Every now and then, a company’s security policy gets the attention of someone who doesn’t understand the nature of security, and the press has a field day. The latest in the series is Research in Motion, the manufacturer of the venerable BlackBerry smartphone. Media reports and the blogosphere is all abuzz over RIM’s policy of recording employee conversations, emails and other types of communications. Last week, RIM’s CIO Robin Bienfait told ZDNet in an interview that the company does have a policy of recording “everything.”

First of all, most companies that deal in sensitive intellectual property, as well as government agencies, have policies of this nature, and the only way to keep the boss from looking over your shoulder and into your computer is to work for yourself.  RIM’s policy is by no means even the most severe in this regard.

From RIM’s perspective, the smartphone market is particularly sensitive and highly competitive, and internal staff may have access to unreleased devices or software releases–and they are within their rights to protect their intellectual property. In fact, a company that does not take steps to protect its intellectual property from both internal and external threats would be remiss in its duties. Not everyone records phone calls, but it’s quite common to archive emails, and having technology or a surveillance policy to make sure that sensitive information is not leaking out.

In fact, it’s quite common for employees to be subject to some sort of surveillance at the workplace. Web surfing habits are recorded to protect the company against loss of productivity and legal liability, for example. Call centers routinely have a staff person to listen in on calls. RIM’s policy may be a bit on the edge, but they are within their rights to take steps to protect their secrets. The only caveat is that the company must make sure that all employees are aware of the policy and are properly notified.

Industrial espionage is real, and more often than not, it takes place from within.

Surveillance like this naturally raises peoples’ hackles, as it does mine. Being listened in on just doesn’t sit well with most people. However, the issue raises the fuzzy spectre of warrantless government surveillance, which is another issue entirely, and does not carry with it the same legitimacy. People that equate the two are missing the point.