GPS Tracking of State Worker Raises Privacy Issues

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a Times Union article: "How far can state government go in keeping tabs on its employees? That's the question a mid-level appeals court will consider in the wake of a lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union against the state Labor Department, in the case of a fired state worker who was tracked with a GPS device that investigators secretly attached to his personal car. ... State officials tracked Cunningham's whereabouts by secretly attaching a GPS device to his BMW. The electronic tailing went beyond what would normally be termed Cunningham's work hours, since the device was on for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They even tracked him on a multi-day family vacation."

Comments

Glad I work in the private sector.

[Anonymous Coward]

No reputable company would ever try something this egregious .

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, Enron never tracked its employees with a GPS.

Say, how is your retirement account doing?

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[errandum]

I don't think tracking you with a GPS during work hours is wrong. From my understanding the problem was they were tracking him 24/7, and that's illigal.

Just making sure you're where you're supposed to be during your work hours should be expected.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[increment1]

GPS tracking is nothing. At my company they just set you up to have an affair and then use the photographic evidence to blackmail you into doing whatever they want.

They don't need any evidence to fire you, since they know you would never sue them for wrongful dismissal (even if you happen to be a lawyer).

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[rubycodez]

without your knowledge? putting tracker on you personal car? if any executive at my employer did that to me, I'd cram said GPS far into their gastrointestinal egress, without lube. that's if I was in a good mood....

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Hope Thelps]

At my company they just set you up to have an affair

Oh, you poor thing. You couldn't just say "no" for fear of hurting his feelings?

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[mrchaotica]

the problem was they were tracking him 24/7, and that's illigal.

That, and attaching a device to his personal car should be considered some kind of tresspassing/vandalism.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Hope Thelps]

Okay, I guess it was a reference to the Firm. The idea that you can be "set up" to have an affair as opposed to making the choice when the opportunity arises annoyed me too much to follow the rest of the post.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[errandum]

They already use cameras and supervisors that aren't exactly there to keep track, but end up doing it.

There are companies that use rfids to keep track of their employees. I honestly see no problem in that, if it doesn't go outside the scope of my workplace.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[rjstanford]

There are companies that use rfids to keep track of their employees. I honestly see no problem in that, if it doesn't go outside the scope of my workplace.

You never drive your private car outside the scope of your workplace?

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't think employers should be able to electronically monitor you at all, without your knowledge.

About 10 years ago, I had reason to look up the law. I found to my surprise that in my state, and employer can use hidden cameras and monitor your email, etc. without even telling you about it.

Of course that was 10 years ago, and things might have changed since. But I see no ethical reason why an employer should be able to monitor an employee without their knowledge. I would have a lot less problem with the idea if the law simply required that people be informed about it.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[mikehoskins]

> That, and attaching a device to his personal car should be considered some kind of tresspassing/vandalism.

It violates the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as the 14th Amendment, Section 1:

--------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

--------------------

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[tragedy]

Well, actually, I can think of plenty of ways you could be "set up" to "have an affair" as long as "have an affair" remains in quotes. Quite simply, a supervisor at work could require you to work late on various nights but arrange it in such a way that you have no proof that you really worked late. Then they could bring out someone they've hired to claim to have had an affair with you and tell your spouse that you were lying about working late. Maybe they could give you a company credit card as well, then throw some hotel charges onto it.

People with lots of power over you, like employers, have plenty of power to frame you all sorts of things. For example, if they wanted to fire you for whistleblowing, they could set up an environment where employees are made comfortable by supervisors leaving 5 minutes early every day, but marking their full hours on their timesheet. Then they could gather "evidence" against you, such as by tracking your car with a gps tracking device, and then fire you, or maybe even prosecute you, for fraudulently filling out your timecard. Who would believe you? It's a time-honoured tradition for getting rid of unwanted employees: give them implicit, or even explicit (but undocumented) permission to do something that's technically against policy, then bust them for violating the policy.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[errandum]

That's the point. There is nothing wrong with using whatever means someone wants to check if you're inside (they could have a chip in your employee card, for example, that'd tell them where you are at all times inside the building).

They should not have been tracking him outside of the workplace / work hours.

If you take your private car out during the time you're supposed to be working, the company should be allowed to check that, right?

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[the eric conspiracy]

These days most employers have some boilerplate they hand out when you take a job that says they will do this if they feel it necessary. Really you should assume they monitoring you while you are on the job, if for no reason than protect themselves from things like that $2 billion loss UBS is stuck with.

I think this GPS tracking goes well beyond employer rights - monitoring outside the workplace is really a bit much, and I bet the courts will find this to be the case too.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[geekoid]

It could be a false choice, depending on the circumstance. Sure, they had a choice, they could what we want or get thrown into a pit of snakes and scorpions.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[sonamchauhan]

If you take your private car out during the time you're supposed to be working, the company should be allowed to check that, right?

In that case, if you make a private call on your cell phone during work hours the company should be able to check your call logs... by putting spyware on your phone.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[dbIII]

Where all the prosperity that would supposedly follow the Bush tax cuts?

China.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Venner]

>>
These days most employers have some boilerplate they hand out when you take a job that says they will do this if they feel it necessary. Really you should assume they monitoring you while you are on the job, if for no reason than protect themselves from things like that $2 billion loss UBS is stuck with.
>>

The point is that these were government workers. Your constitutional rights trump most of what they would ask you to waive. And courts have said that, say, your fourth amendment right require informed consent to waive, which a blanket waiver cannot satisfy.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[belmolis]

Such rights don't necessarily apply when the government is your employer. Just as private employers can do things to employees that the government cannot do to citizens in general, when the government acts as an employer, it acquires some of the privileges of private employers. For example, when an employee speaks on behalf of a government agency, the government has the right to control what he or she says, in spite of the First Amendment. This isn't to say that constitutional restrictions do not apply to the government as employer, but when they do and when they don't is complicated.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Runaway1956]

It is acceptable if they track a government owned car. Putting a GPS into the car is fine with me. Private car? They have no right, period. They want to track me, personally? During business hours, that's somewhat acceptable, but they aren't going to implant a GPS behind my ear, or hide it in my shoe. Good grief - if they can't keep track of employees without resorting to 24/7 GPS, then they are doing something terribly wrong.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Runaway1956]

My wife has the RFID thing, as part of her ID card. She never has to clock in, or clock out. As she enters and leaves the building, it makes a log entry to that effect. The apparently reads a short distance from the building that she works in, but that is no more than 1/2 mile, probably less than 1/4 mile. I'm not even sure what the maximum range is on those things. Once the computer picks her up though, it pinpoints her location pretty damned close, and she is never clocked in more than a minute before or after she actually walks through the gate, nor clocked out more than a minute before or after she walks back through the gate.

That sort of tracking is acceptable to me.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[currently_awake]

It's been a long time since the gov of USA followed that worthless piece of paper. (The value of your laws comes from the people forcing the gov/big buisness/rich people to follow them and the American people can't be bothered).

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's still the government doing it to people are are technically citizens of the country. Whether or not the government is acting as an employer is irrelevant. They are still the government. The government can't just declare that someone is their employee and do virtually whatever they want.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[517714]

Tracking with a GPS is not a search and it is not a seizure - it is an intrusion that does not rise to the level of a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The guy was fired for lying about his hours worked - you understand, fraud? Neither the firing nor the tracking fall under life, liberty, or property. It is creepy, it is not acceptable to me, but it is not covered in either of the amendments you cite.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[517714]

The government has no rights, it has powers. Those powers are limited by the Constitution. There is nothing, to my knowledge, in the Constitution that covers surveillance, as that is neither governmental search nor seizure which citizens are protected against by the Fourth Amendment. As a governmental agency (federal, state, or local) it is a fair assumption that they are doing something terribly wrong, but that something is more likely mismanagement, not violation of civil rights.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[drinkypoo]

It's a time-honoured tradition for getting rid of unwanted employees: give them implicit, or even explicit (but undocumented) permission to do something that's technically against policy, then bust them for violating the policy.

and that's why I read and understand the policies and procedures manual, and then demand in writing instruction to break P&P. I got fired from a local casino for conflicting with a group doing the bidding of someone who just got nailed (years later) for embezzlement etc. but they had to make shit up to do it because I refused several requests to engage in outright illegal behavior, demanding written proof. In the end they offered me my (expensive work-owned) laptop if I would go away quietly, and I did so because it's a tribal casino and GOOD FUCKING LUCK engaging in legal activity against a tribe or any of its holdings.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[drinkypoo]

Such rights don't necessarily apply when the government is your employer.

Actually, not only do they still apply according to the constitution (whether you can get your case to the supremes is another issue) but it doesn't matter if the government or a private party is tracking you, because the constitution doesn't say that the government shall not infringe, but that the rights of the people shall not be infringed.

The problem, of course, is getting the court to actually hear your case, because sometimes they make up a bullshit reason why they won't hear it (or give no reason at all) when there is clearly a violation of the constitution.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[sumdumass]

You give up certain rights when choosing to work for the government. In the scope of employment, the government is afforded most all of the same leeway that private enterprise is with respect to that employment.

You are right in that the government can't just declare someone an employee and do virtually what they want. The employee and employer relationship will be established pretty soundly long before whatever comes into question. There are a few exceptions to this though, like when President Reagan drafted the airline flight controllers and fired them all because they walked off the job in a strike that left hundreds of planes in the air with no controllers to safely guide them in putting many innocent lives in danger..

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[rubycodez]

Nope. Cell phones might interfere with devices or government security in some jobs, but that only means I would agree to not exercise my normal *right* to have one in such jobs if I held a job in say a hospital or military installation. But not at a "normal" business. So I reject your notion that in general some piece of shit HR choad can tell me my carrying cell phones at all times is a privilege. If they think they're man enough or butch enough they can try to take it from me and see where that lands them.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Runaway1956]

Surveillance, in any sane definition of it, would be included under "search". They are searching for evidence to be used against you.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[niftymitch]

...snip...

If you take your private car out during the time you're supposed to be working, the company should be allowed to check that, right?

This is inside out...
If you take your private car someplace during normal work hours -- NO.
Should they notice you are not at work-- Yes, but they do not need to
know where you go just that you are absent.

More apropos will be privacy issue should you visit a doctor, planned
parenthood, a psychiatrist, AA meeting or religious obligation. Yes even visit the
offices of the FBI or a legal counsel because the company is engaged
in something illegal or fraudulent as they are obviously doing.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Jane Q. Public]

"These days most employers have some boilerplate they hand out when you take a job that says they will do this if they feel it necessary."

But that's really begging the question. My assertion was that I don't think they should be able to monitor you electronically without informing you of that fact. Handing me a piece of boilerplate saying that I might be monitored is a different thing altogether. It does not inform you that you are being monitored.

But however much I disagree with the law, last I looked (which was 10 years ago) it was nevertheless the law. I agree with you that GPS goes beyond -- I would say far beyond -- any right of an employer to monitor an employee.

Monitoring trucks is a different matter, because that is their workplace.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[mpe]

Well, actually, I can think of plenty of ways you could be "set up" to "have an affair" as long as "have an affair" remains in quotes. Quite simply, a supervisor at work could require you to work late on various nights but arrange it in such a way that you have no proof that you really worked late. Then they could bring out someone they've hired to claim to have had an affair with you and tell your spouse that you were lying about working late.

Wouldn't they get in trouble for only employing married people? Also falsifying who is in the building probably violates fire regulations.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[errandum]

Just think on what you said. The GPS could be proof that you were doing something like that and not ditching work. Even though it would be invading some of your privacy, it could also be used to justify your absence during a certain period.

It's a double edged sword, I'm quite sure you can find good argument for both sides, but I'm just saying that if I owned a company I'd want to check on my employees during work hours. If I'm paying them to work, I actually want to make reasonably sure they do.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[tragedy]

Uh, yeah. If you're not married, they can set you up for plenty of other things as well. As for fire regulations... I'm pretty sure framing someone for something (adultery is a felony in at least one state), presumably for blackmail purposes, is already a criminal act. Violating fire regulations isn't exactly going to be much of a stretch for people willing to do that.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Coren22]

Adultery, Sodomy, Fellatio are a $5 fine in Maryland. I would be very curious what state that would be treated as a felony...

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[Coren22]

Narnia?

Ok, that was just pathetic, but yeah...

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[tragedy]

Michigan, where it can theoretically net you a life sentence. I think that's even without their three strikes law.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[sonamchauhan]

That's not what we're discussing. The issue is allowing you your personal item, then surreptitiously planting a tracking device in it.

Tell me, do you let your company plant spyware on your phone, or a tracking device on your car?

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, but the courts have already ruled that you don't have an expectation of privacy on the employer's premise except say when you are using a toilet, or while using it's IT systems.

Outside of work, that's a different story.

Re:Glad I work in the private sector.

[niftymitch]

Just think on what you said. The GPS could be proof that you were doing something like that and not ditching work. Even though it would be invading some of your privacy, it could also be used to justify your absence during a certain period.

It's a double edged sword, I'm quite sure you can find good argument for both sides, but I'm just saying that if I owned a company I'd want to check on my employees during work hours. If I'm paying them to work, I actually want to make reasonably sure they do.

Just think on what you said. The GPS could be proof that you were doing something like that and not ditching work. ...snip....

Yes, yet doctors keep appointment books and logs.
The FBI keeps logs...
You can subscribe to one of many family oriented trackers
and track yourself as you would a rambunctious teenager.

Yes as an employer you are paying them to work but that gives you rights in the
work place not in their lives. If there is an out of policy absence
dock them pay after your ask for an in policy explanation.

If the workspace is in a vehicle then miles and routes inside of the
prescribed works hours get interesting and murky depending on
who owns the vehicle and the employee status. The murky bit
can be cleared up by a clear policy that covers ALL employees.

To secretly target an individual because you are able to
as a state agency is likely an abuse of power. Note that
an individual abused by a corporation normally has recourse
via the state. This fail-safe seems to be absent which makes
the abuse of power likely, insidious and troubling.

What was the state thinking?!?

[bignetbuy]

What reasons could the state possibly have had to put a GPS tracker on an employee's personal vehicle? And track the vehicle outside of business hours? This stinks of big brother and privacy intrusions. What an employee does on their own personal time and in their own personal car should be their own personal business. I could be buying hookers and blow every weekend but if I show up on time during the week and do my job, the state should have no say in the matter.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[nharmon]

This appears to be a case where the employee was using his vehicle for work-related transportation, and his supervisors began to suspect that the hours he was reporting were not the hours he was actually working. So instead of hiring someone to follow the employee (read: expensive), they attached a cheap GPS tracker and then retrieved it days or weeks later.

Maybe a better solution would have been to provide him a state vehicle with a hidden GPS tracker. :P

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[increment1]

As alluded to in the article, they were looking into his timesheets and his assertion that he worked odd hours.

It looks like the state thought he was lying about his hours, and so used the GPS tracker to catch him in a lie concerning hours worked. It seems a touch excessive, but government jobs likely require a high standard of proof in order to fire an employee.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[mclearn]

It doesn't sound like you read the article, but your questions are still just as valid. TFA states that they had not exhausted all non-GPS solutions to tracking him. But then it fails to go on the say why they felt they needed to track him in ANY capacity in the first place.

...but if I show up on time during the week and do my job

The TFA does indicate the employee "filed improper time sheets" and eluded to the fact that a "...pattern of misconduct and the difficulty of constant in-person surveillance justified the technique". Guess what, folks? It is not justified. Someone should be fired for this.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[Amouth]

Maybe a better solution would have been to provide him a state vehicle with a hidden GPS tracker. :P

Or an Obvious one, functional or not. That might have got him back into line if there was wrong doing, or show he wasn't worth keeping, either way it would have been far cheaper than a lawsuit even if they win it.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[flaming error]

> government jobs likely require a high standard of proof

Or at least a reason that sounds better than "we fired him for being a whistleblower."

Although somehow, "we gps-tracked a whistleblower's car 24/7" doesn't sound much better.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[idontgno]

TFA states that they had not exhausted all non-GPS solutions to tracking him.

Even that formulation misses a critical point: The objective which would have been meaningful to their goal (proving timecard fraud) was not "track him"; the appropriate objective is "verify workplace attendance". The phrase in TFA (yeah, I know, no one reads that... just go with it for a second) "worked odd hours at his job" (emphasis mine) indicates that finding out where he was at any time should not have been the objective... only finding out when he was in the office. (He wasn't working from someplace else, since the presumption is "at his job"... at his place of employment.)

So GPS tracking is solving the wrong problem. A webcam monitoring ingress and egress to his office, or computer system logs... a physical access control like a card entry system would have gone a long ways towards determining the real information they needed.

GPS was the wrong solution because it was answering the wrong question. It's not justified.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[idontgno]

I think I just realized you made the same point as me, and probably better. Oh, well, it's late, it's Friday. Maybe some moderator will oblige by uprating you or downrating me as redundant, which would be OK by me.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[idontgno]

The state investigated his work habits by tracking his vehicle. He was eventually fired based on the evidence, which he does not dispute, as he is not seeking reinstatement or back pay. These employees can not be fired without extraordinary evidence; the sort produced by, say, tracking a vehicle.

Or, don't forget, waterboarding. That's pretty good at getting results, too. I bet we can get the guy to admit to being Al Qaeda's inside man in NYC if we're willing to foot the water bill.

GPS tracking is a potentially applicable tool for... tracking locations. It is hunting flies with shotguns for the purposes of monitoring workplace attendance, with the lovely side effect of shredding constitutionally-protected privacy rights.

Your argument seems to be the same kind of weak apologist crap we see in "Think of the children" or "The terrorists will win!" scaremongering. The ends do not justify every means. Otherwise the Bill of Rights is a waste of ink.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[Score Whore]

While there a circuit split exists on the question of warrantless GPS tracking, it has long been settled that what you do on the public road isn't private and there are no protections against monitoring your whereabouts in public.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[joocemann]

No.

The appropriate response is to counsel the employee about perceived work concerns and ask him/her to make changes to prevent termination. Then keep doing the passive monitoring (or using more precise monitoring that you got VOLUNTARY agreement from the subject to use) and see if things change. If performance remains low or the subject is still showing signs of malingering, terminate employment.

Respect and communication is far more ideal that going behind and literally creeping on people. If they underperform, replace them; no need to drag it into an example setting situation or unethical relationship.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[joocemann]

Whistleblower? Link please. I'm interested to read.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[Asic Eng]

If it actually was that important to them to find out whether he was working or not, they could have simply installed a visible camera at the entrance of his workplace.

Besides being way over the top surveillance, the GPS device would only tell them where his car was. So what happens if someone drops him off at work, or if he cycles to work on occasion, or if he is using his wife's car sometimes?

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[geekoid]

well, there is a link in the fucking summary.
RTFA.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[tompaulco]

Just because he may have been defrauding the government doesn't mean we should condone illegal and unconstitutional methods in order to try to find him out.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[sjames]

4th paragraph of TFA.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[sjames]

How about when he parks in a private garage?

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[Rich0]

Obviously they're not very well coordinated either. With all the plate-scanning technology and cameras floating around, I'm sure they could have tracked him without the GPS.

Part of me is tempted to try to create an open-source database where anybody who wants to can just set up a camera and upload faces, license plates, locations, and timestamps to some central repository. I suspect that the people that you'd prefer not to have access to this sort of thing already have it. What would society look like if EVERYBODY knew the location of EVERYBODY all the time?

Maybe privacy is just something incompatible with the information age. Social taboos and such will just have to evolve to handle a society where everybody you know does stuff you'd prefer that they didn't and everybody knows it.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[SecurityGuy]

Problem: Employee claiming weird hours

Solution: Employee, the following concerns exist about the quality of your work: <list>. Consequently, you are no longer authorized to work weird hours.

Then you simply fire his ass when he can't be bothered to show up at normal o'clock like everybody else.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[rust627]

and once this is accepted as valid for court, it will be used again and again

Because if you have no reason to hide then you have nothing to fear right ?

so having your employer track your car 24/7 is acceptable to you ?

Maybe they could just download GPS data from your (company supplied) phone and thats okay because you have nothing to hide, and it is the next logical step from GPSing your car. And of course only the wrong-doers will have a problem with this.

One guy I know worked as a medical rep for a large multinational company, making very good money. He also used to work as a stripper on weekends, often earning double or triple the average weekly wage from his weekend work.
Until his boss found out.
He was told that, although there was no reason why he could not work as a stripper on weekends, the company took a dim view of it and if he continued, it would be considered a basis for dismissal (personal life of a representative besmirching the 'good' name of the company), so much for the 'as long as i turn up on time and do my job, what i do in my own time is my own business' argument.
I might also add that at the time he was the best sales rep they had, often selling double or more against all the other reps for the state (and one of the top 3 in the country).
I might add that his boss only found out, because of a friend of a friend on Facebook.........

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[cheekyjohnson]

The state investigated his work habits by tracking his vehicle.

I don't care what reasons they had if they didn't tell him they were going to track him.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[ctid]

1. They put a tracking device on his private vehicle. That is a crime.

2. He does want his job back. He says that he was fired because the enquiry used evidence from the GPS device, which was installed illegally. His view is that that evidence is inadmissible so it should not be taken into account.

3. You should read the article more carefully.

Re:What was the state thinking?!?

[Phreakiture]

The problem with that approach is that, contrary to the popular saying, perception is, in fact not reality.

The worker who is already there when the boss comes in because he/she works 07:00-15:30 will get looked on more favourably than the one who comes in around 11:00 and works until 23:00 or midnight or later, even. Despite the fact that the latter is doing more work, or at least spending more time at work, he/she will be perceived as a slacker, simply because he comes in so late, even if the arrangement is on record. I've seen it.

The better approach is to use a carrot. The state used a stick. The carrot approach would have been to provide him with a car for business use, as mentioned before. If business use is too little to warrant him having his own company car, then establish a motor pool. Having worked for New York State, I can attest that the government here is certainly big enough to warrant a motor pool.

Alternatively, they could do what my current employer does, and issue a cell phone with GPS turned on and locked down (which, just for the record, stays home or gets its battery removed when I am not on call).

Short answer...

[Kenja]

not as far as they did. Or at least not in my totally non-legally binding opinion. While there are some jobs in which you are never truly off the clock, once you're on your own time and outside of the business environs you're privacy should be covered by that whole 4th amendment and other stuff. Unless of course as per terms of employment you give consent.

Employment agreement?

[mallyn]

Is this type of stuff covered in his employment agreement? That can decide the case.

Re:Employment agreement?

[UnknowingFool]

Except that the employer in this case is a state government and there already are limitations imposed on what governments can do.

Re:Employment agreement?

[tompaulco]

Not just the government. You can agree to give up a constitutional right in an employment agreement, but you can't actually give it up. Even if he said "Yes, I give up my right to privacy outside of the workplace", he still has the right to privacy outside the workplace.

Acting like this is a new thing...

[MimeticLie]

Tracking personal vehicles without a warrant? Why not? If it's good enough for one agency of the government, why not for all of them?

New York

[Hatta]

New York's court of appeals has already determined that GPS tracking by law enforcement is illegal without a warrant. Since the powers of cops are a superset of the powers of an individual, this case should be a slam dunk for the plaintiff.

Re:New York

[curio_city]

I may be missing something about the process here, but if it's such a slam dunk, why is an appeals court hearing about it? Shouldn't that case have been cited in a motion to exclude the GPS evidence? Or are state court of appeals decisions not binding in lower courts?

Re:New York

[hey!]

... Since the powers of cops are a superset of the powers of an individual ...

That's not precisely true. Actually it's just not true at all. Not even close.

The powers of police and of some private individual are overlapping sets, but that's not even close to relevant, because what's going on here is an "administrative search". There are rules governing such searches, but they're looser than rules in criminal matters. That's why the TSA (ho aren't cops) can frisk you at the security checkpoint of an airport without a warrant or probable cause.

Other cases of administrative search include:

* Drug testing pilots or subway drivers without any specific reason to suspect the individual.
* School administrators searching student lockers.
* Health inspection of restaurants.
* Safety inspections of nuclear power plants.

I have a feeling that putting a GPS on a private automobile falls outside the normal scope of what an administrative search allows, but that'll probably go to court and who knows what the courts will make of it.

The GPS data seems relevant at least to the purpose of the investigation, which is to find out whether the guy is falsifying his timesheet and travel documents. That said, I know one person who works for a state agency that requires employees to put in signed timecards for the week early on Friday morning, including the time they're going to knock off that afternoon and any time they might end up spending on the weekend. So it's quite common for employees of that agency to falsify their timecards for the next week so they get credit for the time they work.

Re:New York

[Hatta]

Ah, yes. Administrative law. Nothing but an end run around the constitution. You can't just make up a new body of law and pretend the constitution doesn't apply to it. Either consent of the individual is required to affix something to his property or it is not. If it is, then you must get a warrant to do so. If it is not, then anyone may do so. Anything else is unconstitutional.

Re:New York

[amiga3D]

The government pretends the Constitution doesn't apply on a routing basis nowadays.

Re:New York

[Hatta]

Yes, I know. It's surprising how many people deny that fact. It's important to point that out on a regular basis to make it harder to deny. Counter the Big Lie with the Big Truth.

Re:New York

[BitterOak]

New York's court of appeals has already determined that GPS tracking by law enforcement is illegal without a warrant. Since the powers of cops are a superset of the powers of an individual, this case should be a slam dunk for the plaintiff.

Unfortunately, federal courts have disagreed. In particular, the 7th Circuit Court of appeals ruled in United States vs. Garcia (Case no. 06-2741), that police don't need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspects car.

Sounds like what Cisco did to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Ex-Cisco employee here. Anon for a reason. They planted a gps tracker in my laptop and pushed down gps tracking software to my cell phone (personal phone, but attached to their email servers). All reporting back to some database servers in Cisco's corporate datacenters.

Found this, confronted them, and negotiated a significant settlement for not going public with the info. Don't care if they track me down now based on this posting, though, as they just laid off a ton of my great friends who remained. So, hopefully this will gain traction and other Cisco employees will look into this unethical (and illegal?) tracking of employees.

And you don't even want to know what kind of monitoring stuff they snuck into their IP Phones... If the public ever figures that out, Cisco has a great cover story ready: there's so much legacy code from Selsius (the original manufacturer of the phone technology) that it was cleverly hidden and unnoticed through years of QA testing.

Re:Sounds like what Cisco did to me

[Half-pint HAL]

Found this, confronted them, and negotiated a significant settlement for not going public with the info. Don't care if they track me down now based on this posting, though, as they just laid off a ton of my great friends who remained..

You don't care if they track you down and declare you're in breach of a legally binding contract and take you to court to get the settlement money back...?

Re:Sounds like what Cisco did to me

[sjames]

Probably not, that would require making the incident a matter of public record and still wouldn't prove that the AC here is the same person and not just a good guesser.

Re:Sounds like what Cisco did to me

[AdamInParadise]

The first Selsius phone was released in November 1997 and the company was acquired by Cisco in November 1998. That's a bit short to create much legacy code. Plus I think lots of the current IP phones they sell actually came from Linksys...

Re:Sounds like what Cisco did to me

[phoenix321]

Declaring him in breach of a contract means publicly announcing that they GPS-tracked their employees and confirm it on file.

With this info public and confirmed, thousands of current and ex-employees will sue them for truckloads of money.

Thousands of employees filing claims is several orders of magnitude more expensive than reclaiming the settlement money of one single contract. Adding to that, the reputation damage of Cisco is incredible - in the eyes of the general public, their customers and, most importantly, their potential new employees.

In the very sensitive market for a) network security equipment and b) rare specialist tech employees, confirming underhanded practices and snugging in hidden software in equipment is not only heavily frowned upon, but tantamount to corporate suicide. Who would buy firewall technology from a company known to sneak hidden software into their equipment? Which heavily sought-after techie - who are usually very keen on privacy and do-not-track policies - would apply for a job with a company known to bug their *private* phones?

Cisco would essentially be dead in the water, soon joining Nortel.

So no, they will never call an anonymous source out on a non-disclosure contract. They can dismiss this now as "just rumors and FUD", which it actually is. Confirming it with a lawsuit would cost them billions, so they will remain perfectly quiet, even if these rumors were true.

Re:Sounds like what Cisco did to me

[GameboyRMH]

I don't know if it was worth putting yourself at risk to let us know that Cisco is a bunch of scummy shitsacks, I mean, we already knew that...

Re:Sounds like what Cisco did to me

[GameboyRMH]

He probably attached his personal Blackberry to their BBES server (big mistake, this gives the BBES admin total power over your phonre) and then they pushed a GPS tracker app to his Blackberry.

Re:Sounds like what Cisco did to me

[gl4ss]

you'd notice the gps being on though? wastes battery life and all that.
cellid/nearby-wifi-or-bt tracking can be done quite silently.

the fuckers who did the pushing of the app should be quartered though. no chance in hell they didn't know that they had no business doing that. just following orders my ass. the worst kind of IT support staff is the dolts who think that it's their job to spy on the employees - and don't even bother with whats legal or not. tough luck if that makes sniffing your corporations network illegal, just do your admin stuff otherwise(it's possible).

Fan-tastic...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Kate Nepveu, an assistant solicitor general, said the state realized the GPS tracking was intrusive, but Cunningham's pattern of misconduct and the difficulty of constant in-person surveillance justified the technique."

Yup, we knew that we had no business doing it; but he was a Bad Guy and doing our jobs is Hard. Cry, cry, pity me... Is there any sort of procedural abuse that one couldn't justify with exactly that line? Virtually everything we call "due process" is inconvenient for the prosecution, and I've never heard of somebody going after someone that they wouldn't at least say was guilty of misconduct...

Re:Fan-tastic...

[Simulant]

What's truly fucked up here is that they felt that they couldn't fire him simply because of his "pattern of misconduct". They appear to have felt that they needed more proof or something.

I'm not familiar with the New York State government but if it is anything like the federal government, it's nearly impossible to get fired, even with criminal misconduct. Our government will never be more efficient unless they fix this.

I do not defend the GPS tracking but nor do I automatically assume that this guy shouldn't have been fired.

Re:Fan-tastic...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's truly fucked up here is that they felt that they couldn't fire him simply because of his "pattern of misconduct". They appear to have felt that they needed more proof or something.

Since his initial misconduct was publicly complaining about being pressured to join prayer meetings, they had to find something else to justify firing him. At least that's his story.

Re:Fan-tastic...

[Asic Eng]

What's truly fucked up here is that they felt that they couldn't fire him simply because of his "pattern of misconduct". They appear to have felt that they needed more proof or something.

I interpret that to mean "there wasn't actually a pattern of misconduct, we went on a fishing expedition hoping to find one".

Re:Fan-tastic...

[geekoid]

pattern of misconduct does not mean misconduct. It means there was something(s) observed that might have been misconduct.

They went overboard, and they didn't need to do so.

Our government is far more efficient then the media would have you believe.

In fact, it does a great many things far better then any one else in the world.
Look at budget reports, TCO, and audit reports.

Yes, something get out of hand. SOmetime for good reasonl sometime not, but theya re in the minority.

Just so you know, in a formet life I worked very closely with provate a gavernment accounting book. The government books were alyes tughter, more accountable, and hardly ahve in discrepicies. Private sector on the other hand, is often a mess. I routinly saw expenditures ont he book thatno one could track.

In one case, I found a 15 Million dollar year expenditure that had been going on for 10 years,and no one knew where the money went. At it s very well known company. Something everyone who wheres shoes has heard of.

Aftera few eyars of that work , I canme to realize that the government, as a whole, is very, very good.

There is a perception issue that' s an issue. For example, in maby government agency., if someone like their job, there is no rpessure to move up. This minimized the Peter Principle, and you end up with an extremely knwoledgable employee.
People in the private sector often see this as lazy becasue they ahve a up or out attitude.

I now work for a city government. I work hard, do boring work that save citizens lot's of money, and I am always asked to find way to increase efficiency.

It's boring because the tech is old.

I make less money* then I would in the private sector, but I have a life after 40 hours.

*30%, statistically.

Re:Fan-tastic...

[tompaulco]

You forgot to include:

Posted from my iPhone.

Re:Fan-tastic...

[GameboyRMH]

In one case, I found a 15 Million dollar year expenditure that had been going on for 10 years,and no one knew where the money went. At it s very well known company. Something everyone who wheres shoes has heard of.

Hey, sometimes you have to pay assassins as part of a marketing campaign, and then you have to pay mercenary organizations to help cover it up...it all adds up, and they don't take unicorn farts.

Re:Fan-tastic...

[mpe]

Since his initial misconduct was publicly complaining about being pressured to join prayer meetings, they had to find something else to justify firing him.

Especially given that any kind of pressure to take part in any religious activity in work time (possibly even just sanctioning such a thing in the workplace) sounds like serious misconduct on their part.

Simple...

[Jawnn]

No warrant, no evidence... Oh, wait...

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[Toonol]

I'm an atheist, and I'm worried about YOUR fundamentalism.

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[VIPERsssss]

Can you point us to some of that commentary?

Re:How is this different ...

[Roberticus]

I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for a worker-friendly, anti-Big Brother decision from the current Supreme Court.

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[Dunbal]

Usually atheist/agnostic "asshats" are the ones who are extremely tolerant. I invite you to actually research this topic, but I know you won't. Better to do what the guy in the funny/shiny clothes says some ancient bad sci-fi anthology says.

Overtime!

[peacefinder]

If his employer was tracking him, it must have been for work purposes, right? So since he was on the clock, he should at least be paid his contracted rate for all the time he was tracked.

Re:Overtime!

[amiga3D]

You may be saying this to be amusing but I'd be willing to bet he could find a lawyer to sue the state for backpay.

Re:Overtime!

[peacefinder]

True, but "a willing lawyer" isn't a tough standard to meet. :-)

Still - in all seriousness - it's hard to imagine a jury who wouldn't be on his side.

Over the line

[msobkow]

Even if a company or government agency is putting trackers on company vehicles, I think the employees using them should be made aware they're being tracked.

But to put a tracker on someone's private vehicle without notifying them? Even the FBI isn't allowed to do that!

Re:Over the line

[bell.colin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-grants-students-request-to-delay-his-case-against-fbi-for-putting-gps-on-his-car/2011/09/12/gIQAbu2qNK_story.html

You we're saying?...

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[nedlohs]

Sure they do. Everyone is free to pressure people via ranting and raving. Unless the one doing the pressuring is "the government" (or an agent thereof) in which case pressuring someone to perform (or not perform) religious acts is not just illegal but unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure the Coward you are replying to isn't acting as an agent of the government and hence is well within his rights to pressure people (via legal mechanisms like talking to them, using a soapbox and ranting, etc) to give up on religion.

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[kenshin33]

being atheist or religious has nothing to do with of being an asshat.

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[Dunbal]

On the contrary, I think the ability to readily believe what other people tell you exists contrary to all reason and evidence to the contrary tends to predispose people to being asshats.

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[tragedy]

Even if your take on the separation of Church and State is correct (and I don't agree that it was only intended to stop government messing with religion and not vice versa), requiring employees to go to a politicians prayer breakfast fails to "protect peoples' religion from the corrupting influence of politics". They might not share a religion, or at least have religious differences, with those running the prayer meeting. For example, they may be atheists or agnostics. Or Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Wiccan, Pastafarian, Catholic, etc. Or they might be expecting a politician to also include the US flag somehow in the proceedings and consider that a form of idolatry.

Or hey, maybe they just don't want to go.

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[the eric conspiracy]

Poppycock. In addition to the First Amendment which prohibits establishment of a state religion, there is Article VI:

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Clearly the Founders intended a very bright line to separate church and state.

Jefferson wrote in his law guaranteeing religious freedom in Virginia:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right"

So it is a NATURAL RIGHT to be free to make one's choice and opinion regarding religion, FREE of government influence, and government office should never be subject to requirements of religious tests. Nor should any support for religion be mandated by taxation.

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[kenshin33]

what you just described is gullibility/stupidity. it's not exclusive to religious people (I may be mistaken there). if that means asshat you're right. I used/understood the word as a synonym of asshole.
That aside (and I'm not a religious person at all), religion is more like not some exhaustive guidelines/basic laws to live with (a little bit like a constitution) what is derived from that is man made (if we accept for the sake of the argument that the said constitution is divine) and therefor may be very subjective and biased to serve some given agenda of the day, be it good or bad (a bit like Constitution / PATRIOT ACT).

You're wrong RTFA

[geekoid]

"He was defrauding the government by lying about his hours to collect undue compensation."
alledgedly, and he does duispute it.

" He was eventually fired based on the evidence, which he does not dispute, as he is not seeking reinstatement or back pay. "
Not exactly:

"Stoughton, in a hearing Thursday before the Appellate Division Third Judicial Department, said she wasn't arguing that Cunningham get his $115,000 job back, but that he should receive another hearing without the GPS-based evidence."

The hearing will determin if he gets his job back. He isn't siuning about gettng his job back, he is suing to get a fair trial regard ig he shoudl ahve been removed in the first place. These are different things.

" Your reaction is also why he will eventually be awarded a big fat settlement at taxpayer expense; "
WTF do you base THAT on? this hearing has nothing to do with any settlemsn iother the getting his job back, and presumable, awarded what ever pay he would have earned.

In the guise of belittling someone for their 'knee jerk' reaction, you made a knee jerk reaction. The article should take the average persona bout 45 seconds to read. You should have take 5 minute to read the article before posting.

And teachers salary come from a different pool.

This is Stalking

[amiga3D]

There should be criminal charges here. Tracking a vehicle 24/7 is stalking. If I did this to someone's vehicle you can bet they'd throw me in jail. Just because he was an employee doesn't make it legal.

Re:This is Stalking

[Culture20]

It's stalkerish, but it's not stalking. Stalking requires a physical presence (and in most states, a threat or threatening demeanor) that this case lacks.

Re:Sounds like a lot of folks should see jail time

[Omestes]

So it is a NATURAL RIGHT...

I'm not disagreeing with your point. I actually agree 100%. That said:

WTF is a "Natural Right"? In nature, as far as I can tell, you have the right to attempt to survive, and that's about it. Beyond that, I can't see it. There are not natural rights, only social constructions that we mostly agree with as a culture. I have never heard a convincing argument for the a priori existence of rights of any type, and I went to school for that kind of stuff. Please explain what a "natural right" is, how it is derived, and "freedom of religion" fits into this.

Not to sound like a philosophical pedant, but proclaiming something as a right doesn't have that much force really, and we bandy the term around so much that what force it could have has pretty much completely evaporated.

Fear based management is fundamentally flawed

[yuhong]

Fear based management of people leading to more and more invasive surveillance is a classic fundamental flaw I think.

cool story, bro

[adolf]

My (non-government) employer used to track my cell phone, using VZW's Field Force Manager system. It wasn't a completely unreasonable request since I was doing field work for them, and I was just as able to use it to show that I was working when/where I said I was as they were to do the opposite.

It worked, but it was a pain in the ass. The battery in the phone would go from a full charge to nothing in less than an hour in areas of poor or zero signal, and it was impossible to actually turn the software off (it would magically turn itself back on again), so it was going 24/7 and I found myself completely frustrated by having to keep the thing both available to me and tied to a charger at all times. And this with an old dumb Motorola handset with an extended battery, which prior to the tracking software would work for a week or two (!) without charging.

It's not so much that I don't trust my boss (I do, very much), but that the process of asking myself if I should trust my boss which bothered me, along with always being mindful to keep the stupid thing plugged in. Between questioning my circle of trust and always looking for a place to charge up, I really became very angry about the whole thing.

Eventually, I changed the configuration (on the cloud side of things) to turn off at around 5:30PM, which helped a hugely with my sanity, and kept my battery usage low during most non-work hours. (I never asked anyone before making this adjustment to the system (oh, durnit - must've forgot) and nobody ever changed it back...)

But even then, I was bothered by an overzealous manager who would keep track of me even while I was at lunch and who would question every activity. So I bought a little Faraday cage from dealextreme, and started using that at lunch, or if I had time off during the week.

And that restored a little bit more of my sanity.

Eventually, after the release of the Motorola Droid, I convinced the boss that I should have a fancier phone. Unfortunately, at that time the Droid did not support Field Force Manager (it might by now), so the notion of automatic tracking just sort of disappeared and I haven't been tracked by my employer since.

My sanity was almost fully restored: Almost, because I also lost the ability to show that I actually was where I said I'd been.

Later on, I quit that hourly job and started doing contract work for the same folks. Now, nobody gives a fuck where I'm at or what I'm doing, as long as the work gets done and the customer is happy. I am thus currently running at 100% sanity, and everyone else is happy too. (I still have my own office area at the shop, but nobody has expected me to fill it ever since, and I haven't actually seen it in months.)

The moral of this story is simple: If your boss is tracking you and you don't like it for whatever reason, offer to quit and become a contractor. :)

How is this a privacy "issue"?

[superdude72]

There's no issue whatsoever. They clearly violated his rights.

No legislation

[sturmisch]

Location privacy (unlike the domain of audio privacy -- such as wiretapping legislation) has basically no definition in the law. Meanwhile, there are a lot of practical uses for companies to use GPS tracking (e.g. truck route efficiency algorithms), however practically no legislation governing what it can and can't be used for. Recent stories about iPhone tracking indicate that people feel its intrusive, but without legislation that outlines appropriate use, companies are just going to make it up as they go along.

The key is the word employee

[nurb432]

Doesn't matter who you work for, if you are on the clock, you are on their time.

Re:The key is the word employee

[gl4ss]

I guess you missed the ending of the blurb which says 24/7, he wasn't on clock 24/7..

Actually I'm not all that upset about this

[Rastl]

The article is missing some very necessary information but that's to be expected when it's every so slightly slanted to express their views on the situation. Then again, it's their reporting so they can write it however they want.

The state's position was that they had no reasonable way to verify what he was claiming was work and he already had a pattern of behaviour that they were investigating. Any obvious method of trying to verify future work would skew his patterns ("Hey. They caught on. I'll play by the rules until they back off.") so they would be unable to substantiate the complaint.

If he was being reimbursed for using his personal car then it becomes an extension of his job. They're paying for usage, they have the right to confirm it's being used correctly. It's like requiring a copy of a hotel bill with itemized charges to make sure you're not claiming raiding the mini bar and ordering porn when that's against company policy.

As long as they only introduced evidence that was relevant to the case and was related to the filed timesheets I really don't see a problem with this. To be completely clear they should have provably destroyed the data that wasn't directly related to the investigation. Heck, they may have and it just didn't make it into the blip of a story

The moral here is "Be honest" when you're in a situation where it's very possible for the company to need additional proof of you doing the work you're being paid to do. If he had been salaried and the company didn't care when the work was done then it wouldn't have been an issue since in spirit salaried employees get paid for working, not for specific hours worked.

I save my outrage for clear situations of abuse. This one seems to have a lot of justification behind it.

Re:Private Companies w/ company trucks do this

[gl4ss]

company trucks are quite different beast from company owned vehicles in private use.
in most countries they're different beasts when it comes to taxing too.

very different... basically even if he was doing misconduct, it might have just been direct result of the company being what it was(jerks willing to spy on his holidays) - so in this case the company lost it's stance anyways...

RFID thing... tell more

[niftymitch]

My wife has the RFID thing, as part of her ID card. ....snip....

Tell me more about the RFID thing. Most work by actively
saturating a region with an electro-magnetic field strong enough
to activate a transmitter/ receiver.

Many people believe that cell phones cause brain cancer...
what about this electro-magnetic field. It is one thing
to have entrances and exits surrounded by a bounded and very
localized power field. It is another to have "the work place"
saturated with them. And if it reaches out 400 meters or
more from the work place then the power levels boggle the mind.
Card key readers are quite local and are activated to distances
of less than a meter. Merchant RFID tags work because of
the gate like localization of the power and receiver hardware at the
doors.

Hmmm....

EULA

[ThatsNotPudding]

Coming soon to your employment contract: requirements that you wave all your rights, privacies, and any type of legal redress.