|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: You don't have the right to be silent
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Amendment to a bill that was supposed to prevent employers from demanding employees' social media passwords basically nullifies the bill in certain ill-defined circumstances.
quote:
The amendment says that an employer conducting an investigation may require or demand access to a personal account if an employee or prospective employee has allegations of work-place misconduct or giving away an employer's proprietary information. The amendment would require an investigation to ensure compliance with applicable laws or regulatory requirements.
Under the amendment, employees would be present when their social network profiles are searched and whatever information found is kept confidential, unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation.
"Rather than just referring everything to law enforcement, we have the opportunity to work with the employee and to investigate," said Denny Eliason, who is representing the banking industry.
How nice. Rather than require a warrant, we can just make you bare everything, because we say we suspect you. Are they going to get the right to search my house, too? Listen to all my phone calls? Download my Christmas card mailing list? Where does this insanity end?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How nice. Rather than require a warrant, we can just make you bare everything, because we say we suspect you. Are they going to get the right to search my house, too? Listen to all my phone calls? Download my Christmas card mailing list? Where does this insanity end?
Given that current American law gives your employer the right to search through your bodily fluids looking for drugs without a warrant, I'm not sure this is a more significant infringement.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
At least drug testing is done by a third party and all your employer finds out is the (binary?) outcome of specific tests. Giving them the right to paw through your private accounts gives them access to far more than the specific information they cite as the basis for the search.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that current American law gives your employer the right to search through your bodily fluids looking for drugs without a warrant, I'm not sure this is a more significant infringement.
2 scenarios in Canada. One as a condition of employment. The second as a response to an industrial accident. Much the same as mandatory alcohol testing by police after a motor vehicle accident.
Without a legitimate safety issue, the request for passwords is unreasonable in my opinion. The drug and alcohol testing for safety reasons is completely reasonable in my opinion. Discourages the misbehaviour and is a reasonable infringement on individual rights. It also gives a basis for legal action against the intoxicated person.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Our ancestors lived in small villages most of which were composed of ethnically and religiously very homogeneous populations. There was strong interdependence between villagers, and everyone basically knew everything about everyone else (I know I simplify but you get my drift). In some parts of Calvinist Europe, people weren't supposed to draw curtains at night so as to demonstrate to everyone that the goings-on in one's households were nothing but entirely "proper".
We are going back to that, with the one difference that the cultural hegemon this time 'round is not a faith group but...big bad business, which, in many respects, behaves like a sect in the way it attracts, retains, and controls its members. At least the Calvivists uphold that it is ultimately between you and your God. None of that safeguard this time round.
As a tangent, this is precisely why I am very distrustful of much of the corporate "diversity" talk: Sure, you can be of any race, creed, gender or sexual orientation when you join our company. But God -or rather, your lawyer-, help you if you think, or behave, or act, any differently from The Way We Do Things Around Here (TM). And we will find out.
I suspect the Corporate Dictatorship under which most of us re condemned to live to be highly distrustful of diversity, thereby trying to control our private lives to a high degree.
And just for the record, no, I'm most definitely not a Marxist. But I get paid for researching what goes on in Organisations, and the results aren't always pretty.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
