But It Was Password Protected...

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

Two more people fired because a manager didn't like what they posted on a, presumable private, password protected, MySpace page.

I have mixed feelings about this. First of all, haven't we all learned by now that anything we post online will be accessed and probably used against us. Second of all, what right did the manager have to go into something that was not posted on a business computer on worktime and was, furthermore, password protected?

http://news.aol.com/article/fired-over- ... s%2F462262

[Free Soviets]

wait, how did they get the password?

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't know, really. For me it would hinge on how easy it would be to get the password, if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, then I don't see why it would be an issue for the employer.

[Jordaxia]

I don't see the manager has a leg to stand on. it's too much to expect that 99% of anyone will give a fuck about their jobs. if managers want people to be a walking advert for it, pay them for it. otherwise, it's not their time and they should butt the hell out and stop trying to own people.

[Trve]

So let me get this straight...

They posted comments, on a private computer, on a private site that was password protected, and both the computer and the site have no connection to the company they work for...

And the manager thinks hes going to win this?

[Trve]

I don't know, really. For me it would hinge on how easy it would be to get the password, if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, then I don't see why it would be an issue for the employer.

Fuck that, a password alone garuntees a reasonable expectation of privacy. Being shitty at picking passwords doesnt mean its fair game to hijack my password.

If I chose a shitty pin number, like 1234, and someone got into my bank account, theyre still going to be prosecuted, and no cries of "BUT IT WAS TOO EASY!" will change that.

[Muravyets]

The last big story about this was a kid getting canned because of things she posted on Facebook, which were then tattled back to the boss by co-workers to whom she gave access. I came down against the employee in that case because she was freely disseminating remarks to people she did not really know, and when we do that we always run risk that it will come back to bite us.

In this case, though, the employee was taking steps to keep the remarks private, to shield them from public view and restrict access to them by a password. The employer violated the employee's privacy by getting the password or getting around the password. The employee is right, and the employer is wrong.

[Lackadaisical2]

I don't know, really. For me it would hinge on how easy it would be to get the password, if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, then I don't see why it would be an issue for the employer.

Fuck that, a password alone garuntees a reasonable expectation of privacy. Being shitty at picking passwords doesnt mean its fair game to hijack my password.

If I chose a shitty pin number, like 1234, and someone got into my bank account, theyre still going to be prosecuted, and no cries of "BUT IT WAS TOO EASY!" will change that.

I meant how easily it was to get the password, as in subscribe to whatever site they were posting to. If it was say, a set number of people that the person knows, then I don't see a problem with what the employees did.

[Trve]

I don't know, really. For me it would hinge on how easy it would be to get the password, if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, then I don't see why it would be an issue for the employer.

Fuck that, a password alone garuntees a reasonable expectation of privacy. Being shitty at picking passwords doesnt mean its fair game to hijack my password.

If I chose a shitty pin number, like 1234, and someone got into my bank account, theyre still going to be prosecuted, and no cries of "BUT IT WAS TOO EASY!" will change that.

I meant how easily it was to get the password, as in subscribe to whatever site they were posting to. If it was say, a set number of people that the person knows, then I don't see a problem with what they did.

Even if he got the password easily, it was something that the employee in question said/did off the clock on a private site in a password proctected board (even if all you had to do was register for the site, it still shows the employee took steps to keep it private).

The manager has no leg to stand on.

[Lackadaisical2]

Even if he got the password easily, it was something that the employee in question said/did off the clock on a private site in a password proctected board (even if all you had to do was register for the site, it still shows the employee took steps to keep it private).

The manager has no leg to stand on.

If you can get the password as easily as registering I feel that its essentially public, making someone jump through a (perfectly legal) hoop which takes all of two seconds doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience. Its like saying that I made an attempt to keep something private by putting it in the library, it'd probably take longer to find something there than finding it on an essentially open forum would.

[Sdaeriji]

I don't know, really. For me it would hinge on how easy it would be to get the password, if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, then I don't see why it would be an issue for the employer.

Fuck that, a password alone garuntees a reasonable expectation of privacy. Being shitty at picking passwords doesnt mean its fair game to hijack my password.

If I chose a shitty pin number, like 1234, and someone got into my bank account, theyre still going to be prosecuted, and no cries of "BUT IT WAS TOO EASY!" will change that.

I meant how easily it was to get the password, as in subscribe to whatever site they were posting to. If it was say, a set number of people that the person knows, then I don't see a problem with what they did.

Even if he got the password easily, it was something that the employee in question said/did off the clock on a private site in a password proctected board (even if all you had to do was register for the site, it still shows the employee took steps to keep it private).

The manager has no leg to stand on.

Do we know how the manager got the password? If it was given to him freely, then we have a similar situation to the girl that got fired for allowing her co-workers to view her comments.

[Erastide]

"This is not a case about 'cyber-snooping,' the First Amendment, or privacy. It's about two staff members who were let go for unprofessional conduct, including disparaging comments about our guests, and sharing a product knowledge test before it was administered."

If they signed something that said they wouldn't talk about their work outside of work, they don't have as much to stand on.

[Muravyets]

This does raise another issue: How come all of a sudden, everybody is putting their real identities out there on the internet? Did I miss the memo where ID theft and stalkers were repealed and people tattling on us to our bosses fell out of fashion? How is it that any boss is able to track disparaging remarks back to the employee who posted them?

[Tanaara]

This does raise another issue: How come all of a sudden, everybody is putting their real identities out there on the internet? Did I miss the memo where ID theft and stalkers were repealed and people tattling on us to our bosses fell out of fashion? How is it that any boss is able to track disparaging remarks back to the employee who posted them?

Have to agree with Muravyets completely - putting your real identity out there is just damn dumb, and putting anything that can be tacked back to you same as!

If this really was password protected then someone had to have given the boss the info; and therefor it's not the bosses fault for taking action on what they found - petty as all get out yes, but *shakes head* real life mostly is, petty that is.

[UNIverseVERSE]

This does raise another issue: How come all of a sudden, everybody is putting their real identities out there on the internet? Did I miss the memo where ID theft and stalkers were repealed and people tattling on us to our bosses fell out of fashion? How is it that any boss is able to track disparaging remarks back to the employee who posted them?

XKCD - Dreams

(image is, apparently, too tall to post - bloody spammers ruining it for everyone.)

[Saint Jade IV]

IT would depend what was in the employment contract. If it was, like mine, that we cannot discuss work matters outside work hours, then I would say the employee is wrong. But then again...my work is like that because of privacy regulations about my students and previously because I worked in health insurance.

[Shazbotdom]

My thought?
Two years ago someone who worked within my region of stores within my parent company for them to post death threats and hate remarks against the regional manager, something like this should be taken seriously when it comes to a work environment.

[Muravyets]

XKCD - Dreams

(image is, apparently, too tall to post - bloody spammers ruining it for everyone.)

Hey, I don't disagree with that sentiment. In fact, I have never posted anything online about anybody, including bosses, that I would not -- and have not -- said to their faces. If some boss of mine just happened to stumble upon NSG, they would instantly know who Muravyets is just by the style and content of my posts, because they've already heard it in my own voice in the office.

But that doesn't change the fact that free speech is free from prior restriction, but not free from consequence. Anyone who wants to express themselves freely should be free to do it, but they should do it with an understanding of the risks of backlash from certain parties they may face. That's just how life works. If I was afraid of the reactions people might have to what I say, I would never say anything. I think it should be pretty obvious that I don't fear consequences, because I don't pull punches.

That said, of course, there's another side to this: I do not work for people who are so uncool and unprofessional that they would spy on their employees during their off hours. I have never had a boss do that to me. I have interviewed with companies that did get very intrusive in the screening process, asking me in a couple of cases to fill out questionnaires about my personal interests, etc. I withdrew from those interviews, stating I did not want to work for such people. Once, I even informed an interviewer that her questions were illegal under federal and state labor laws -- as I walked out. If I found out that a boss had been spying on me, you can believe he or she would hear a fucking earful of the kind of anti-company language that the people in these stories get into trouble for -- again, as I was walking out.

EDIT: Death threats and hate speech against an individual, or violent threats against a company are not the same as merely bitching about your job. Slander against a person or company is not th same as bitching about the job. Threats and slander are not protected speech. Giving away proprietary secrets of a company is not the same as bitching about your job. That is also not protected speech.

[Daistallia 2104]

wait, how did they get the password?

Doesn't really say in that article. In fact that article's pretty uninformative. Here's a lot more information.

The case in New Jersey centers on two employees of Houston's restaurant in Hackensack, bartender Brian Pietrylo and waitress Doreen Marino, who in 2006 created and contributed to a forum about their workplace on MySpace.com. Mr. Pietrylo emailed invitations to co-workers, who then had to log in using a personal email address and a password.

"I just thought this would be a nice way to vent...without any eyes outside spying in on us. This group is entirely private," Mr. Pietrylo wrote in his introduction to the forum, according to court filings.

On the forum, Mr. Pietrylo and Ms. Marino, who was his girlfriend, made fun of Houston's decor and patrons, and made sexual jokes. They also made negative comments about their supervisors.

The supervisors were tipped off to the forum by Karen St. Jean, a restaurant hostess, who logged into her account at an after-hours gathering with a Houston's manager to show him the site. They all had a laugh, Ms. St. Jean said in a court deposition, and she didn't think any more about it.

But later, another supervisor called Ms. St. Jean into his office and asked her for her email and password to the forum. The login information was passed up the supervisory chain, where restaurant managers viewed the comments.

The following week, Mr. Pietrylo and Ms. Marino were fired. Houston's managers have said in court filings that the pair's online posts violated policies set out in an employee handbook, which include professionalism and a positive attitude. A lawyer for Hillstone Restaurant Group, which owns Houston's, declined to comment.

In their lawsuit, Ms. Marino and Mr. Pietrylo claim that their managers illegally accessed their online communications in violation of federal wiretapping statutes and that the managers also violated their privacy under New Jersey law.

But the courts might not view online musings as private communication. "You can't post something on the Internet and claim breach of privacy when someone sees it," said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J.

Ms. St. Jean said in a deposition she feared she would be fired if she didn't give up her password, a twist in the case that Mr. Maltby says could sway a jury against the company.

Labor and legal experts say the outcome of many employee privacy cases hinges on workers' expectations of their privacy rights -- particularly whether they have been given notice that they are subject to monitoring. In the Houston's case, the workers had no idea their online activities outside of work could be monitored, says their attorney, Fred J. Pisani. A trial is set for June 9.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045009224646091.html

From that information, I'd say the company accessed the postings inappropriately.

[Saint Jade IV]

wait, how did they get the password?

Doesn't really say in that article. In fact that article's pretty uninformative. Here's a lot more information.

The case in New Jersey centers on two employees of Houston's restaurant in Hackensack, bartender Brian Pietrylo and waitress Doreen Marino, who in 2006 created and contributed to a forum about their workplace on MySpace.com. Mr. Pietrylo emailed invitations to co-workers, who then had to log in using a personal email address and a password.

"I just thought this would be a nice way to vent...without any eyes outside spying in on us. This group is entirely private," Mr. Pietrylo wrote in his introduction to the forum, according to court filings.

On the forum, Mr. Pietrylo and Ms. Marino, who was his girlfriend, made fun of Houston's decor and patrons, and made sexual jokes. They also made negative comments about their supervisors.

The supervisors were tipped off to the forum by Karen St. Jean, a restaurant hostess, who logged into her account at an after-hours gathering with a Houston's manager to show him the site. They all had a laugh, Ms. St. Jean said in a court deposition, and she didn't think any more about it.

But later, another supervisor called Ms. St. Jean into his office and asked her for her email and password to the forum. The login information was passed up the supervisory chain, where restaurant managers viewed the comments.

The following week, Mr. Pietrylo and Ms. Marino were fired. Houston's managers have said in court filings that the pair's online posts violated policies set out in an employee handbook, which include professionalism and a positive attitude. A lawyer for Hillstone Restaurant Group, which owns Houston's, declined to comment.

In their lawsuit, Ms. Marino and Mr. Pietrylo claim that their managers illegally accessed their online communications in violation of federal wiretapping statutes and that the managers also violated their privacy under New Jersey law.

But the courts might not view online musings as private communication. "You can't post something on the Internet and claim breach of privacy when someone sees it," said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J.

Ms. St. Jean said in a deposition she feared she would be fired if she didn't give up her password, a twist in the case that Mr. Maltby says could sway a jury against the company.

Labor and legal experts say the outcome of many employee privacy cases hinges on workers' expectations of their privacy rights -- particularly whether they have been given notice that they are subject to monitoring. In the Houston's case, the workers had no idea their online activities outside of work could be monitored, says their attorney, Fred J. Pisani. A trial is set for June 9.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045009224646091.html

From that information, I'd say the company accessed the postings inappropriately.

True, based on that information. But I guess we should hold out until we hear from the company.

[SaintB]

Even if he got the password easily, it was something that the employee in question said/did off the clock on a private site in a password proctected board (even if all you had to do was register for the site, it still shows the employee took steps to keep it private).

The manager has no leg to stand on.

If you can get the password as easily as registering I feel that its essentially public, making someone jump through a (perfectly legal) hoop which takes all of two seconds doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience. Its like saying that I made an attempt to keep something private by putting it in the library, it'd probably take longer to find something there than finding it on an essentially open forum would.

This is where you are wrong, what they did is ILLEGAL, it constitutes a CYBER CRIME and is a VIOLATION of PRIVACY. Also, no employer should have the ability to terminate and employee for things they do or say out of work; just like with the police officer I posted about a week or two ago. The employees did not break any laws and I am rather certain they didn't sign a contract stating exclusively that they will not say bad things about their job, and if they did bring up documentation and I will retract my statement defending their employment. They have the right to sue the manager, and the restaurant.

[Saint Jade IV]

Even if he got the password easily, it was something that the employee in question said/did off the clock on a private site in a password proctected board (even if all you had to do was register for the site, it still shows the employee took steps to keep it private).

The manager has no leg to stand on.

If you can get the password as easily as registering I feel that its essentially public, making someone jump through a (perfectly legal) hoop which takes all of two seconds doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience. Its like saying that I made an attempt to keep something private by putting it in the library, it'd probably take longer to find something there than finding it on an essentially open forum would.

This is where you are wrong, what they did is ILLEGAL, it constitutes a CYBER CRIME and is a VIOLATION of PRIVACY. Also, no employer should have the ability to terminate and employee for things they do or say out of work; just like with the police officer I posted about a week or two ago. The employees did not break any laws and I am rather certain they didn't sign a contract stating exclusively that they will not say bad things about their job, and if they did bring up documentation and I will retract my statement defending their employment. They have the right to sue the manager, and the restaurant.

Really? Sounds like the government is finally starting to catch up with technology. This will be interesting.

[Truly Blessed]

Privacy is a myth. It has been so for some time. Don't say it at all. Worse still writing it where anyone can find it. Bad judgment. Obviously the employee was not protecting the password too well. What if one of the coworkers told the employer the password? I would like to say the employee is in the right but not very wise and will still likely be fired.

[Snow Lily]

They're both wrong-ish.
Firing people over such a thing is, imo, without any valid word-related reason.
If they do their jobs well, then why should they be fired.
On the flip-side of the coin; don't write stuff you don't want some people to read where some of those people might read it.

[Verdigroth]

So I got busted for something similar when I used to blog. Thankfully I was in the military so I couldn't get fired but I did get a very stern talking to. I vented about a staff NCO because he was almost responsible for me getting sent to jail. Anyway I can see why people want to say that if it is outside of work they shouldn't be held accountable. But you have to treat this like you would have to treat speech. If your comments may it back to a supervisor and they were not positive expect to get your butt on a platter.

I think people forgot the golden rule: If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all