It was not long ago that I read a Letter to the Editor, written by Peter Marshall, with regard to the Orwellian Prophecy in Prediction magazine.

Although he made some rather controversial statements, I found the assertation of the discarnate entity proposing to be George Orwell to be quite striking. Initially I felt that the being's a view that the computer was Big Brother to be somewhat extreme, and therefore dismissed the assertations as utter nonsense.

Coincidentally, however, events of late has given me cause to re-think my initial impression.

Probably around the same week that I read Peter Marshall's letter, I found myself to be the victim of one such Big Brother tactic. I had taken a somewhat low-paid job in Bramley, a tiny village near Basingstoke, working on my own. Although I felt very lonely and isolated, I persevered in what anyone else would consider to be rather austere circumstances at best because I was working on a rather lengthly manuscript that I hope will one day be published.

As each day passed, my boss became more and more controlling, monitoring my every action. The situation had become so bad that I even had to instruct people who phoned me for personal business to put the phone down whenever he answered because he did not even have enough decorum not to try pry into my private life. The only reason that I stayed in such an unhealthy working environment was because I had been allowed the use of the computer, as my boss had given me permission to use it to take care of some of my personal business.

One day I phoned in sick because I had been run down with a viral infection. The next day when I turned on the computer, I was amazed to discover that my boss had been on it, and had even opened up and read my personal documents.

There was nothing sinister to be found, but one document that he opened was a letter to my solicitor that went into detail about the reasons for the divorce and the acrimony thereafter. Another document was an opinion piece about the controversial issue of using methadone to treat heroin addicts. The other documents in question related to the manuscript for my book, which he had given me permission to work on!

Instead of being ashamed of himself for clearly violating my privacy, he became very indignant about the fact that I actually had the nerve to do what he had originally given me permission to do.

I had always known that my boss was not a very nice person, as he had railroaded several people out of the company in the 18 months that I had worked for him.. From watching the way that he had dealt with other members of staff, I knew that there was not very much that he would not do to try to catch someone in the act. What I found to be totally amazing, however, was the fact that he had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about commiting such underhanded tactics with regard to his secretary - the one person who looked after the vast majority of his needs from Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.

My boss tactlessly told me that if I had worked in the office with any other 'girls' that he would not even be speaking to me and that I would be out the door. But, since it was only the two of us working closely together, he would give me a second chance - provided I conducted my affairs in the precise manner that he wanted me to.

After listening to my boss’s tirade, while he told me that he was going to get rid of me and find another secretary, that I had abused his trust, etcetera, I decided that enough was enough, and handed him my letter of resignation.

All the while, my boss thought that it was a big game and made a sarcastic quip, 'act in haste, repent at leisure'. Funny, that was exactly what I was thinking of him.

It never once crossed my boss’s mind that he had abused my trust by committing such a despicable act. It was not until he learned second hand that I had already spoken to the Human Resources Manager about my impending departure from the company and had asked for an exit interview, that he began to suspect that maybe I was not very happy with him.

Sadly, I doubt very seriously that this small man will ever even consider that he was out of order to read my personal documents. What would have been more appropriate would have been for him to have told me from the outset not to use the computer for any of my personal business: but then again, he would have missed a perfect opportunity to unashamedly delve into the inner workings of my mind.

It just so happens that on the very same day that the scales were rather abrasively removed from my eyes with regard to my boss, my twin sister telephoned me from her job in the states. When I confided to her about what my boss had done, she matter-of-factly informed me that virtually everyone keeps personal documents on their computer. It is only when a business no longer desires the pleasure of someone's company that they decide to pilfer through their hard drive to see what kind of dirt that they can dig up.

I don't think that it was my boss’s intention to get rid of me because he almost broke down in tears when he realised that I was not playing a game when I told him I was leaving. I believe that because he was such a powerful person in the tool business that he developed a false sense of importance and thought he could bully me in the same abrasive manner that he had bullied the field managers and dealers.

Regardless of what motivated my boss to behave towards me in such a shabby fashion, the damage had already been done and I found that I could no longer stand being in the same village, much less the same office with him.

My boss’s plan to keep me more under the thumb than I already was backfired, however. I was so terrified that he would actually sack me that I felt I had been left with no alternative but to resign. He had behaved in such a hostile manner towards me that I honestly believed he was unstable enough to fire me, give me a bad reference, and effectively make me unemployable.

After 18 months of working alone with that individual, I personally was starting to feel like a victim of domestic abuse. Because I needed the money, I had to put up with his obsessive desire for total control, a personality flaw that I found difficult to deal with. He did not see me as his employee who was entitled to certain rights, such as a lunch break, to name just one, but merely his chattel.

To be honest, although I was shocked and deeply offended by my boss’s flagrant disregard for my privacy, I really should not have been surprised by the sudden turn of events.

Just a few months earlier Sally, someone who I know intimately, had a harrowing experience that could have severe consequences for her career and future employability. She did not get on well with her former boss, so instead of just gritting her teeth and bearing the situation until she could find another job and bid good riddance to the lot of them, she endeavoured to get her own back.

Thanks to a little help from her friends who Sally met up with on the 'Revenge Page' of the World Wide Web, she was given all kinds of supposedly legal ways to wreck a little havoc into the lives of those individuals who she felt had wronged her. What these so-called friends failed to inform her was that one isolated incident of harassment may be legal, but several actions performed together within a short period of time can be considered to be stalking, the laws of which are becoming increasing more stringent.

Although Sally had access to the internet at home, a great deal of her personal telephone conversations were conducted at work. Sally was completely unaware of what was going on behind the scenes; her employers were effectively giving her enough rope so that she could hang herself. Although she had managed to secure another job, her employers still had the last word on the matter, even though they pretty much gave as good as they got with regard to the harassment issue.

Sally's former employers took transcripts of her telephone conversations, e-mails and other correspondence to the police and filed a complaint against her, accusing her of stalking them. In no time at all she was interviewed by the local police with regard to the matter and informed that the stalking laws in her state were quite strict.

Unfortunately, Sally had been duped by those sad individuals who she had become acquainted with on the 'Revenge Page'. All of those tips and tricks that those reprobates gave Sally, when combined together were very much illegal.

In addition, the police had decided to investigate the activities of other individuals who frequented the cyber-walls of the ' Revenge Page'. Just like Sally, many of these poor souls used their computers at work to meet up with other like-minded individuals to swap tips on how to wreck a little havoc into the lives of unsuspecting targets who may or may not have done something offensive.

When I expressed my disdain at those individuals who Sally had been corresponding with on the Internet, and asked her not to have any further contact with them, she informed me that the page had been closed down. She did not, however, make me privy to the circumstances surrounding its closure, so I don't know if the police had anything to do with its demise.

The fact that the individuals who were pressing charges were just as guilty of harassment as Sally was, she, unfortunately, was not able to garner any evidence against them because she did not have access to their e-mails, hard drives, and transcripts of their telephone conversations. Therefore, although Sally's former employers were just as guilty of any wrongdoing, no charges were formally issued against them.

When I moved onto the next employer, it was a little more professional in its approach to allowing employees to conduct personal affairs with the business’s resources. Within a half hour of starting with the company, I was informed that the business had an IT department that could monitor everything that came into or out of the company. Therefore, they did not mind if I made the odd personal call, but anything more than that was strictly forbidden.

Not long ago I read that most reputable companies advise all of their staff that they should compose their e-mails as if someone was looking over their shoulder, thereby eliminating doubt as to the appropriateness of any transmissions or other correspondence.

After having my privacy invaded in such a ruthless manner, however, I would personally advise that people pursue all of their communicative activities as if someone was standing over their shoulder. Because I thought that I was on good terms with my boss, I had allowed myself to be lulled into a false sense of security. The fact that I perceived my working relationship with my boss to be fairly good, I was hurt all the more by his sudden and unexpected change of heart.

There is an old saying of, 'once burned, twice shy', and it is an apt expression as far as I am concerned. With my new-found awareness of how a person's career and job prospects can be totally destroyed over one telephone conversation, letter or e-mail, I have become quite guarded in all of my interactions with others. I have found that in this age of employer’s intrusiveness into a person’s privacy, it is wise to keep personal matters strictly out of the office. This, fortunately, has been made easier with advances in technology to make mobile phones and personal computers more easily accessible to be ordinary person.

Just because we feel that we are in a private place and are therefore able to speak with impunity does not make it so. Companies today routinely monitor their information technology for their own protection as well as that of their employees. They are also legally allowed to set up surveillance systems in the workplace to ensure that no criminal acts are taking place. Therefore, in the process of them ensuring that the employees are not committing any crimes on their premises, they know everything they say or write by listening to conversations, watching movements, scanning hard drives, and reading emails, and even monitoring the keystrokes one makes on his keyboard. Even though it appears to be a flagrant violation of the Human Rights Act, everything these companies do is totally legal.

One area that businesses are increasing sensitive of is electronic transmissions, as they have the potential to literally reach the entire world in a very short period of time. There is now software on the market that will direct all e-mails that contain certain keywords to a supervisor, therefore alerting him to any dubious messages that are sent or received. Most managers, it should be stressed, have access to their employees emails. Even if they do not admit to it, I can assure you that they do read emails. It is wise, therefore, not to send an email unless you absolutely have to, and to keep it as short and sweet as possible.

I personally don't like the idea that other people have free and easy access to my innermost thoughts. It is not because I have anything to hide, but there are some things that are so personal that only the most intimate of friends should be privy to.

Because I wanted to record my thoughts in an environment where I would not have to worry about others surreptitiously viewing my work and glimpsing my mind, I made the decision to purchase a palmtop computer that would link to my computer at home. What I discovered, however, is that employers don’t want their employees using those gadgets at work even if it is on a legitimate break. It makes them very uncomfortable because they cannot monitor it like they are able to monitor the phone lines, computer, and internet usage.

Personal computers in the privacy of our own homes, however, are not the panacea that we consider them to be, so we therefore should not allow ourselves to become complacent, feeling that we can put whatever documents that we like on our hard drives.

Monica Lewinsky found out just how far the long arm of the law can extend the hard way when she used her personal computer to compose documents and send and receive e-mails with regard to her illicit affair with Bill Clinton. As part of Kenneth Starr's smear campaign against Bill Clinton, the FBI forced her to hand over her hard drive to see what documents she had put on her it. Her friend, although living in Japan at the time, was also forced to surrender her hard drive because she and Monica had been exchanging e-mails. In her naivety, Monika's friend made a point of deleting the files that she thought were incriminating and left the ones that she felt would show Monica in a good light.

What Monica's friend may not have realised, however, is that retrieval software today is now so sophisticated that it is quite easy to undelete a file. With the right equipment, it also takes very little effort to search the magnetic media for any impressions that may have been entered in the past. The reason for this is because when a file is deleted, only the binary code that that contains the file address is deleted: everything else remains unchanged until another document in the form of magnetic binary code over-writes it.

Using relatively inexpensive recording equipment from just about any electronics shop, just about anybody with even average intelligence can effortlessly tape a telephone conversation. Unfortunately Monica Lewinsky knows all too well how devastating this can be because she was victim of such an unscrupulous act.

Linda Tripp, the friend from hell, made a point of steering Monica's telephone conversations in the direction of her romance with Bill Clinton, and then taping those conversations without Monica's consent or knowledge. Because Linda Tripp clandestinely taped Monica's conversations, she had control over the situation. Therefore, when the tapes were ultimately handed over to the FBI, only a partial representation of the conversations were delivered, thus giving an incomplete picture of the situation. While Linda Tripp claims that she only taped some of the conversations, this seems inconceivable, especially since they were supposedly recorded for her own protection, thus leading the astute observer to wonder what exactly did Linda Tripp need protection from.

In a society where private citizens really have no privacy at all, it is refreshing to know that there is a bit if justice in this world. In the state of Maryland it is in fact illegal to tape someone's telephone conversations without their knowledge or consent. Therefore, Linda Tripp was taken to court for illegally taping Monica Lewinski's telephone conversations.

Because we live in such a complex society, it is essential that we police ourselves and implement a system of checks and balances to enable us to co-exist in harmony. Therefore, Big Brother seems to be a necessary evil that helps our society to run smoothly, no matter how much we may hate it at times.

While I was outraged when my boss abused his authority by encouraging me to use the computer at work for some of my personal business just so he could go back later and read those documents without my knowledge or consent, I still believe that it is necessary to have access to sensitive information during times of crises.

We need a system of checks ad balances, if for no other reason than to keep honest people honest. If a person wants to commit a crime bad enough, there is no law in the world that will stop him. The more prudent individual, however, will think about the consequences of his actions.

While I would be the first to advocate freedom of speech and thought, I also recognise the fact that one person's freedom may cause harm to others.

This has been so strongly evidenced by the spate of charges made against famous individuals for keeping child pornography on their computer. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out that the children involved were innocent victims who needed to be protected and not exploited. It is for that reason that the persons who discover such material in the hard drives of computers have a duty to inform the authorities.

Other incidents have involved persons confessing to crimes in Internet chat-rooms, as well as people with rather bizarre (and illegal, I might add) sexual preferences for meeting up together and performing those acts.

Information technology is a wonderful invention of modern day civilisation. It has enabled us access to people who we otherwise would have never come across, and has allowed us to accomplish so much more than we would have by using traditional means of communication. We do, however need to exercise discretion as to how we use it, if for no other reason than for our own protection.