1D0-610 · Question #64
A family member has just sent you an e-mail message that contains highly personal details about a family matter. The message was sent to your company e-mail address. The family member has requested…
The correct answer is A. Because your employer has the right to read your e-mail. Option A is correct because employers legally own their company email systems and, in most jurisdictions, have the right to monitor and read any messages sent through those systems - meaning a personal family matter shared via company email has no guaranteed privacy. Option B…
Question
A family member has just sent you an e-mail message that contains highly personal details about a family matter. The message was sent to your company e-mail address. The family member has requested that you respond with your ideas about how to resolve the situation. Which of the following is a reason for you to call your family member and discuss the matter over the phone instead?
Options
- ABecause your employer has the right to read your e-mail
- BBecause e-mail is completely private but not personal enough
- CBecause it is illegal to use company e-mail for personal use
- DBecause an e-mail message about a personal family matter will violate netiquette guidelines
How the community answered
(62 responses)- A92% (57)
- B2% (1)
- C5% (3)
- D2% (1)
Explanation
Option A is correct because employers legally own their company email systems and, in most jurisdictions, have the right to monitor and read any messages sent through those systems - meaning a personal family matter shared via company email has no guaranteed privacy. Option B is wrong on two counts: company email is not completely private, and "not personal enough" is not a valid reason to avoid it. Option C is incorrect because using company email for personal use is generally a policy issue, not a criminal one - it may violate workplace rules, but it is rarely illegal. Option D is a distractor because netiquette (email etiquette norms) has nothing to do with why you'd avoid discussing sensitive family matters over company channels.
Memory tip: Think "company email = company property." Just as your employer can read documents you leave on your work desk, they can read what passes through their email server - so keep sensitive personal matters off company systems entirely.
Topics
Community Discussion
5A is the right answer. Your employer legally owns that company email system and can read every message on it, so a private family matter has no business being in that inbox where HR or your boss could pull it up any time they want.
A is correct here, employers typically have legal rights to monitor and read any messages sent through company email systems, so there is zero expectation of privacy on that channel. Do you know if your study materials go into detail about what "acceptable use policies" usually say about personal emails at work, and whether an employer even needs to notify employees before reading their messages?
A is right, but I almost picked D because my supervisor literally mentioned netiquette in our onboarding and I assumed it covered personal messages too. The real issue is that your employer owns the company email system and has every legal right to monitor or read anything that passes through it, so sensitive family business has no business being there.
A is correct. Corporate email systems are owned and monitored by the employer, meaning any message in your company inbox, incoming or outgoing, is subject to inspection without notice, so sensitive personal information sent through that channel carries real privacy risk for both you and your family member.
I'll be honest, I almost circled D because "netiquette" jumped out at me as the obvious bait word, and for a split second C felt tempting too since it sounds authoritative. What locked in A was remembering the core principle behind corporate email acceptable-use policies: your employer owns the mail server, retains logs, and has every legal right to read anything transmitted through it, so replying with sensitive family details over that channel means a third party can access that conversation, and that is the actual privacy risk the question is testing.