Hi, James, and everyone else,
Actually, you're both guilty here. In some posts you didn't specify, and
both of you have pontificated as if you are talking about some sort of
universal law. I called "Penguina" on it, so I'd be remiss if I didn't do
the same to you.
>> But not while you're on my payroll, and not using my equipment and not
>> using my telephone, and not using my internet connection. I, as a
>> private employer, have every right to monitor what goes on with my
stuff,
>> including what my employees do with my stuff. And if you want to store
>> porn on my disk drive, you can bloody well get your walking papers.
> 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).
I cannot speak for New Zealand, as I have never lived there or even
visited, but I can say that I fully disagree with what you are saying, and
I must say you managed to be just as disrespectful of opposing views as she
was. I have had the privilege of living in two different countries (I'm a
dual national) and of having travelled the world and conducted business in
countries with greatly varying amounts of freedom. The US falls into the
category of "free-for-all corporate lets-screw-the-public-fest" by your
definition, and I honestly feel we have more freedoms here, and more
guarantees of our freedoms, than any other place in the world I have been.
I would rate our Bill of Rights specifically, and really our Constitution
as a whole, as a model for guaranteeing the rights of individual citizens.
Having said that, there are times when societal or corporate rights must be
balanced against individual rights. The US Supreme Court has recognized
this. The most famous example is that free speech is limited: you do not
have the right to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, nor do you have the
right to incite a riot in the US. I think these are good limitations on
individual rights. What you are defending (the right to surf porn sites on
company time) is theft, plain and simple. If I am a business owner (as I
once was) and an employee does this, my rights are being trampled on and my
funds being stolen. I am glad that the court will take my rights into
consideration, and not just my employee's.
Also, you are really getting high and mighty about privacy rights in the
EU. I notice you live in the UK, a country where you put surveillance
cameras on street corners and in the tube. I read recently that a typical
Londoner using public transportation is photographed an average of 400
times on their commute to and from work. Isn't that an gross violation of
privacy? IMHO, it is, and I am much more comfortable with the United
States or Israel where that simply isn't permitted or legal.
> 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.
Not so. It is a matter of state law, and different states have different
procedures. Also, before you call us the "Unregulated States" you really
need to read our federal, state, county, and municipal laws, rules,
regulations, and ordinances. I think you are in for quite a surprise. I
suspect we are every bit as regulated as you are, if not more so.
>> If the EU has its head so far up its hindquarters that it doesn't
>> allow private employers to monitor and regulate the use of company
>> infrastructure, then no wonder the EU is so far uh..."behind."
> Behind... yep, our bubble's much smaller than your bubble. Which means
> you've got further to fall...
Actually not. The EU as a whole and the US are directly comparable in size
and population.
>> 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?
You have a very broad definition of human rights, don't you? In fact, if
you really look at this, you are defending corporate and societal rights.
Bravo! You have come full circle. Now, reevaluate what you are saying and
realize that you, too, are advocating a balance between individual and
societal rights. Now we have common ground to continue the discussion from
in a civilized way. Oh, and yes, I agree with your point, just not the
choice of the wording "human rights". To me, that has always meant
individual rights.
> 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...
I think you have a very unrealistic view. We have such logs where I work,
In theory, this e-mail I am writing could be scrutinized. However, unless
I give a reason to believe I am untrustworthy, nobody will ever look
through my stuff or the relevant logs. If I go to a site deemed
inappropriate, our web filter will send out a nastygram and management will
be copied. I'll get a friendly reminder of policy. If I continue to
willfully violate policy *then* I assure you that my work will be
scrutinized, and those logs could be used to build a case for termination
against me.
Most companies *do* trust their employees. Most companies do not spy on
them. Unlike the London Underground, I do not have to fear from hidden
cameras here. However, if a company wants to get rid of me for cause
(i.e.: theft of services, which is what we are discussing, or wanton
violation of policy) they need evidence in the case of a wrongful
termination suit brought by me. The logs provide that evidence. Without
those logs I could rob them blind with impunity.
> Think about it. Your justification is that excessive surfing harms their
> productivity - are you honestly trying to claim the only way you can
> measure an employee's productivity is to spy on his/her personal
> communications?
Nope. As an employer or manager, I can judge his or her output. However,
because of the legal protections offered employees in this country (which
are a good thing, IMHO), I need to be able to document why his or her
productivity is down. If that employee, for example, is suffering from a
serious illness, they are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and may have a legitimate reason for reduced productivity. I have no
right to fire them in that case, though I can insist if things get really
bad that they go on disability until they are well. However, I may have to
live with reduced output. OTOH, if their productivity is down because of
theft of services (like excessive web surfing) I have a right to right to
terminate them for cause.
> If they have a proper job, you should be able to tell
> whether or not they are working properly without that sort of measure!
Yes, I can. What I cannot do is *prove* in a court of law that I was
justified in my actions. By being able to produce such logs I can.
In order to get and keep this job, I had to go through a National Security
background investigation. I am subject to such things periodically. They
are a *gross* violation of privacy. They can look into every detail of my
life going back to my childhood. However, as an administrator of any
number of mission critical government servers with sensitive data on them,
I recognize that the collective rights of the nation do, in this case,
outweigh my individual rights. By permitting this invasion of my privacy I
am insuring that anyone hired into a sensitive position is not terribly
likely to do something improper or illegal with the data I am, in effect,
entrusted with, and in doing so, violate someone else's individual rights.
Nobody held a gun to my head when I took this job. I had two other offers.
I liked this one best, so I accepted the job knowing full well that I would
have to yield some of my individual right to privacy. Once again, it was a
matter of balance between the collective society, which is composed of many
individuals, and just one individual, in this case me. My personal rights
lost out, and I decided to accept that.
Regards,
Caity
(who is allowed to right something like this on a break :)
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
