This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
avec déposer
bail de droit commun

Glossary entry

French term or phrase:

ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie privée

English translation:

Will not in any way invalidate the employee's expectations of privacy ...

Added to glossary by Yvonne Gallagher
Sep 16, 2020 03:55
3 yrs ago
67 viewers *
French term

ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie privée

French to English Law/Patents Human Resources contrat de télétravail
I feel like I'm reading this backward, shouldn't the employee have an expectation for private life or is it just time for me to take a break?

En mettant à la disposition d’un employé des outils de travail, l’organisation ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie privée concernant les échanges accomplis à l’aide de ses outils (courriel, Internet, téléphone).
Si une intrusion plus importante dans la vie privée s’avère nécessaire par une visite au domicile de l’employé ou par l’obtention d’informations relatives au domicile de l’employé (par exemple, des photos), l’organisation devra justifier cette intrusion par des motifs raisonnables.
Proposed translations (English)
4 +2 is by no means intended to invalidate the employee's expectations of privacy (in relation to...
4 does not mean to impinge on his private life
4 -1 will respect their privacy
4 -1 (the organisation / company) does not eliminate completely employee's expectations of privacy
3 -1 in no way rules out/imposes on their right to a private life
4 -3 ne réduit pas à néant "son" expectative de vie privée
3 -2 does not destroy the person's expectations of a private life
Change log

Sep 30, 2020 11:49: Yvonne Gallagher Created KOG entry

Sep 30, 2020 11:50: Yvonne Gallagher changed "Edited KOG entry" from "<a href="/profile/1300525">Yvonne Gallagher's</a> old entry - "ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie privée"" to ""Will not in any way invalidate the employee's expectations of privacy (in relation to... ""

Discussion

Mpoma Sep 20, 2020:
and ... , as BDF says, the phrasing is simply too vague to know whether both incoming and outgoing (more obviously the case, admittedly) communications are covered. This is the other "sneakiness" involved: the vaguer the provisions, the less confident the employee can be about what they can "expect".

It's true that France has this "right to disconnect"... how far this works in practice I have no idea. But this text may relate to another Francophone country for all we know. Or it may be deliberately designed to comply superficially with the legal provisions in force in France.
Mpoma Sep 20, 2020:
@Daryo I agree with Eliza's points.

The reason I said this is "sneaky" is firstly because although on the face of it it appears to be affording some protection to the employee, in reality it is, as I read it, affording none from a legal standpoint, since ne réduit pas à néant is an almost meaningless provision. Expectative raisonnable would be something for the lawyers to chew on at least.

I also question this certainty you have that employees in practice can turn off devices outside working hours, regardless of who owns the device. They may have that right and many people may actually switch off notifications from an employer over the weekend. But the reality in the modern world, at least in an effectively unregulated model like the UK's, and I see this, is that people are often scared to "disconnect" and instead just live in "hope" (expectative) that their employer will only call them over the weekend very occasionally, if something very urgent comes up.
Eliza Hall Sep 19, 2020:
@Daryo: "an employee using employer's equipment (mobile phone, computer ...) has NO "expectation of privacy" WHATSOEVER."

That's not a general truth. It depends on the law of the jurisdiction, as well as on any contractual agreements (including workplace policies) between the employee and employer.

Even in the US, whose law generally favors employers over employees, under federal law employers are not allowed to secretly monitor employee's phone calls, even if the calls are made from a work phone and at the workplace. Monitoring is only allowed under certain circumstances, most of which require a legitimate business reason for the monitoring.

"The reason for a particular type of workplace surveillance must be more important than an employee's expectation of privacy to be legally permissible.... Under federal law , employers are only allowed to monitor business telephone conversations; if they realize that the call is personal, they must hang up." https://www.workplacefairness.org/workplace-surveillance#4

According to this FR text, the employee WILL have some expectation of privacy.
Daryo Sep 18, 2020:
... Regarding "out of hours calls" that would be under a different heading, and if they are not allowed under the local laws the protection afforded to the employee would be at a level ways higher than "ne réduit pas à néant ..." it would be a full right without any ifs nor buts and would also include calling employees on their personal / private mobiles.

Also for someone working from home, there is no reason to keep employer's equipment switched ON outside of agreed working hours, so that makes the case of "out of hour calls" irrelevant for this sentence.

Namely, the start / end of working time ***for an employee*** has nothing to do with actual work - what is required from the employee is to be "available for work" during the "working hours" - ergo outside of "agreed working hours" employer's equipment can be switched OFF - making the case of "out of hours use" of this equipment simply disappear / vanish in darkness ..

How would you use or misuse equipment that is switched OFF?
Daryo Sep 18, 2020:
There is no "sneakiness" of ANY KIND in this text.

What you have to have in mind is what is implicitly there (or possibly explicitly somewhere else in the same document).

Namely, whatever is your personal opinion/expectation about it, an employee using employer's equipment (mobile phone, computer ...) has NO "expectation of privacy" WHATSOEVER.

The company's equipment was entrusted to the employee for work related use ONLY so by default the employer has a right of total access to whatever is done with the equipment. End of story / As simple as ...

To repeat myself: if you want privacy, use your own mobile / laptop / web connection ...

For doubting Thomases, plenty of samples / models of "Company policy regarding private use of company's phones / computers" to be easily found on the Web.

Plus a selection of juicy stories in the gutter press about porn found in work computers of all sorts of people including some ministers' aids, police etc ..


And not a single one of them even tried to claim "expectation of privacy" as excuse ...

...
B D Finch Sep 18, 2020:
@ormiston In a different context, to "dash hopes of privacy" would be a good translation. However, as this is posted as "Law/Patents - Human Resources / contrat de télétravail", it doesn't appear to be appropriate.
ormiston Sep 18, 2020:
To "dash hopes of privacy" springs to mind If the emphasis is not on employee rights or expects
Mpoma Sep 18, 2020:
Another curious thing Expectative doesn't seem to be a very common word. Where "hopes and expectations" are concerned, expectative seems closer to the first, with less optimism about outcomes than attente. Arguably this weakens further the force of the clause.
Yvonne Gallagher Sep 17, 2020:
@BDF surely the list of "courriel, Internet, téléphone" refers to the "échanges accomplis" not to the "outils" used for those échanges? Everyone I know (normally working in an office) who was asked to work from home was given a work laptop, if they didn't already have one, and many also have/were given a phone.
The ref. in the next paragraph to a "visite au domicile de l’employé ou par l’obtention d’informations relatives au domicile de l’employé" also implies that under a work-from-home initiative the employer may want to check the actual working space for health/safety compliance (or at least use that as an excuse).
Mpoma Sep 17, 2020:
@BDF Yes. Looking forward to your answer!
B D Finch Sep 17, 2020:
@Mpoma You're absolutely right about the sneakiness.

I don't think that there is ever a justification for a translator eliminating vagueness in a legal document, that's for the lawyers to do when drafting the source document. As a former manager of mine once told me when I corrected a mistake in a document written by a more senior manager: "you're not paid to make that fool look intelligent!"
Mpoma Sep 17, 2020:
BDF Nice points.

We may surmise that it is about use of the "work tools" (however defined) by the individual, but also about their right not to have their leisure time intruded on ("right to disconnect" as identified by Yvonne in my now squashed answer).

You're also right about the vagueness. That's why we can only really surmise about the scope of this provision. Specifically, échanges can work both ways: the employee is either the caller or the callee. But in a court of law I imagine this would be deemed to include both directions... so the employer can't snoop on private emails but equally can't ring the employee up at 2 am on a Sunday morning.

Given the legal context there might be a justification for erring on the side of eliminating the vagueness, given that a court would make an inclusive interpretation.

However... there are two sneaky aspects: "does not reduce to nil". So an infinitesimal degree of expectative might be deemed to satisfy the provision! And this phrase itself is qualified: "... concernant les échanges...". So use of these tools not involving échanges would NOT be covered! O how I'd like to know the company's name...
Tony M Sep 17, 2020:
@ BDF However, I think we are indeed talking about hardware here: the things you cite are more likely to be the 'échanges' rather than the 'outils' referred to.
There is a lot of discussion at the moment about this issue, see the acronyms here:
BYOD is Bring Your Own Device; CYOD is Choose Your Own Device;
COPE is Company Owned/Personally Enabled; and COBO is Company Owned/Business Only.
I think in this instance they are referring to COPE.
B D Finch Sep 17, 2020:
@Yvonne In the list "courriel, Internet, téléphone", only "téléphone" is equipment. The French "outils", just like "tools" in English is widely used for software tools (or even for procedures). Yesterday's Libération had an article about the problems caused by university lecturers having to record and transmit their lectures using their personal computers and peripherals, thanks to the French government failing to adequately or efficiently fund the extra HE and FE costs arising from COVID. It's a fair bet that this sort of problem also affects employees of private and public companies.

Why should the translation of "expectative de vie privée" be any less vague than the source?
Yvonne Gallagher Sep 17, 2020:
@BDF I believe it far more likely that the company has supplied devices "outils de travail/ses outils" rather than just software. I also believe most companies supply work laptops and phones for home working as company devices can also have tracking installed to monitor what the employee is up to https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/2/21195584/coronavirus-rem... Note that if the employee uses a company laptop or phone for their personal use it could be deemed a benefit-in-kind for tax purposes. See here also https://www.flexjobs.com/employer-blog/office-equipment-give... "privacy" or "private life" on its own is far too vague
B D Finch Sep 17, 2020:
What expectations? Some people have agreed with Daryo's comment, in his answer, that "this is about employee's personal use of equipment supplied by the employer for work purposes".

Firstly, "outils de travail" can cover hardware and/or software, access and accounts; so the term "equipment" is probably best avoided here, because the email and Internet tools provided might be provided on the employee's own, personal computer(s) and mobile phone.

Secondly, "son expectative de vie privée concernant les échanges accomplis à l’aide de ses outils" is actually rather vague, and it could cover personal use of the tools in question, but could also cover the timing and intrusiveness of these "échanges". So, the employee should be entitled to expect that the phone provided for work purposes will not ring or messages pop up on their phone or PC outside working hours. Also, their private communications should remain completely private and their employer should not have access to personal communications equipment that is used to access the tools concerned.

Proposed translations

+2
1 day 6 hrs
Selected

is by no means intended to invalidate the employee's expectations of privacy (in relation to...

OR

is not intended/expected in any way to

invalidate the employee's expectations of privacy in relation to their (private) communications using such/said equipment (email, Internet, telephone)....


other synonyms that could be used for "invalidate" here

nullify, abrogate, rescind, negate, quash, extinguish,...

As some others have pointed out this is NOT about being able to disconnect from work nor about their private life/privacy in general but specifically about using the work equipment supplied by the organisation for their own private communications

I thought of using "intrude" but that needs to be used in the following paragraph
Peer comment(s):
agree Tony M
7 mins
Many thanks:-)
agree Cyril Tollari
17 mins
Many thanks:-)
neutral B D Finch : The source text is about results, not intentions. Suggest: "will not invalidate ..."// About the results (not the intention) of the employer's actions. SFR didn't intend to mess up the transfer of my internet and phone from Orange, but they did.
4 hrs
yes, will not is OK but don't really see your problem with "is not intended" as it's about expectations of privacy not being invalidated
neutral Daryo : I don't mind if you change slightly my answer and improve it, but why do you need to introduce "intentions" in this story? I can't see any need to add "intentions".
1 day 3 hrs
Quite capable of coming up with my own answer, which bears little resemblence to yours.
neutral Eliza Hall : I would just say "shall not invalidate," because as Daryo and Finch said, it's not about intentions.
2 days 4 hrs
OK ...shall/will not invalidate...
neutral ormiston : I don't see where you get the idea of 'by no means' / 'in no way'
3 days 4 hrs
so just ignore "à néant" ?
neutral Mpoma : I agree with Eliza, just use "shall". But I also have a prob with "invalidate expectations". Expectations are met or disappointed.
4 days
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
-1
14 mins

in no way rules out/imposes on their right to a private life

maybe

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 mins (2020-09-16 04:12:39 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

bit wordy so: in no way affects their right to a private life
Peer comment(s):
agree Barbara Cochran, MFA : I don't find your interpretation the least bit "clumsy".
5 hrs
disagree Daryo : the ST is not about "employee's RIGHTS to private life" but about "expectations of privacy" while using employer's equipment for personal communications
6 hrs
disagree Francois Boye : 'expectative' and right are two different concepts
9 hrs
neutral AllegroTrans : "vie privée" often simply means "privacy" rather than "private life" which in English is rather too literal
1 day 8 hrs
Something went wrong...
-1
21 mins

will respect their privacy

I would make a positive statement out of what is effectively a double negative.

You might want to say "we" and "you", as English-language contracts increasingly do these days, rather than using the third person.
Peer comment(s):
agree David Hollywood : "privacy" is right on :)
6 mins
disagree pascie : réduire à néant = désorganiser complètement. Ce qui présuppose qu'elle le fera au minimum et sur justificatifs raisonnables, se connecter sur l'ordinateur de son employé, par exemple.
1 hr
disagree Emmanuella : ne pas réduire à néant
2 hrs
disagree Barbara Cochran, MFA : Such a general interpretation that it could refer to any aspect of the person's private life, which isn't the case here.
5 hrs
What's MFA?
disagree Daryo : besides "privacy vs private life", there's a question of degree/level: you turned it upside down - the ST says employee's "expectations" (NOT "rights") are not completely lost (a minimum)- you turned that into a maximum "respect of employee's rights"
6 hrs
Can you say that again in English?
agree AllegroTrans : Will fully respect the employee's privacy
1 day 8 hrs
Thanks.
agree B D Finch : I like this solution, because it's a catch-all that covers whatever the, rather vague, source text might mean.
1 day 10 hrs
Thank you.
Something went wrong...
-3
1 hr

ne réduit pas à néant "son" expectative de vie privée

Pour bien comprendre la phrase, "son" renvoit à l'employé. Dans le contexte présent, l'organisation ne peut pas garantir à l'employé qu'il pourra toujours conserver sa vie privée. Ceci est confirmé dans la phrase suivante avec "plus importante" où, au pire des cas, l'organisation se réserve le droit d'aller chez l'employé etc. .

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2020-09-16 05:53:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

et sera protégée en justifiant les motifs "raisonnables" de son intrusion, qu'elle soit physique, ou par un relevé de données (photos, etc.)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2020-09-16 06:10:25 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

réduire à néant = désorganiser complètement, détruire complètement. C'est le "complètement" qui donne la possibilité à l'employeur de faire intrusion de façon modérée, etc.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2020-09-16 06:22:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Tony M, il ne faut pas se concentrer sur une double négation qui, en fait, n'en est pas mais sur la nuance imposée, "complètement", "totalement", etc.
Peer comment(s):
disagree Tony M : Your explanation is wrong: the double negative here: 'ne ... pas' + 'néant' means the organisation does NOT expect the working from home to impact the employee's privacy. You're missing the point that it is still negative: 'ne réduit pas...'
8 mins
neutral Philippa Smith : Ceci n'est pas une réponse, mais une explication qui aurait sa place plutôt dans la partie "Discussion".
3 hrs
disagree Barbara Cochran, MFA : Supposed to be a translation into English.
4 hrs
disagree Daryo : besides being an explanation in FR instead of a translation into EN, your explanation is only partially right which makes it wrong - as you missed few key points more important than the one you spotted.
4 hrs
disagree AllegroTrans : Question is FR-EN
1 day 7 hrs
agree philgoddard : I'm just agreeing because Daryo disagreed :-)
14 days
Something went wrong...
4 hrs

does not mean to impinge on his private life

-

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2020-09-16 09:47:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

does not intend to impinge on their private life
thanks to Tony and Philippa
Peer comment(s):
agree Tony M : I believe this is the right idea, though I think the way you're seeking to express it in EN isn't quite right. For example, "... it is not its intention..." might work better than "does not mean"
23 mins
Yes I think you're right, I was hesitating between "does not mean" and "does not intend".
agree Philippa Smith : "Impinge " is very nice! But with "does not intend" and avoiding "his": I'd use "their" (with the plural for employees throughout the para)
1 hr
Oh yes, I agree "their" is much better than "his"
neutral Barbara Cochran, MFA : I think what you might really want to say "has no intention of..."
2 hrs
disagree Francois Boye : you did not translate 'expectative'
5 hrs
neutral ormiston : Hints of 'oops, we don't really mean/intend to' (though we may have to)
1 day 1 hr
agree Victoria Britten : I second Tony and Philippas's comments
1 day 2 hrs
neutral Yvonne Gallagher : Where is "expectation"? It's not about "private life" in general. Also, "does not mean/intend" is not idiomatic
1 day 2 hrs
disagree B D Finch : The verb "to impinge" is far too mild to translate "ne réduit pas à néant". Also, the source text sentence is about results, not intentions.
1 day 6 hrs
disagree Daryo : the term used in the ST "expectative de vie privée" has to be back-translated to what is the "English original" i.e. "expectation of privacy" - poetic licence is most unwelcome in legal texts
2 days 12 hrs
Something went wrong...
-1
7 hrs
French term (edited): (l’organisation) ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie privée

(the organisation / company) does not eliminate completely employee's expectations of privacy

En mettant à la disposition d’un employé des outils de travail, l’organisation ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie privée concernant les échanges accomplis à l’aide de ses outils (courriel, Internet, téléphone).
=
by giving to the employee the use of work tools. the organisation does not eliminate completely employee's expectations of privacy in regard of communications performed by using these tools (emails. Internet, phone calls)


Point to keep in mind: this is about employee's personal use of equipment supplied by the employer for work purposes.

The usual "rule" - at least in UK - is that the employer has total control of the equipment - if you want your personal calls / emails / web browsing to stay "private" then don't use the company mobile / laptop but your own.

what

"l’organisation ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie privée"

says is that regarding

les échanges accomplis à l’aide de ses outils (courriel, Internet, téléphone).

the expectation of privacy (employee's privacy) is not completely forfeited.

IOW just because the employee used company's equipment for personal calls / email / ... doesn't mean that the company can do whatever they want with the data left in the company's equipment - it's about a kind of "minimum" expectation" that the employee can still have in case of personal use of company's equipment

Nothing to do with "respecting privacy" of the employee in general, and in no way contradicting "the right to privacy" in the employee's private life / outside of work.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 11 hrs (2020-09-18 15:21:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

regarding the "unusual" use of "l'expectative"

I'm pretty sure that it was initially a translation from English for "expectation of privacy", IOW this is a case of back-translating the term.

So you ought to have "expectation of privacy" in the EN version - whatever you do to it - eliminate it / squash it / reduce it to zilch / invalidate it / suppress it ....

BTW as "expectation of privacy" is a clearly defined legal concept, any "poetic licence" would be out of place.

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_of_privacy


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 11 hrs (2020-09-18 15:39:11 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Another clue:

you would use "ne réduit pas à néant" about something that you would expect normally to happen - you don't negate something that you would NOT expect to happen anyway.

Being called out of hours is not "normal" - using employer's equipment only for work is "normal".


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 17 hrs (2020-09-18 20:57:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------


Yet another clue:

En mettant à la disposition d’un employé des outils de travail, l’organisation ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie privée concernant les échanges accomplis à l’aide de ses outils (courriel, Internet, téléphone).

I can't see how "mettre à la disposition d’un employé des outils de travail" could be interpreted otherwise than as hardware (loaded with the appropriate software) all belonging to the Company/Organisation being entrusted to the "télétravailleur" to use at home for work purposes.

You can "mettre à la disposition de q.q." only what you own - so it must be about hardware (and the software inside) sitting in the employee's home that belongs to the employer. - all other variations / permutations / combinations on who own what excluded ... in this sentence.
Peer comment(s):
disagree Tony M : Entirely the right idea, but sadly, I'm afraid your suggestion is simply not idiomatic in EN. In particular, the choice of the verb 'eliminate', which just doesn't fit here.
16 mins
Any suggestion for an alternative? what a company could do to employee's "expectation of privacy"? looked at synonyms, can't see anything that would be much better. certainly not "obliterate / wipe out / dismiss ..."
neutral B D Finch : I'm not at all sure that "this is about employee's personal use of equipment supplied by the employer for work purposes."
1 day 3 hrs
about that particular bit I'm ***101% sure*** - that is the ONLY case when this kind of "non-expectation" of privacy in an employer / employee relationship could ever happen.
agree Eliza Hall : You're right that this definitely is about the employee's use of the employer's equipment. I would say "shall" or "will," not "does," and would just omit the adverb.
3 days 4 hrs
Thanks!
disagree philgoddard : Tony was being polite. This is not English.
13 days
says someone who self-confess to not understanding most of the questions ... "You Couldn't Make It Up" sounds English enough to you?
Something went wrong...
-2
4 hrs

does not destroy the person's expectations of a private life

The description is about the effects that working from home might have on a person's private life. Privacy is not completely removed from the person who works from home.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 7 hrs (2020-09-17 11:28:46 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The information provided explains that if the organisation finds the need to visit the person's home address (or to obtain information connected with the address) then the organisation needs to justify their reason for intruding in the person's home with reasonable motives.

"Si une intrusion plus importante dans la vie privée s'avère nécessaire par une visite au domicile de l'employé (ou par l'obtention d'information relative au domicile de l'employé), l'organisation devra justifier cette intrusion par des motifs raisonnables."



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days 20 hrs (2020-09-19 23:57:12 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/the-right-to-privacy

"Intrusive surveillance will only be authorized for the most serious of investigations - the surveillance must be crucial to the investigation of prevention of serious crime, or the maintenance of UK national security and economic health."
"There are only a few individuals with the power to authorize intrusive surveillance, this power being limited to the home secretary and a small group of others."

"La surveillance indiscrete n'autorise que pour les enquêtes les plus sérieuses - la surveillance devra être essentielle à l'enquête de la prévention de la crime sérieuse, ou de l'entretien de la sécurité nationnelle et de la santé économique."
"Il y a peu d'individus qui ont le pouvoir d'autoriser l'enquête indiscrete. Ce pouvoir-là est limité au Ministre de l'Intérieur et à un group petit d'autres personnes."

Example sentence:

En mettant à la disposition d'un employé des outils de travail l'organisation ne réduit pas à néant son expectative de vie provée concernant les échanges accomplis à l'aide de ses outils (courriel, internet, téléphone).

By placing an employee with the available tools to assist or enable work, the organisation does not completely remove the person's expectations of a private life regarding exchanges with the use of email, internet and phone.

Peer comment(s):
disagree Tony M : Quite inappropriate for the type of document, 'destroy' in particular is far too literal, and it changes the meaning to put 'expectations of a private life'. Your suggested translation of the entire sentence is also seriously flawed.
32 mins
disagree B D Finch : Agree completely with Tony's comment.
1 day 5 hrs
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search