Who Owns Weblog Content?

dirvish writes "Information Week has a story discussing copyright issues and legal rights associated with employee blogs and RSS readers. Recently, some companies have come out with formal weblog policies and others have fired employees for inappropriate blogging. With an increase in official company blogs, and some large companies like Microsoft and Google offering popular blogging services, the issues become even more clouded. Some bloggers are beginning to speak out about corporate and government control, others would probably prefer to not risk their jobs."

Comments

If you are a billionaire, you own it! ;-)

[xmas2003]

Mark Cuban's Blog - owner of the Dallas Mavericks ...

Common sense...

[winkydink]

You are still bound by any agreements you have with your employer when you blog, especially if you represent yourself as an employee.

On a slightly-related note: Has anybody else noticed that Information Week has been getting awfully thin these past few issues? Trouble on the horizon?

Re:Common sense...

[QMO]

I don't think that my employer could stop me from blogging, but:
I did agree not to reveal confidential things, so I'd have to be careful about that.
I did agree that anything I create while employed here belongs to my employer, anything, work-related, or not, on my own time, or not, is theirs.

This last is the main barrier that I can see to my remaining with this company for the long term.

Re:Common sense...

[Lord_Dweomer]

"You are still bound by any agreements you have with your employer when you blog, especially if you represent yourself as an employee."

BINGO! This is such an important point, I hope they bring it up if this ever goes to court. This is simply a new medium for speech which would be regulated by currently existing contracts signed at hiring. There's already rules about what you can and can't say about your employer, why should the web be any different? (Unless you're whistle blowing perhaps)

And aside from legal aspects of this, its a pretty well known fact that if you start talking shit about a company you work for, sooner or later, they'll find a way to get rid of you without you getting wrongful termination. It just never works out. If you want to say things about your company, be smart, do it anonymously, and don't let it get traced back to you in dumb ways like using special info that would make it obviously you or by telling people.

And on the internet, remember that it takes the existing rule of "you never know who people know" where you be careful of what you say because you never know who it can get back to and magnifies it because not only do you never know who people know, but you don't even know if the people are the people they say they are.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

"sooner or later, they'll find a way to get rid of you without you getting wrongful termination."

I agree with this post, but I just thought I would point something out here. Every state, except Montana, is an at-will employment state. What that means is that unless you have an employment CONTRACT, and not just an offer letter and the like (pro athletes have contracts, most others don't), your employer can fire you at ANY time for ANY reason at all (with the exception of certain prohibited reasons, like firing you because of your race, national origin, that sort of thing). So, you could go to work today, and your employer could fire you for wearing a red shirt. Or fire you just because he couldn't get it up with the wife last night.

Wrongful termination means being fired for whistleblowing, or for using your FMLA or other leave rights, being fired after exercising some other protected right (like making an OSHA complaint), or being fired because of your membership in a protected class (race, gender, national origin, religon, age if over 40, there's a couple of others I can't remember off of the top of my head). ANY other firing, by definition, is not "wrongful termination."

So, they don't NEED the evidence to fire you. They may WANT the evidence because of some internal reasons, but there is no LEGAL reason to obtain the evidence. You can ALWAYS be fired for just about anything.

Of course, you can quit whenever you want to -- that's the flip side of at-will -- they can't make you keep working if you don't want to.

Just wanted to point that out...

Re:Common sense...

[reallocate]

In the U.S., most private employees can be terminated just because the emploer wants to. Absent a union or individual contract that specifieds otherwise, employees work at the pleasure of the employer.

So, use your head. If you use any property that belongs to your employer to do anything your employer isn't paying you to do, you are putting your job at risk.

If you post to your blog only at home, tell the world who you work for, and then post opinion about your employer, you are putting your job at risk.

Is this a free speech issue? No, because your employer is not thwarting your right to post to your blog, even if you are fired.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

Well, IAAL, and the fact is, unless you are a member of a protected class, have exercised some protected right, or have an employement contract, you can fired for any reason at all, or even no reason whatsoever.

What encompasses "membership in a protected class" or "exercised a protected right" may be different from state-to-state -- for example, in California, "sexual preference" is a state protected class, but is not a protected class at the federal level, and not in most states.

Now, if an employer fires you for any reason other than what is considered a "good cause" under your state's unemployement laws, then you can collect unemployement, so a company may try and hold off firing you until they can meet the "good cause" requirements under their particular state's unemployment laws, in order to deny you unemployment -- but they can still fire you for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all, expect for the certain protected classes listed above.

And company policies really have nothing to do with this. They can sometimes be used to show "implied contracts" of one sort of another, usually with respect to vacation pay and the like, but they are generally not legal documents in the sense that firing someone without taking all of the necessary steps written in the employment manual changes a lawful firing into an unlawful firing.

I think your professor was probably right -- change "bad reasons" to the list I gave above, and then you are right on.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

No, in the U.S., they can fire you immediately. The laws vary from state to state, but in California, for example, if you are fired, you have to be given your final paycheck within a certain period of time (3 days, I think), along with payment for accrued but unused vacation time. This type of stuff varies depending on what state you are in, but the "at-will" nature of employment means you can be fired at any time -- even right now!

Re:Common sense...

[Kainaw]

There's already rules about what you can and can't say about your employer, why should the web be any different?

My contract with the Navy was not renewed because I made a blog entry on a website that was in no way attached to the military or government (attached below in case you actually care about it). The Navy's point is that if I had said this in a public place, it is OK. However, terrorists can read web pages, so any dissent falls under the Patriot Act.

The blog entry:
I am a bit worried about the project I'm now working on. The project head is supposed to be a Software Engineer. In the few weeks that I've worked with him, I have found that he is completely unable to program in any of the required languages, he knows very little about installing software on a computer, and his knowledge of database administration is limited to what the paperclip guy in MS Access can tell him to do. Further investigation has dug up that he was a telephone support person for a software company, but I don't know how he lost his job. After that, he worked in retail sales at a national men's clothing store. Then, he woke up one day and decided he was a Senior Software Engineer. He flubbed an application to a government contractor, got hired, and is now in charge of this project. Now, if I could just place my finger on what is worrying me about this project...

Re:Common sense...

[Pionar]

That's the problem with you Brits. You just don't know how to sue the shit out of someone on flimsy claims and net embarassingly large rewards. And you wonder why the empire fell.

Americans are litigous bastards, so sue me.

Re:Common sense...

[shawn(at)fsu]

"if common sense were common every body would have it"

My dad says that to me all the time when I tell him something is common sense.

Re:Common sense...

[Macadamizer]

Very, very few jobs in the U.S. outside of union jobs and certain skilled professional services (like actors,musicians and professional athletes) have real, enforceable employment contract -- it's just the way things are in the U.S. The down side is that the employer can fire you pretty much whenever (see other posts in this thread) -- the plus side is that you can freely move whenever you want.

Re:Common sense...

[winkydink]

It's a pretty common clause. Better go check. That's why it's best to list a bunch of exclusions when you fill out that paperwork. Most time, unless they are in direct conflist with what your employer does, they buy off on them.

Re:Common sense...

[pizen]

This type of stuff varies depending on what state you are in, but the "at-will" nature of employment means you can be fired at any time -- even right now!

So stop reading Slashdot and get back to work.

-Your Boss

Re:Common sense...

[Jason Earl]

Nothing personal, but you got fired for an accute case of stupid. Technical skills are no substitute for a bit of political sense. With one blog entry you made your direct superior, and everyone involved in hiring him look like idiots in a public forum. The folks that got you run would have run you no matter where or how you made the remark (assuming that it got back to them), they simply would have used a different excuse. Too many technical folks think that their technical skills mean that they don't have to learn some people skills, and in today's market that simply isn't the case.

The reason that you were fired is that you made people with power and authority over you look bad in public, terrorism was just the excuse that they used. Coming up with an excuse to fire someone is not nearly as hard as you would think, especially to folks that have access to all of your email, Internet sites you visit during work, and whatever else.

The worst part is that with a little bit of political knowledge you could easily have had your direct superior run, but you could probably have received his job as a promotion as well.

Re:Common sense...

[Tassach]

Yes, it's a been standard clause in the employement agreement for just about every development job I've taken. It's also one I make them amend before I agree to take the job.

These things ARE negotiable, and you're a fool if you don't negotiate. I've only had one potential employer refuse to remove a "everything you do outside the office belongs to us" clause, and that was a BIG RED FLAG which told me I did *not* want to work there.

Job interviews work both ways: they're checking you out to see if they want you to work for them, you need to be checking them out to make sure you wan to work for them. Even if you *ARE* so desperate that you'd take the job for minimum wage and on the condition that you'll service the boss orally 3 times a week, you never let *THEM* know that. Whenever you're offered a job, you always let them think that you have another offer on the table.

Re:Common sense...

[kaiidth]

In the UK, contracts are pretty much unavoidable: there's a handy page on it here.

The contract can be verbal, but within two months of starting work the employer is required to provide employees with a written statement of the main terms of the contract. This is good to know if you're working for a shadowy sort of organisation - you can legally walk in and hit them with the Employment Rights Act 1996, and if they refuse to cough up a contract after two months - or indeed sack you - you are legally in the right and can do them for it...

Anyone who works in the UK without a contract, be careful; at the minimum, you're probably working illegally in that your employers have probably not gone through the motions as far as national insurance goes, and are not planning to do so. In this case, you will not be eligible for normal unemployment pay afterwards :(

As far as I know, broadly similar terms apply in Germany and in France.

Re:Common sense...

[Cowardly Anonym]

I had never heard of the concept of "at-will" employment (I'm Canadian) before you mentioned it, and having looked it up, I'm amazed that the U.S. has such a thing:

History of At-Will Employment Law in the USA

From the above site:
"... the USA is alone among the industrialized nations of the world in providing no protection against wrongful termination of employment."

I own my own weblog content.

[IO ERROR]

This is really simple. I don't talk about my job on my blog. I don't write blog entries from work. My blog is not hosted by my employer. They have nothing to do with my blog, and if they want to try to exercise any control over my blog, they can go to hell.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[xXunderdogXx]

Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were smokers- even if they only smoked at home.

Employers have recently tried every carrot they can think of, including cash incentives and IPods, to persuade employees to quit smoking. Now they are trying the stick. Pointing to rising health costs, and to the oversize proportion of insurance claims attributed to smokers, employers around the United States are refusing to hire applicants who smoke, and sometimes they're firing employees who refuse to quit. Workers fired for smoking at home

The issue is slightly less applicable to blogging, of course, because there are no immediate health effects except for perhaps diminished social life.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were smokers- even if they only smoked at home.

Yeah, I heard about that. I'd be shocked if the workers don't win that lawsuit, but we'll see. I know the parallel isn't perfect, but replace "smoker" with "pregnant woman" and see how far, legally, that goes.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[ThosLives]

Well, it becomes a really fuzzy issue. Health care is a direct cost the employer must pay, and it's a *benefit*, not an obligation. Companies could get around the whole issue with people smoking and simply say "If you smoke, we won't pay your health insurance. We'll still offer it to you, but it will be deducted in full from your paycheck, or you can acquire your own insurance." Add to that policies like, "you can't smoke on company property" and they should be fine - just don't fire the people! (Another thing employers could do is say, "look, we're trying to be nice and offer you insurance and all, but we're only going to pay X amount for it. The insurance company says you're a high risk so they want to charge Y. We'll continue to pay X, but you have to pay Y-X.") This way employers can still employ and keep their costs under control, and employees could feel free to act how they desire - if they are willing to pay for it. I'm all for having people have to be a bit more aware of the (financial) consequences of their actions (being unhealthy is expensive!).

As far as blogs go, it's not as clear cut because there is no direct cost associated to a company if the blog is not divulging secrets, served off company hardware, or written on "company time". The blog may result indirectly in lost sales or something like that, but I don't know if that would fall under most employee contracts which say something about "not harming the company business."

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[emilymildew]

Or one of those people who leaves the job at the office and whose personal life has nothing to do with his or her current employment.

You know, THOSE crazy people.

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Richard_at_work]

I side with the employers on this. Smoking is disgusting, and it does harm those people who dont smoke in the office. Smokers smell, even if they take steps to mitigate the stale smoke smell - and many dont.

I currently work in an office which had a single smoker until he gave up recently. Every time he popped out for a cigarette he came back stinking, several of us had to leave the office for a couple of minutes because we just cant physically stand it.

You wouldnt accept poor personal hygiene, you wouldnt accept alcohol intake during work hours, so why accept what is just another addiction?

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[orcrist]

I see no problem with firing employees that refuse to curtail major, avoidable, unnatural risk factors that cost the company money.

So there's no problem with firing someone who goes skiing or skydiving in their free time? How about swimming? Or most sports for that matter. All risk factors. Maybe not as high as with smoking but who determines what is major? Then there's travel. Some countries are more dangerous than others; will employers have lists of 'approved' destinations for vacation? For that matter living in or visiting certain parts of many U.S. cities can increase your risk factor: "We didn't fire him because he's black, we fired him because he was visiting the ghetto where he grew up: a major, avoidable, unnatural risk factor!"

I know this is a slippery slope argument, but the point is that saving the company money shouldn't trump your freedom to spend your free time as you see fit. Life is dangerous and uncertain. You can't put everything on a balance sheet when it comes to human beings, and as long as companies are hiring human beings then they need to consider that to be the *company's* risk factor. After all there are still laws which prevent discrimination against handicapped people, even if it costs more money, and even if they are handicapped because they fell asleep at the wheel or broke their neck horse-back riding (both avoidable risk factors).

-chris

Re:I own my own weblog content.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Your argument is interesting in light of recent firings by employers because employees were pregnant women - even if they were pregnant only at home. IANAL, but legal consequences of that will be, umm, mind-blowing...

The effects of smoking, like being pregnant, follow you to work, regardless of whether you smoke or get knocked up at work.

As long as computer use policies are spelled out

[Shnizzzle]

and federally regulated break time is given, an employer can restrict whatever non-workrelated activities they wish. Especially those carried about using company equipment.

Use a pseudonym, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

In the time-tested tradition of writers who tackle risky topics - use a pseudonym. By the way, what are some of the ways to set up a reasonably anonymous blog?

The company should own things that concern them

[chris09876]

People should really treat blogs just like anything that they would say in public. Most companies have IP agreements, or nondisclosure agreements. If an employee posts something that violates that agreement, then the company can ask them to take it down. People have a right to talk about their personal lives, but when you work for someone else, you usually have to agree not to disclose private information about them. Blogs are just a natural extension of that rule.

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[robbo]

People should really treat blogs just like anything that they would say in public.

Trouble is, many people forget what 'in public' really means. It doesn't mean grousing about your job to a small group of friends. When you complain about management on your blog, you might as well have called a press conference, made your comments and had it play on CNN. Every night. Forever. Sooner or later the boss is going to catch wind. And that's when it gets tricky-- you haven't broken any NDA's, you're just advertising your dissatisfaction with your employer. That's probably enough reason for them to express their dissatisfaction with your job performance...

Re:The company should own things that concern them

[Vellmont]

Thing was, we did it from keystroke logs on her comp at work (legally obtained)


Monitoring someones personal life through keystroke logging? That's probbably legal, but really falls into the arena of scumbag behaviour.

No problemo

[nizo]

This is why I post all controversial postings as nizoLLC, a limited liability corporation created just for this purpose.

Re:No problemo

[Sparr0]

He is, but his LLC has two members, the second being another LLC having two members, himself and a third LLC having two members, himself and ...

Personal Websites

[SteveX]

A blog is no different than a personal website; folks have had those since the dawn of the web.

Read your employment agreement; if you're still not sure talk to your HR folks. Better safe than sorry.

The opinions expressed in this post...

[Anonymous Coward]

...do not reflect the viewpoints of the company I don't work for

-A Coward

The problem you're speaking about...

[Sheetrock]

Is greater than what you say on a weblog. It's about the ability for an organization you work for (or attend as a student) being increasingly able to dictate your behavior and lifestyle outside of the workplace.

We've been on a fairly steady decline since they found out they can make employees go through demeaning tests for insurance purposes and are currently at the point where companies are trying to kick smokers out. Meanwhile there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them, conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[Xzzy]

I know it's a wildly unpopular concept with a lot of the tech crowd, but that's the sort of thing that unions were created to prevent. You think EA would be raping it's employees if it's workers were unionized?

Not a fan of unions myself, but history suggests it'll get results.

Re:The problem you're speaking about...

[westlake]

there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them, conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.

The colonial experience is all about "multinational" corporations. How do you think trade and settlement were organized and funded in those early days? The Hudson's Bay Company, founded in 1670, is still a going concern.

Freedom of Expression

[3StrangeAllies]

I guess taht's what happens when you make the 1st Amendment only opposable to the Governments and not private individuals / corporations...
Anyone read C. Edwin Baker's Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech ? Pretty interesting on the topic of free speech regulation to protect the speech from this type of pressures...

Re:Freedom of Expression

[ajakk]

So why shouldn't I be allowed to voluntarily enter into a contract that restricts my own speech? Should I not be allowed that freedom?

Re:Freedom of Expression

[ajakk]

And which unalienable right are you talking about. The three that were expressly mentioned in the Declaration of Indenpendance are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I am talking about the unalienable right of liberty, namely the liberty to contract as I please.

Re:Freedom of Expression

[CGP314]

So why shouldn't I be allowed to voluntarily enter into a contract that restricts my own speech? Should I not be allowed that freedom?

For the same reason you shouldn't be allowed to enter into a contract that makes you a slave.


-Colin

It depends.

[BlueThunderArmy]

I would think who owns the content would depend on some very simple criteria, but ones which often lead to legal battles.

If an employee blogs for or as a representative of her company, the company owns the material.

If an employee blogs on her own time, and on matters unrelated to the company, the author owns the material.

If an employee blogs on her own time, but on matters related to the company and identifying herself with the company, she owns the material but will likely face consequences.

Re:As long as computer use policies are spelled ou

[garcia]

Problem is that they usually aren't spelled out and you just have to use common sense. Sadly most people don't have common sense and certainly don't think of the consequences of their actions until it's too late.

I wouldn't blog

[WormholeFiend]

on my employer's weblog anymore than I would post my opinion on my employer's bulletin boards.

I think that if you want to avoid being quoted as saying stuff, or avoid having someone steal your ideas, then maybe you should choose another medium.

Stay anonymous

[Ruzty]

I know it doesn't serve to fluff the author's ego or provide as much legitimacy, but if you MUST say something controversial then BLOG it anonymously.

My primary BLOG has no personally identifiable information in it. I can say what I want as long as it's not slanderous or libelous. Of course, I do it as an outlet for personal expression and not to gain or keep readership. I mostly write reviews of restaurants I eat at...

More importantly....

[filtur]

Who owns my slashdot posts? Soviet Russia?

Re:More importantly....

[ClippyHater]

Look at the bottom of the page:

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004 OSTG.

Thoughtcrimes

[Vandil X]

It's bad enough that you commit thoughtcrime.

Do you honestly expect the thought police to miss them when they are written out on a blog and available for anyone to see?

"Room 101!"

Common sense?

[digitalgimpus]

Here's been my observation:

1. Companies always have NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) when they have info they don't want others to have... if you sign it, respect it. It's that simple. We have all signed them before.

2. I never mention people/places unless I *know* it's safe. I never mention identifyable people, only the info they publically reveal (and a link to their blog). It's just common respect.

3. Never mention who I am working for, or what I'm doing, unless I am positive it doesn't violate the rules of #1, and #2. Ever, no exceptions.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but that's been my policy for ages.

IMHO it's just common sense. Just because you don't sign your real name to your blog doesn't mean you don't need to abide by your NDA.

Re:Modern employment

[ackthpt]

Modern employment is intellectual slavery.

As opposed to what? Employement in the pre-union days of the early 20th century, where workers were little more than chattel and their minds didn't matter? Orgainization was seen as a step towards communism and fought hard and bloody. Now you just post anonymously about how your thoughts aren't your own.

Blog anonymously and with a healthy dose of paranoia.

No, cheapskate, hire a lawyer to advise you on protecting any ideas of your own which you think may be of significant value. If you've come up with a zinger which may make your fortune, you don't have to stay with your employer and bitch about it, go take a risk on your own and leave the job.

If it is done on company time

[ShatteredDream]

Then doesn't it belong to the employer?

Seriously, why do we need something like a blogger's "bill of rights?" If you do something on your employer's time that isn't related to your job, then you should consider yourself lucky that either your employer doesn't know or care. You could lose your job for blogging at work, unless maybe your blog is promoting the company's products and services and some manager thinks that is just good free advertisement.

The woman who proposed that blogger's bill of rights got fired because she posted on her blog pictures that could be offensive to some of her employer's customers and let people know where she worked. That's just about one of the things that you DONT DO online. You just don't post comments that can be connected with your employer unless your employer has given you the green light to do so.

Re:If it is done on company time

[Quasar1999]

sweet... so if I engage in 'adult activity' at work, and 9 months later a kid appears... since I did it on company time, it's the company's kid? AWESOME! :D

Re:If it is done on company time

[Rude Turnip]

"Then doesn't it belong to the employer?"

Here's another way to look at this issue. If I buy something online (ie a book, vacuum cleaner, whatever) at work, does it automatically become the property of the employer?

Go On, Blog About It!

[CheeseburgerBlue]

People too stupid to use pseudonyms get what they deserve.

People who let their employers violate their civil liberties get what they deserve.

People who arrogantly deal out advice for other people get what they deserve.

Well Duh!

[PMuse]

This is all obvious, isn't it?

1. Anything you publish will be considered by people considering hiring you. Therefore, publish only what you would be proud of.

2. Companies expect that their employees will not disclose confidential company information. Doing so can get you disciplined or fired. Never mind whether they could get a court order stopping you -- your job will end long before anything like that happens.

3. Companies expect that their employees will publicly support the company, or at least not publicly embarrass it. Doing so can get you disciplined or fired.

4. Materials written on company time or hosted on company equipment may be the property of your employer.

None of this is new. The only thing blogs add to this picture is that more of us now have the opportunity to publish.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

I suspect that if you have to ask "Who owns my weblog content?", then the answer probably won't be what you want to hear.

Self-owned and self-copyrighted

[sakusha]

I own my content, which is not a problem since I'm self-employed, and I copyright my content, which turned out to be incredibly important.
I learned a tough lesson in my early blogging days. I used a hosted blog, and I got into a business dispute with the asshole owner, resulting in him terminating my services but leaving my dead blog active. My old blog was highly rated, so they were deliberately leaving my old blog up to divert Google searches away from my new self-hosted blog. So I filed a DMCA complaint to force him to remove my old website, and I won. This was only possible because I had put a copyright notice on my old website.
Now I know better than to to let anyone else have control over my content.

You're Not in Oz, Dorothy

[ackthpt]

Meanwhile there are people arguing free speech rights only apply when the government is attempting to restrict them, conveniently ignoring the fact that if there were any multinational corporations around when the founders set this place up maybe the Bill of Rights would have been a little tighter.

If you don't like your employer's attitude on these issues, you're still free to walk, you don't need a pair of ruby slippers to click three times and wish you were home. Enough people have the guts to walk out on an oppressive employer they may get the message, particularly if you mention it in an exit interview.

I've disagreed with employers and managers (who may or may not represent the employer above their own ego) and spoken my mind a number of times. It's usually best to form a plan to address grievances rather than uttering disparaging remarks in the break room or anonymously on the web or in the news. If there's nothing to be gained then have the intelligence to go. I truly despise hearing people whine about how they hate what's going on in their workplace, but don't do anything about it.

personal content mixed business (wife in panties)

[rich42]

we used to have a guy who'd blog about work he was doing for the company - with links to various client websites, etc.

he also had pictures of his wife in panties on the same site.

he was told to remove any mention of the company / clients from his site - but refused to do so. he was eventually fired.

Lesson from anon.penet.fi

[powdered toast dude]

Anonymity on the Internet is a dubious prospect at best in most cases. Unless you're using a hijacked or unpaid public connection, I recommend you assume you are speaking your views as yourself publicly, and accept accountability for doing so.

Remember anon.penet.fi? As soon as the heat came down, so did the veil of anonymity.

$0.02,
ptd

YOYOW: You Own Your Own Words

[ewhac]

The policy on The Well, an online conferencing system that's been around since 1984, established a policy to address this issue long ago:

You own your own words.

That is, you retain complete ownership of -- and therefore responsibility and liability for -- whatever you write. This relieves The Well of any liability for the actions/writings of their posters, and the posters can rest assured that neither The Well nor any other user will turn around and sell their writings to someone else without permission. This policy, referred to by Well members with the acronym YOYOW, has been in place and has worked fairly well for the last 20 or so years.

YOYOW: Ask for it by name :-).

Schwab

I blog daily.

[Dagny Taggert]

However, I just don't talk about work. I could write several books about what goes on there, but what would it do for me in the end? If I need therapy because of work, then I should see a shrink, not blab about it to people who don't care anyway. Stick to politics: it pisses people off AND it's easy to pick sides in a fight.

Not sure what the fuss is....

[catdevnull]

OK, I'm fairly liberal on the issue of Freedom of Speech. But, if you're:

• Blogging on company time
• Blogging bad about your company
• Blogging about how much you hate your job
• Blogging out information that should stay behind company doors

I think you're asking for trouble. Your freedom of speech covers your political muscle not libel or slander. As an employee, there should be some respect for the boundaries expected of you. If you're fairly sure you have a right to say something, be sure to follow the same rules to which journalists are supposedly accountable: integrity, truth, and accuracy. No one should be able to fire you for that. But, if you're expected to maintain a sense of decorum or have signed a disclosure agreement, maybe you should respect the rights and privacy of the company or those about whom you're blogging. Otherwise, do something to obfuscate your identity--but bloggers love to be exhibitionists.

Personally, I think blogging is a bit of a strange habit because I'm an introvert and I don't think the world wants or cares to know about my feelings, political orientation, or how much I loathe/love my job, family, pets, or celebrities.

I do like to post occassional anecdotes, etc. but as a rule, I try to respect others and not type something I wouldn't want them to read. Or, if it's unflattering, I'll try to find some way to not assassinate their character but to find fault in the action.

The world is full of too many myopic opinionated people who care little about the effects of their words or actions. I think, we as internet denizens, should be careful to promote change with careful and constructive criticism and express ourselves with honesty without malice--even on blogs.

BTW: Bloggers suck. (Just kidding)

altered at-will status.

[slashkitty]

However, most people don't realize that your company policies may alter the at-will status. For example, does your company have an "introductory period," where, for the intro period, where after 3 months, your job is somehow safer. The courts have ruled that this creates an implied contract... so if you're suddenly terminated, check your companies policies! more here: http://www.ppspublishers.com/ez/html/030204.htm

Pick the right topics to blog about

[hellfire]

Mark Pilgrim once blogged about him being a recovering alcoholic. He never blogged about work or the people he worked with. However, the people he worked for at the time found out about the blog, as he was not anonymous and did not take great pains to hide it. Well the company did a really sleazy (and in hindsight stupid) action of asking him to take this information down. They thought customer's knowing this would make the company look bad. Mark refused and was eventually fired. I was definitely on his side for this one. Something's wrong with society if you are embarrassed about alcoholism and this is not the way to handle it, IMHO. It's stupid because Mark is now working for IBM in their corporate blogging division. That former company gave up a prime employee and Mark's making far more money now.

However, a few weeks later a fellow blogger of Mark's was then fired for making comments about a coworker in her blog. Mark took up her side, but as I talked to Mark, and reviewed the comments, it was little more than bitching about someone who was simply a pain in the ass. Okay fine, you work with someone who's a pain in the ass, but would you tell that to that person's face? This is what you are doing. She refused her companies demands to remove the information and she was sacked. Frankly this was just stupid. If you have a problem with someone, you take up with your boss. If you can't fix it, bitching about it in your blog is not going to help. Might make you feel better, but it will make you feel worse when the company has to discipline you.

And I myself was subject to some policy, but this was a common sense situation early in the days of blogging. I blogged at lunch occasionally and I was proud of my site. My boss found out as I had emailed them from home once. So she checked it out and she saw one or two time stamps in the middle of the day. She asked me and I told her this was because I did it at lunch. She asked me if I could minimize the appearance of this (she didn't even ask me to stop!) I simply changed the timestamp on my posts to later in the day after work.

It's ironic, because, some of my topics deal with very confrontational stances on American society and politics. Hell let me be blunt, I flame 90% of americans in most posts. But she never once mentioned anything about content, because I never talk about the company or our customers in any way.

Sometimes, your principles are more important than your job, sometimes your principles are way skewed, and sometimes you just get lucky and work for understanding people. You have to understand what can get you in trouble and what can't, and balance that with what you absolutely have to speak out about.

If you must insult everyone, make sure you have a steady source of income from a private business that doesn't care what you say.

And you can.

[rjstanford]

Those are indeed your rights. Of course, your employer can also fire you, sue you, or promote you, either because of your blog or without knowing about it. Those are your employer's rights.

obsecurity--a new buzzword

[bodrell]

I know this wasn't intentional, but I nominate "obsecurity" as a replacement for the phrase "security through obscurity."
Example usage:

"I don't know why Microsoft keeps touting Digital Rights Management--everyone knows obsecurity is no security at all."

Anyone second the motion?

Not just blogging services

[mdavids]

I recently aquired a virtual server in the US, and under "Unacceptable Content" in the terms of service, it said the following:

Other unacceptable content includes but is not limited to: sites promoting or discussing any domestic or international political issues...

As a non-US citizen this strikes me as frighteningly extreme. On the other hand, this is a country where people can be abducted by the state, imprisoned without charge and tortured (legally, according to the attorney general), so if I were running an Internet service in the US, I'd probably be reluctant to argue my clients' free speech rights too strenuously.

Let's assume (because I can't be bothered with research) that these clauses are becoming commonplace in hosting agreements. Well, you could always host your political website yourself. Except I imagine retail ISPs and other upstream bandwidth providers will also want to be seen to be doing their bit for homeland security, and adjust their TOS documents accordingly.

So where will you go for free political debate in the US? Call in to Rush Limbaugh? Meet in the dead of night in a cellar behind a cast-iron door with a peephole and a large armed man asking for the password ("crossfire")?

Re:Not just blogging services

[iminplaya]

...a large armed man asking for the password ("crossfire")?

"swordfish"

speach

[Lotharjade]

I think the question is whether Freedom of Speach or Slander is the more important thing to think about. According to how the country grew up we were allowed to speak freely even about our employ when off hours. In the last century businesses have been trying to erode that by trying to reclassify it as slander or other category.

To me our country should protect our Freedom of Speach first and foremost.