy especially the company emailed which is utilized by others. The court ruled in favor of the Pillsbury Company that their decision to terminate Mr. Smyth was not a violation of his privacy rights as an employee.


W. (1996, January 18). Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company. Retrieved April 9, 2016, from



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment