Slashdot Mirror
Judge Demands Email and Facebook Passwords From Women In Sexual Harassment Case
An anonymous reader writes "Back in September, a U.S. judge ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) rights of a 12-year-old student by forcing her to hand over her Facebook password to school officials who in turn used it to search for messages they deemed inappropriate. This month, another U.S. judge has ordered that women suing their employer for sexual harassment must hand over cell phones, passwords to their email accounts, blogs, as well as to Facebook and other social networks."
I propose /. split into two sites, one featuring litigation and the other focuses on news for nerds.
A judge is perfectly permitted to require the defense access to potentially usable evidence given probable cause that the evidence is there. School officials, on the other hand, are not judges or part of the legal system.
Complete non-story by some muckraker. Naturally, /. posts it.
We'e seen a few stories recently like this, where a judge has demanded someone to turn over information that they've already agreed not to in a TOS.
Was this ever resolved, whether a judge can order you to violate a TOS? Either it's legally binding or it's not. Not variable on who's asking or whether or not it's convenient. They need to make up their minds.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Not at all.
If you are suing, then cell phones, Facebook and email are all part of the evidence in the case. Without reading the sepcifics I cannot tell you why the judge wanted it.
The teachers requiring a FB p/w were on a fishing expedition that went beyond the purview of their positions.
So a woman claims sexual harassment, states that all the evidence is on her phone, email and facebook, and we're supposed to be outraged that the judge wants the evidence?
Yes, I checked the linked articles to make sure, downmod me for that, but without providing this information the accuser has no case whatsoever.
I'm impressed that the judge actually wants the evidence, most of the lawsuits that get to Slashdot seem to show judges who ignore all evidence and go with whatever lawyer has the prettiest tie that day.
Even if the sexual harassment suit doesn't involve these forms of communication? Or could be verified by other means?
That's the equivalent of saying that they need to allow the defense attorneys to search their home and make copies of all their personal documents.
OTOH, seems as though a woman with a solid case for sexual harassment that does involve electronic communications would want to submit these all their electronic records to help the case (although not the passwords).
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
The plaintiff was allegedly using facebook to make statements about the case and other events relevant to the case.
Facebook should have a secondary READ ONLY password that can be voided after say 7 days
or Facebook should simply give the court a dump of the required info
btw whats with them needing the actual hardware since the phones themselves should not have the needed data anymore
(i could see asking for the NUMBERS but not the hardware)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Good call! People put everything on facebook, I wouldn't be surprised for the clinch pin to be on the facebook wall or in a facebook message.
Some conversations should be private because of the feelings and emotions that can arise from having them made public. The idea that every aspect of all our lives should be open to the entire world seems silly. Sadly anything you put on the internet can and most likely will be made public either through people leaking it, the laws demanding it or lacked IT security letting it slip through the cracks. It is important to teach our kids that what they say online will last forever and will follow them for the rest of their lives.
There is a BIG difference between a judge ordering someone to disclose their facebook password to collect evidence and a school teacher or principal doing it. Also, the person in question here is the plaintiff. The defense generally does have a lot of latitude when it comes to evidence collection. My only complaint here is that the plaintiff's sexual behavior outside of work should not be relevant or admissible, but it looks like from some of the statements that the defense is going to push to get that stuff admitted. The judge should put pretty strict criteria on what evidence may be collected and presented to the jury. We aren't really getting those details here, though.
subpoena Facebook and all the other relevant parties?
Fuck you and your terrorism fear mongering. Seriously, just fuck you. People like you are a far bigger threat to our freedom than any terrorist.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
As a first step we should demand "read only" access passwords from our service providers. Almost all the accounts, from trivial throwaway email accounts to brokerage/mutual fund accounts holding hundreds of thousands of dollars offer just one level of access. Either you get full access to do anything you damn well please, or nothing. If we have a "valet key" access with limited privileges at least we can be sure these cops or judges won't be able to mess it up.
Other benefits include third party services that can watch for bills being posted, bills being paid on trime, or do investment portfolio analysis etc. E-Trade used to have something similar. They had a regular password and then a second "trading password" to invoke non-const member functions like ordering funds transfer or to buy/sell securities. But, sadly, they took it away.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I imagine they're looking for something like a private FB/email message to a friend planning what false story they're going to tell.
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ? If not it has nothing to do with the case.
Uh, false?
Certainly there are numerous ways that facebook communications could have something significant to do with the case, without being the specific venue for harassment.
If only the article mentioned something specifi...OH LOOK:
Statements that discuss her financial expectations in [the] lawsuit; a photograph of herself wearing a shirt with the word “CUNT” in large letters written across the front (a term she alleges was used pejoratively against her, also alleging that such use offended her); musings about her emotional state in having lost a beloved pet as well as having suffered a broken relationship; other writings addressing her positive outlook on how her life was post-termination; her self-described sexual aggressiveness; statements about actions she engaged in as a supervisor with Defendant . . . ; sexually amorous communications with other class members; her post-termination employment and income opportunities and financial condition . . .
What part of the constitution does this violate? And do you know what a warrant is or how it is issue?
I suppose this is going to be the new normal when it comes to the discovery phases of court cases like this. It's an odd approach, I wonder why he just didn't subpoena the various services themselves for the information. Maybe it would have taken too much time I guess?
That being said, the comparison of the 12-year old being forced by school officials to provide her passwords and the case of this woman is fallacious. In a court of law, in particular with cases involving defamation and harassment, a judge can, and often does, force you to provide things that would otherwise be private if it's deemed relevant to the case (and given the circumstances in this case, it most certainly is).
Does the fact that the judge ordered for this disclosure require Facebook not to close the account when the account holder violates their terms of service?
If Facebook does close the account does the account holder have any recourse to get the account reinstated? Does the judge?
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. This is pretty clearly unreasonable. Normally when you have a situation like this, you go to a computer forensics company and get them to sift through the dataset for data that is relevant. They get a copy of the data, not access to the original data. This way, the worst that can happen is that they violate your privacy. The search is done according to instructions given by the judge, and only matches are provided to the opposing council.
Letting opposing council, or even a forensics company, have the password to your personal accounts is very, very different. If they are corrupt, they can modify the evidence. Additionally, if sexual harassment was in fact occurring, the harasser may well use the access to perpetrate further harassment once the case is decided.
So no, sorry, the judge is way, way wrong here. The subpoena should have gone to Facebook, not to the plaintiff.
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ? If not it has nothing to do with the case.
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Suppose there's a wall post by the defendant, or a note or a message to a friend that says something on the lines of "Boy my employer is a hottie, I'd just like to take him for a ride if you know what I mean!" - how would that having nothing to do with the case? A statement like that would pretty much throw this case out - if it's reasonable (or provable) that she was the one that made these statements (meaning someone else didn't make the statements via a hacked account) then I don't see why facebook statements can't be used or relevant.
:
One of the tidbits of information the plaintiff claims is relevant is this
; a photograph of herself wearing a shirt with the word “CUNT” in large letters written across the front (a term she alleges was used pejoratively against her, also alleging that such use offended her);
Now we're getting into a bit of a grey area here, but such a photograph would be relevant. Now it's obviously not acceptable to call your employee a cunt to their face, I would expect harassment charges to stand here. But if the defendant hears the employer using that term to describe someone else, or happens to overhear that term being used and the defendant isn't the person being referred to - then such a picture of the t-shirt would be quite relevant. If the defendant claims that "such use offended her" by simply overhearing the word, but if a photograph shows her in a shirt with CUNT on it - then it's pretty clear she doesn't have a valid claim to simply be offended by hearing the word
You make a good point on being "forced to give the password to others" - but this is the plantiff, not the defendant. If it was the defendant, then I'd be more outraged. But if the defendant says "the plaintiff first sent me sexually suggestive messages on facebook!", it seems perfectly reasonable for the judge to request proof from the plaintiff
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
Go ahead and post your social security number.
And your mother's maden name
And your date of birth
You have nothing to hide? Prove it.
Yeah, right.
What do you do if you sue someone and DON'T have a social networking page. Will your case get thrown out for not providing what you don't have? We already see this with job interviews. How many people were not accepted for a job because they wouldn't or couldn't provide a Facebook password? I don't use ANY social networking sites with the exception of Linkedin. Do you think they would believe me if I said I don't have one? It should be the decision of the plaintiffs to provide that information as evidence, not the position of the judge to order private information.
Usually in discovery you turn over data, often times even processed data (scans, copies, PDFs rather than original files).
Redactions are very common. Handing over 100% of communication, relevant or not, completely ubredacted is NOT how things are supposed to work.
note, always make sure to send a message to your lawyer with every account. They should then be able to argue that it contains priveledged info and needs to be turned over by the lawyer in a different format (not saying it will work, but It's worth a try).
Back when records were physical, lawyers were given temporary, unrestricted, but observed access to documents, and able to ask for broad sections to be copied and sent based on what they saw.
I think the facebook equivalent is to give access to the account supervised for x number of hours, and then allow requests to be made for all messages in this date range, or these people, etc.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Right, the judge can't force the women to hand over access. He can say "hand over access or have your case thrown out for insufficient evidence", though.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
True, but this seems unusually invasive, esp since she is the plaintiff.
I can maybe see the argument for 'discovery', but despite the myth that sexual harassment suits are slam dunks, they usually go pretty badly with judges traditionally being hostile to them... so there is a real possibility here that the judge (or the opposing council) is trying to punish the plantif through invading her personal life.. it makes a nice example to others...
If you are suing, then cell phones, Facebook and email are all part of the evidence in the case. Without reading the sepcifics I cannot tell you why the judge wanted it.
Also, TFA clearly states that the accounts are turned over to the forensics expert not to the defendant. Forensics expert hopefully being an impartial observer here - it's not like the defendant has their account to himself.
I RTFA, it is a legit request.
The plaintiffs were using it to communicate about the suit. It is their own ignorance that caused it.
This and similar events may help teach people that nothing they put on services like Facebook or Google is private.
I fail to see how a subpoena to Facebook and her mail provider couldn't accomplish the same thing without having to give out passwords.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Would it be proper for the judge to demand passwords to the FB accounts of the pertinent employees of the Honeybaked Ham Co.? Wouldn't access to their accounts be equally valuable for deciding the case? Why is the female plaintiff the only one subject to turning over access to all FB communications?
A password should not be given as that allows the information to be modified, falsified, and comprises security of passwords on other accounts (bank accounts even). The information on facebook should still be provided, by entering the password and monitoring a evidence collector, to allow the accused party to prove their innocence. If the accuser of sexual harassment said to a friend (or on facebook in this case) "I wasn't harrassed I am making it up" that is evidence that can be included in court as proof of innocence to the other party. However, if the accuser says to a friend (or facebook in this case) "I was harrassed" that evidence will not be admissable as proof of guilt to the other party.
You cannot avoid a lawfully issued subpoena (or warrant) by pointing at a contract saying you are obligated not to turn over the requested discovery/evidence. There are certain very limited communications not subject to subpoenas/warrants, and online posts with your friends aren't on that list. (Personal communications with doctors, lawyers, spouses, mental health professionals, and religious ministers are.)
I can think of all sorts of malfeasance that could be hidden if a TOS magically inhibited the discovery process.
The idea of a TOS is legally valid (although that does not stop it from containing invalid terms) but it does not override a court order.
Oh no. The Plaintiff is making claims. The defendant needs to be able to defend themselves against accusations. If there were rights to lean in favor of one party over the other, I would hope it would favor the defense.
It is obvious in cases such as sexual harassment, the first defense is "s/he no reasonable cause to be offended over language or to feel harassed given the type of language she uses on a frequent basis." I recall one particular female who used to work where I work now... she was pretty rowdy with her language and behavior. But from time to time when it was convenient, she would begin to make noises about harassment. In her case, she had no reasonable cause to be offended given her behavior. I was glad to see her go. She really upset a lot of people.
You are making the classic assumption that because she is a 'she' that she is a victim and is completely honest about her claims.... you know, like a particular single mother with a single child collecting child support from three men in three states.
I RTFA too, and while I can see the argument for it, much of it reads like they are hoping to show she is an immoral person.. essentially trying to slut shame her into the harassment being fine.
Actually, if you look at actual cases, it isn't a 'classical assumption' when it comes to sexual harassment suits. They tend to be a significant uphill battle with a lot of 'she is just sensitive, she is just selective, she is just taking advantage of the law' stuff thrown in.. it has disturbing similiarities to the arguments brought up to discredit rape victims.. including the BS 'but she uses that language' argument (which they seem to be fishing for here) since that is just a recasting of one of the common defenses against rape allegations.. 'well, she was a loose woman who slept around', as if somehow because she does something privately it means someone doing it to her non-consentually is ok.
I fail to see how a subpoena to Facebook and her mail provider couldn't accomplish the same thing without having to give out passwords.
Because it involves a third party and makes thing even more complicated than it should be. It is a waste of time and could be money (process fees). The plaintiff is the one who wants to use it for the suit, why not simply give the real sources. Over complicate a process often times is not a good solution but cost more on both time and money.
I've never seen someone given access to a corporate account for the sake of discovery, they are given access to the data.
the turning over the password is not legit, a copy of the timeline, activity log, and messages to and from relevant people (with details redacted) is.
In every case I've been involved with, a lawyer gets to go over all of these thongs before turning it over, this is highly unorthodox.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
... sexually harassing another...maybe she is butch...
No I didn't RTFA... and yes I can guess that my statement is off target... that it was the woman whom the judge now wants to harass sexually.
Of course maybe she is a bitch that deserves invasion of her privacy..... But not by the Founders of this country's agreement.
I fail to see how a subpoena to Facebook and her mail provider couldn't accomplish the same thing without having to give out passwords.
Because it involves a third party and makes thing even more complicated than it should be. It is a waste of time and could be money (process fees). The plaintiff is the one who wants to use it for the suit, why not simply give the real sources. Over complicate a process often times is not a good solution but cost more on both time and money.
The DEFENDANT is the one that wants the info. They're claiming that on the internets you can find the plaintiffs:
Wearing a shirt with the word CUNT on it (one plaintiff claims the word cunt was used around her or in reference to her, and that that offends her and she needs lots of money for it)
Discussing their financial situation after being fired
Discussing their job prospects after being fired
Discussing their interactions with the defendants
Discussing the suit in general
Passwords must be given (just change it to something random and hand it to the court) so the court can appoint a reviewer to select which info is pertinent to the case. The reviewer then hands it off to the owner of the account (the plaintiffs) and they block/redact any info they say is private or unrelated. The reviewer then presents the evidence to the court (both plaintiff and defendant) and tells the judge if he thinks the owner of the account chose to block / redact any pertinent information.
Actually, if you look at actual cases, it isn't a 'classical assumption' when it comes to sexual harassment suits. They tend to be a significant uphill battle with a lot of 'she is just sensitive, she is just selective, she is just taking advantage of the law' stuff thrown in.. it has disturbing similiarities to the arguments brought up to discredit rape victims.. including the BS 'but she uses that language' argument (which they seem to be fishing for here) since that is just a recasting of one of the common defenses against rape allegations.. 'well, she was a loose woman who slept around', as if somehow because she does something privately it means someone doing it to her non-consentually is ok.
You should RTFA.
One plaintiff is suing because of the word cunt. She can be seen wearing a shirt with the word cunt on it.
Various plaintiffs are suing because they were fired and can't find employment. There are messages sent between them indicating they actualyl had job offers.
There are also messages between the plaintiffs detailing their interactions with the defendants, their plans to sue, etc.
This isn't victim blaming, it's bog standard evidence discovery.
Lawyers get to go over all her thongs. Maybe i should be a lawyer.
There is one thing that can defeat your claim and that is the ability to change your password. The passwords are not hard wired into the sites and any user at any time can change their password. So you give them a password, they do their thing, you change your password, and everything is as it should be.
Also, a court order is a warrant. A judge issues a warrant upon probable cause. This is what has happened here except the warrant is issues within a civil matter and not necessarily a criminal one (although criminal charges can come from sexual harassment suits). Nothing in this violates the Constitution.
...not as I do!
Different judge and different circumstances.
Discussing their financial situation after being fired
Discussing their job prospects after being fired
I don't see that either of those would be relevant to her harassment claim.
Fucking autocunty
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Mod parents up - both posts are soooo insightful!!
Fuck me, I agree - used to able to engage in a argument on slashdot - not so much anymore - I am finally starting to see why so many say they no longer even read here. Yes, I'm stupid for hanging around.
But just in case any of you R-turds get the notion, could you argue against any of the points? or does lack thereof speak to the arguments?
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Some of what you said is true. The idea of "Privacy as a right" is one that comes from the courts and jurisprudence and does not come from any actual legislation for the most part and for sure does not come from the Constitution. Furthermore if you look at the INTENT of the 4th amendment, it can be argued that the motivation for it is to stop searches which are intrusive and cause conversion of actual belongings to another party so they can search them. This was and still is a major problem with all kinds of things being seized on a daily basis with and without warrants. However, with data it is possible for people to search it in non-intrusive ways. This is where the conflict comes into play. It might not be infringing on the INTENT of the 4th but it really scares people. There is of course a potential for abuse by those in authority. So long as checks and balances are in place, a happy middle ground can be sought.
I will state that I think its *wrong* for anyone to compel anyone else to reveal passwords or security secrets to anyone.
PERIOD.
nope, no exception. I don't care if jesus is asking for the password. this is just plain WRONG.
judges should honor the basic freedoms we have a bit better.
shame on you, judge (and anyone else who think its their business what's inside someone else's private files)!
every time I read about some authority figure trying to 'get inside' of someone else's stuff, it really ticks me off. why do people tolerate this and why do we allow it, as a society??
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Rather than demanding the password from the customer, the judge should either order the parties to hand over all relevant information to the court, or if they are willing but unable to do so, order Facebook, etc. to preserve the account information for later review by a court-appointed official. The court should of course pay the service providers their actual costs of complying, then send the bill to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can then add the amount to the damages they are seeking.
While expedient, handing over passwords is a bad idea.
If I were Facebook and saw this, I would immediately find out whose accounts these were and disable access to the account on the grounds that "Facebook believes the account's password has been compromised or that its compromise is imminent." This will force the judge to talk to them.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure....
1) Applies in the criminal, not civil, context, and
2) Is not being breached in this case anyway. This is standard discovery, and the defense is quite entitled to discover evidence that would bolster its own case or impeach the plaintiff's.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
I am stunned that you're ignorant enough to believe there's any truth to that, yet also able to type. Go forth and educate yourself. And no, I am not your teacher.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
one was about opening up your private information to a school, the other is evidence in a court of law. They aren't the same thing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Let's imagine for a moment that the crime (this is not a criminal case, but a civil one, but since you are talking about rape...) is theft by burglary or theft by robbery. It's say victim A has never been a victim before, but always kept his doors locked and his money and valuables concealed from view. Let's say victim B has also never been a victim before, but level locked his doors and was pretty flagrant about his valuables.
Neither victim "deserves" to be robbed or burglarized. No one is asserting that. But when one person takes more care than another to prevent a crime from happening to them, it weighs in on the whole case in terms of credibility.
Now transferring these same relative conditions to rape victims, you can begin to see why some victims might have their behavior weighed in with the evidence. And this isn't only the case in criminal cases, but also in the case of insurace. Did you know you can save money on your car insurance by having additional security and safety features on your car? There's a reason for that. It's about factoring risk in with the equation.
Where you want to claim "victim blaming" I suggest it has more with creating an objective picture.
Also, I have to object to your comparing workplace harassment with criminal rape. It's a misplaced and extreme comparison. It certainly illustrates how extreme you are willing to be when attempting to make an argument.
Passwords must be given (just change it to something random and hand it to the court) so the court can appoint a reviewer to select which info is pertinent to the case. The reviewer then hands it off to the owner of the account (the plaintiffs) and they block/redact any info they say is private or unrelated. The reviewer then presents the evidence to the court (both plaintiff and defendant) and tells the judge if he thinks the owner of the account chose to block / redact any pertinent information.
The more normal process is for the attorney of the party requested to provide the data to sift through the mass of potentially relevant information and to extract what needs to be disclosed, redacting anything that isn't relevant to the questions at hand. The attorney's duty to the court ensures that all relevant information is provided, and the attorney's duty to the client ensures that nothing else is.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Not so much for insufficient evidence, since this information will provide evidence for the defense (or at least the defense hopes so). But, yes, refusal to comply with the discovery process would cause the judge to toss the case, at the very least.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Am I mistaken in thinking that Facebook's terms and conditions require you to be thirteen or older? And therefore, did the school not have a valid concern?
Behaviour on social networks is clearly relevant to a sexual harassment case, the only question is whether the provider should provide the information given that there would be security concerns about revealing a password to anyone, regardless of whether they are court appointed.
Re:Lets split it ...
(defun '"/." (cons ('litigation (branch-l)) ('"news for nerds" (branch-r)) ))
do these parentheses make me look unbalanced?
Doesn't a court order that requires handing over your passwords to personal accounts perfectly exemplify the "Your Rights Online" topic? My opinion is that being legally required by a judge (probably under penalty of jailing for "contempt of court" if you don't agree) to turn over such passwords is definitely "News for Nerds". Thus no need for a split.
.
As to the actual topic: Don't all of the terms of service for most such online services all say "Do not reveal your passwords to others"? Does that mean that the court is ordering you to breach your contract with the service provider possibly opening you to other repercussions without immunizing you?
.
What about 5th-amendment issues against "self incrimination"? What if you have private messages to others which could implicate you in the current court proceeding or in other possibly criminal activities? Since "ignorance of the law" is no excuse, and since new laws criminalize all sorts of behaviours and organizations, how could you be certain that you are not implicating your self for further investigation or criminal procesution?
Yeah, i see you have the same love for autowrong as i do.
It is not a matter of just the fourth amendment
The ninth amendment:
The declaration of independence:
Facebook will have a say when she hands over the password, then Facebook blocks the password because of "Too many simultaneous logins" or logins from unusual locations.
Then they will have to get access to her email account to be able to perform the password reset, which depending on the provider might lead to the same sort of issues.
Interesting, my interpretation was different.
She's claimed abuse, yet perpetrates that abuse herself.
She's claimed harrassment, yet has engaged in that behaviour.
She's claimed loss, yet has stated she's benefited.
It doesn't seem inappropriate that the court would seek clarity on these matters.
I'd rather they demanded "all material" than passwords, and it would also make more sense: I don't know where the cellphone I owned in 2009 _is_, and I did a factory reset on it before I stopped using it. So it has no text messages, no email, etc. on it; giving it to the court is futile.
In other news, I'm not allowed to cut people open and tinker with their insides, but apparently surgeons are!
It's political correctness gone mad.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I considering interviewing your exes as intrusive.
Yes, but if the right to privacy is important, don't you think we should enumerate it in the Constitution just to be sure?
The defendants say the plaintiff made comments on Facebook which would indicate that there was nothing she objected to at the time (in fact, quite the contrary), that they didn't do her any harm, and that she was in it for the money. If she did post that on Facebook, she deserves to loose if only for being too dumb to live.
However, she shouldn't be handing over the password, she should be required to export the data under supervision and give that to the impartial expert mentioned in TFA.
You cant?
"God damm it, I am broke, and cant find a job guess I should sue my former employer"
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
I have a feeling that you're wrong. My emotional state has nothing to do with this feeling.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The science channel showed firefly, that's as close to a sci fi channel that's out there. I have no idea what that 'syfy' channel is.
That doesn't bear on the validity of the harassment claim.
One ought to not be harassed at work even if the pay also sucked, don't you agree?
And if you want to find out if she made more or less after she was fired, it would be more efficient to examine her pay records.
Passwords must be given (just change it to something random and hand it to the court) so the court can appoint a reviewer to select which info is pertinent to the case. The reviewer then hands it off to the owner of the account (the plaintiffs) and they block/redact any info they say is private or unrelated. The reviewer then presents the evidence to the court (both plaintiff and defendant) and tells the judge if he thinks the owner of the account chose to block / redact any pertinent information.
The more normal process is for the attorney of the party requested to provide the data to sift through the mass of potentially relevant information and to extract what needs to be disclosed, redacting anything that isn't relevant to the questions at hand. The attorney's duty to the court ensures that all relevant information is provided, and the attorney's duty to the client ensures that nothing else is.
That only works when you already know the totality of what exists but do not have access to it (such as billing records for a certain time frame or whatever). That way you can call the lawyer out on shit that's missing. If you think a lawyer's duty to the court means anything, I've got a big ol' LOL for you.
No, it doesn't have to be. The point is, are you wasting somebody's time? It doesn't have to be the suspect. It could be anybody. But if the information can be viewed without anybody expending any of their valuable time then I don't consider it intrusive.