The line between work life and private life used to be clear. But as Web 2.0 technologies such as wikis, blogs and social networking sites make further inroads into the business world, few would deny that the line is moving. In some businesses the line may soon disappear altogether.

Life at and out of work are no longer separate as they once were. They are being mingled by employers and employees alike. Employers issuing laptops, Blackberries and mobile phones are making time traditionally regarded as “out of work” – evenings, weekends, holidays – into work time. Equally, employees posting videos on MySpace or editing a section on Wikipedia at work are bringing aspects of their private lives into the office. What does this mean for business?

For many the answer seems to be a huge opportunity. They see the likes of social networking sites as an informal means of strengthening existing relationships with colleagues and clients. Others focus only the risks: vicarious liability for their employees’ online actions; disclosure of company secrets to the world; and a potentially phenomenal waste of employee time. A number of businesses have implemented filters to restrict employees access to YouTube, MySpace and so on. Others are turning a blind eye to their use internally. Others still are embracing the technology, encouraging participation in social networking websites by their employees.

This divergence of views may seem familiar. It is. In the 1990s, questions were asked about the impact of the internet on the employer-employee relationship – surely not everyone in the company needs an email address? Surely the legal risks of giving every employee web access are too great? Such questions seem almost quaint these days. Businesses should try to remember this as they tackle the use of Web 2.0 technologies from within their firewalls. Block access to all social networking sites? History suggests that it’s best not to think in terms of a simple yes or no.

What Google can learn from history

Technology moves at a dizzying pace but the law catches up in the end, says Richard Kemp

Skype hindered by lack of consistent regulation

There needs to be a clear legal framework in place if internet telephone operators are to flourish, says Richard Eccles

That isn’t to say that the risks for employers associated with Web 2.0 technologies are necessarily the same as those from email or web access. There are undoubtedly new challenges. It’s just that there is a lot of familiar territory here, too.

Time-wasting, for example. There are probably limitless ways that an employee can waste time in the office, some new (playing videos on MySpace or updating a facebook profile) but most not so new (sending personal emails, making personal calls, reading the paper or just popping outside for a smoke). Any extracurricular activity done to excess or at inappropriate times in the working day is a problem. Blocking access to particular websites and technologies can seem like a blunt overreaction or even lazy management.

What are the real risks of employees bringing their private lives to the office? The functionality of many of the Web 2.0 technologies is so rich that it’s possible to imagine any number of different scenarios that could, potentially, develop into a legal problem for an employer.

One example that is often cited is that possibility of employees leaking confidential company information via a blog or wiki. Of course, if an employee is minded to disclose confidential information then there are already many ways in which he can do so – email and phones already create this risk, so it is perhaps only the potential scale of dissemination that could be achieved through one-to-many communications such as an anonymous blog that increases this risk.

Even so, it should be remembered that for most employees, using Web 2.0 technologies does not mean discussing company business at all. In most cases, blurring the line means discussing personal interests, tastes and activities using company assets. Few users of MySpace do so to discuss the corporate affairs of their employers.

But this leads to another commonly voiced concern. Doesn’t the apparent keenness of many employees to be “out there” disclosing information about themselves – their educational background, interests, who they know and all the gory details of their past – equip information brokers or “blaggers” to be able to extract company information?

Such a blagger could phone an executive’s PA and fabricate just about anything to come across as the executive’s oldest friend. Who knows what information it might be possible to extract. Hopefully, a recently introduced two-year jail sentence directed at blagging will present a greater deterrent.

Apart from the issue of information theft there is also the issue of reputational damage to their employer. In the real (as opposed to online) world, employees only have one identity: Mark Watts at Bristows is the same Mark Watts as is on Facebook. This creates a direct link between an employee’s antics in his private life, fully-documented and readily available in photos, comments and videos posted either by him or his friends, and his role as an employee, supposedly an ambassador for his employer.

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO