Internet policy. 9 . Simons attempts to distinguish the files downloaded from the Internet from the record of those downloads registered on the firewall, and argues that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the former. We decline to recognize the distinction Simons advocates. 10 . The Internet policy did not render Simons’ expectation of privacy in his office unreasonable. The policy does not mention employees’ offices, and although it does not prohibit FBIS from carrying out its "auditing], inspect[ing], and/or monitor[ing]” activities at employees’ individual workstations, J.A. 127, this fact alone is insufficient to render unreasonable an employee’s subjective expectation of privacy in his office. Cf. Schowengerdt v. United States, 944 F.2d 483, 485, 488-89 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Taketa, 923 F.2d 665, 672-73
recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding that the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with coworkers in which her termination was discussed holding that where employee was aware of dissolution abatement of claims provision applied even in absence of written notice because employee had actual notice holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee holding that civilian employee of navy weapons plant lacked legitimate expectation of privacy in private office when office was regularly searched in employees absence employee was aware that such searches occurred and employee had participated in searches of coworkers offices