On Thu, 31 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, James Sutherland wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> > > > At 5/29/01 06:02 AM , James Sutherland wrote:
> > No - the very first post made it clear the discussion related to the EU.
> > You then wade in saying "No you're dead wrong, it's not like that" quoting
> > US-specific references.
>
> Nope. You were pronouncing the legal principles as though they applied
> everywhere -- which, thank goddess, they don't.
They apply everywhere the thread referred to.
> > Certainly not true in countries where citizens have rights (instead of the
> > free-for-all corporate lets-screw-the-public-fest you seem to enjoy).
>
> What childishness. How is a company preventing its employees from surfing
> for porn "screwing the public"?
The approach you seem to advocate is "let companies do WTF they want, and
to hell with people's rights".
> > Not if you want to keep your company it isn't; recording phone calls is
> > restricted by law even in the Unregulated States, though many states are
> > still pretty lax about it.
>
> Wrong again. A company has every right to monitor its own phone calls
> in many states -- New York, for one. Look, you wouldn't let someone
> come into your *HOUSE* every day and use your telephone at will for
> whatever the heck they wanted to use it for, use your computer, use
> your internet connection.
That's the whole point: this is NOT a case of letting a complete stranger
use your system.
> > Behind... yep, our bubble's much smaller than your bubble. Which means
> > you've got further to fall...
>
> Sorry. We do our work in New Zealand because the employment costs and
> overheads are a lot lower than the US. Regulation less onerous. Taxes
> are lower. And guess what -- even less of a bubble than the EU.
Yes - a lot of companies export work to countries with lax laws, since
it's cheaper that way. The ethics of this are rather questionable, but
that's another issue...
> > > I'd tell that gal in Belgium if she wants to do the right thing by
> > > her employer, but is hamstrung by stupid EU "privacy" laws -- log
> > > everything anyway, perform the analysis, and simply be extremely
> > > careful whom she shows it to and who she tells about it.
> >
> > i.e. don't mention it to the people whose human rights she's violating, or
> > the employer who'll fire her for doing so, or the police who would fine
> > the company into the ground for allowing her to do so?
>
> WHAT BOLLOCKS! It's not a frigging human rights violation for a business
> to monitor what is done with its own equipment, on time it's already paid
> for, and with its own bandwidth!
It IS a human rights violation. The privacy Article of the European
Convention on Human Rights, to be precise.
> Rape is a human rights violation.
Not listed here. I suppose it might be covered by "right to liberty and
security", but it isn't really human rights material - you don't talk
about a "right not to be murdered"...
> Detention without representation is a human rights violation.
Not here it isn't. "No punishment without law" is the nearest.
> Torture is a human rights violation.
Yes, absolutely prohibited by the ECHR.
> > Better that than a culture where employers feel entitled or even obliged
> > to spy on their staff, rather than TRUSTING them to do the jobs for which
> > they are paid...
>
> It's not "spying" for a business to monitor the use of its own equipment.
It is, actually; ownership of a system does not entitle you to use it
illegally or immorally. Or would you accept your employer putting hidden
cameras in the lavatories? After all, they are company property, and
you're using them on company time!
James.
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
