by Anti-Social Darwinism » Tue May 05, 2009 8:24 am
by Free Soviets » Tue May 05, 2009 8:46 am
by Lackadaisical2 » Tue May 05, 2009 8:48 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Jordaxia » Tue May 05, 2009 8:50 am
by Trve » Tue May 05, 2009 8:58 am
by Trve » Tue May 05, 2009 8:59 am
Lackadaisical2 wrote: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.
by Muravyets » Tue May 05, 2009 9:01 am
by Lackadaisical2 » Tue May 05, 2009 9:11 am
Trve wrote:Lackadaisical2 wrote: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.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Trve » Tue May 05, 2009 9:14 am
Lackadaisical2 wrote:Trve wrote:Lackadaisical2 wrote: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.
by Lackadaisical2 » Tue May 05, 2009 10:04 am
Trve wrote: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.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Sdaeriji » Tue May 05, 2009 11:03 am
Trve wrote:Lackadaisical2 wrote:Trve wrote:Lackadaisical2 wrote: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.
by Erastide » Tue May 05, 2009 12:21 pm
Article wrote:"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."
by Muravyets » Tue May 05, 2009 12:30 pm
by Tanaara » Tue May 05, 2009 3:01 pm
Muravyets wrote: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?
by UNIverseVERSE » Tue May 05, 2009 3:42 pm
Muravyets wrote: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?
by Saint Jade IV » Tue May 05, 2009 7:56 pm
by Shazbotdom » Tue May 05, 2009 8:04 pm
ShazWeb || IIWiki || Discord: shazbertbot || 1 x NFL Picks League Champion (2021)
CosmoCast || SISA || CCD || CrawDaddy || SCIA || COPEC || Boudreaux's || CLS || SNC || ShazAir || BHC || TWO
NHL RND 1: COL 4 - 1 WPG | VGK 2 - 3 DAL | RND 2: NYR 0 - 0 CAR
NCAA MBB: Tulane 24-20 | LSU 28-17 || NCAA WSB: LSU 36-13
by Muravyets » Tue May 05, 2009 8:11 pm
UNIverseVERSE wrote:XKCD - Dreams
(image is, apparently, too tall to post - bloody spammers ruining it for everyone.)
by Daistallia 2104 » Tue May 05, 2009 8:29 pm
Free Soviets wrote:wait, how did they get the password?
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.
by Saint Jade IV » Tue May 05, 2009 9:00 pm
Daistallia 2104 wrote:Free Soviets wrote: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.
by SaintB » Tue May 05, 2009 10:17 pm
Lackadaisical2 wrote:Trve wrote: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.
by Saint Jade IV » Tue May 05, 2009 10:19 pm
SaintB wrote:Lackadaisical2 wrote:Trve wrote: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.
by Truly Blessed » Wed May 06, 2009 5:57 am
by Snow Lily » Wed May 06, 2009 2:05 pm
by Verdigroth » Wed May 06, 2009 2:20 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Based Illinois, Big Eyed Animation, Britain Interbellum RP, Floofybit, Glorious Freedonia, Ineva, Kerwa, La Xinga, Ors Might, Pasong Tirad, Philjia, Ravemath, Southland, Statesburg, Tungstan, Uiiop
Advertisement