Yes, but that's because the employer freely chose not to lose 60% of it's workforce in a single instant.
Actually, it's because the law requires the employer to recognize that particular union as the sole bargaining agent. Look it up if you don't believe me.
You are wrong. You have an unreasonable *wish* for privacy. Facebook's privacy policy does not prevent a subpoena of records, nor do they make any guarantees against disclosure of your data. Their policy tells you up front that your data *may* be disclosed to the public, and that they WILL cooperate with legal requests they consider to be "good faith".
No, I'm not. I do not merely wish for privacy, I actually know that the info on my profile cannot be seen by people who are not on my friends list unless those friends happen to disclose that information. It's not reasonable to expect that these friends will never disclose that information, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect my privacy to otherwise be respected. As for subpoenas, if Facebook is compelled to reveal particular information then it has to do so regardless of its privacy policy, and I have no problem with that.
A law which restricts unions is not a problem with unions (even if there are some unions which abuse it, as certain large corporations abuse laws in their favour)...
It's a problem for employees who wish to join a different union.
Freedom of association also means an employer can agree to hire only union workers.
Yes, but that's not how it works in practice. What actually happens is that a majority of employees (say, 60%) decide they wish to be represented exclusively by a particular union, in which case that union becomes the sole bargaining agent for all employees (including the 40% who were against it).
What sort of amendment to the First Amendment would you have in mind to prevent collective bargaining by employees with their more powerful employers^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^Wprotection rackets?
If freedom of association means employees have the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining, then surely it also means they have the right to either join a different union (which the law often prevents under "sole bargaining agent" provisions) or not be represented by any union at all (which, again, is not always possible).
Unions are supposed to represent their members' interests, but the way unions behave these days I often wonder if it's not the members who are serving their unions. SAG prohibits is actors from working on non-union productions, and if it weren't for "right to work" statutes they would likely get away with it too. I do appreciate the need for pressure against employers who refuse to give fair treatment and compensation to their employees, but I often feel that unions are yet one more bureaucracy that employees have to deal with.
Sorry, I perhaps should have explained the point more fully. An example often given is that of a letter: you prima facie have no right to privacy regarding the contents of a letter since you have placed the information in someone else's control, and that person might choose to divulge it. The situation here is analogous: by putting the photographs or information on her Facebook profile the woman accepted that any one of her Facebook friends might then distribute them, which suggests that she did not consider the material she was posting to be private.
I have no problem with the notion that the woman's friends may, under subpoena, disclose information she considers private. The problem I have is with the blanket statement that there doesn't exist any reasonable expectation of privacy. Think of how you'd react if one of your friends publicly distributed online but restricted-access pictures of your children without your permission and then tell me there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The law doesn't say it becomes "public" but just that you lose the expectation of privacy. Those are two completely different legal concepts.
If the data isn't public, then it's private.
As for doctor-patient records, they, like priest-penitent records, and lawyer-client records, have legal protection called "privilege" and so you have legal basis for asserting that your expectation of privacy is preserved.
Certainly. On the other hand, that a document lacks such protection does not automatically nullify any expectation of privacy I may have.
If you share information without a law giving you a right to expect the information will be kept strictly private (e.g. lawyer-client or doctor-patient privilege), you have forfeited your expectation of privacy in the information disclosed to that third party.
Only with respect to that third party. With respect to others, I still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Another user did a good job of summing up why the court made this decision. That agreement makes it clear that you lose control over any data you submit to Facebook. Even if they provide privacy controls, they apparently have no obligation to make sure they work as the user intended since the data submitted now belongs to Facebook. Personally, I find the arrangement unappealing in the extreme; that's why I don't use Facebook.
That's a technicality. A person's expectation of privacy depends more on the nature of the service (such as the fact that it has privacy controls) than on the contents of a document most people never read. While I don't think there's any problem in allowing access to private data when it's legally warranted, the notion that my Facebook profile is public even when I've made it private is not at all reasonable.
Please explain why you WOULD have a *reasonable expectation* of privacy, in light of the fact that Facebook specifically tells you that anything you post could be revealed to the public? You may have a deep *desire* for privacy... you may wish very hard for it, in fact, but Facebook specifically and completely disavows any responsibility for keeping your secrets.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy due to the fact that access to my profile is limited to those who are authorized to see it. As for Facebook's privacy policy, that only covers the relationship between Facebook and myself, holding Facebook harmless for legitimate disclosure of information found on my profile. That Facebook isn't liable for such disclosure does not mean the disclosure is legally appropriate or that the information disclosed isn't private.
Unless the person was on his friend's list and permitted to see particular posts, the ONLY thing the court should be able to see are things that are viewable by everyone - everything else is SPECIFICALLY set up to be private by way of the passwords and permissions system inherent in having a Facebook account.
That's exactly right. People make their profiles private so only their friends can see them. It's one thing when a court of law orders my friend testify, but the notion there's generally no reasonable expectation of privacy is ridiculous. If I limit access to my profile so only my friends can see it, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that only my friends will have access to it.
If I tell all my friends that I'm faking my injury, and the person or company I'm suing hears of it, they can put my friend on the stand and my friend has to tell the court what I said, or risk being charged for perjury.
The key distinction being that your friend did indeed have access to your profile. The general public did not.
Materials that have been distributed to third parties are prima facie not subject to an expectation of privacy since the respondent no longer has control over their distribution.
Except that, unlike a physical object that is relinquished to another, a person's Facebook profile remains under that person's control.
The courts have consistently held that if you post something to a web service, and *anyone* can read it such as administrators at the service, (i.e. it is clear text and not encrypted) then you have lost (or at the least, greatly diminished) the expectation of privacy.
That makes about as much sense as saying that my medical records are public information because doctors at the hospital have access to them. Access to a restricted group of people (administrators, doctors, etc) does not in any way imply the information is public.
It is analogized to the difference between a postcard (which the postal service can read) and a sealed letter (which the postal service can not read). You have no privacy in the contents of the postcard, or in the information on the outside of the sealed envelope (i.e. who you are sending letters to and receiving then from).
That information is only available to those who have legitimate access to your postcard. The fact that letter carriers can see what's written on a postcard in no way implies that my neighbor is also to be granted access to its contents when it's not in plain view.
A social networking site is indeed a public place for all intents and purposes.
No, it's not. If I lock down my profile so only my friends can see it, it's really no different than only allowing my friends into my home. Unless your profile is open to the public, there doubtless exists a reasonable expectation of privacy. That doesn't mean the court should not allow access to a person's private profile in cases where it's legally warranted, but the standard should be as high as with any other case where private data is being sought.
4. The methods used by copyright holders to identify infringement are not very reliable, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong. 5. Somebody who's out to get you makes a false complaint and your ISP is too lazy to investigate, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.
Part of the problem is that filing a DMCA notice requires no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, and that the automated systems used in detecting infringement are far from perfect.
I've never actually tried buying any e-books, but I do recall iTunes not accepting my credit card because it wasn't issued by a US bank, and places like Netflix won't let me stream movies to my computer despite the fact that I'm in Puerto Rico (a US territory), where DVD movies are all Region 1. Needless to say, I don't much like downloadable commercial "media". It's just too confining.
I'd love to buy some e-books, but I don't want any of the DRM restrictions they come with. I can't sell an e-book online once I've read it, I can't give it away to a friend, I can't check out an e-book from the public library unless the publisher allows it, and often I can only copy my e-books onto a limited number of my own devices. While I expect e-books will someday become the standard for book publishers, I don't want to be part of that future unless and until these DRM issues are resolved. Publishers have little motivation to do so, which means I'll likely remain a technological dinosaur with respect to books and will never own a Kindle or whatever device has replaced it in the future.
While the act of attaching a tracker to a car can conceivably be seen as different from conducting a search, the act of retrieving data from the device -- locally or remotely -- may reasonably be considered a search in the same way that looking at the files on a person's computer by installing spyware may be considered a search.
I used to dream about newspapers that had video where the pictures would normally go, but otherwise the pages with video didn't look any different from the pages you see in real newspapers. It's not as impressive when the video screen is small and the page is as thick as cardboard.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not, but would 60% of employees really be willing to quit for not being able to force all employees into a single union?
Actually, it's because the law requires the employer to recognize that particular union as the sole bargaining agent. Look it up if you don't believe me.
No, I'm not. I do not merely wish for privacy, I actually know that the info on my profile cannot be seen by people who are not on my friends list unless those friends happen to disclose that information. It's not reasonable to expect that these friends will never disclose that information, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect my privacy to otherwise be respected. As for subpoenas, if Facebook is compelled to reveal particular information then it has to do so regardless of its privacy policy, and I have no problem with that.
It's a problem for employees who wish to join a different union.
Yes, but that's not how it works in practice. What actually happens is that a majority of employees (say, 60%) decide they wish to be represented exclusively by a particular union, in which case that union becomes the sole bargaining agent for all employees (including the 40% who were against it).
If freedom of association means employees have the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining, then surely it also means they have the right to either join a different union (which the law often prevents under "sole bargaining agent" provisions) or not be represented by any union at all (which, again, is not always possible).
Unions are supposed to represent their members' interests, but the way unions behave these days I often wonder if it's not the members who are serving their unions. SAG prohibits is actors from working on non-union productions, and if it weren't for "right to work" statutes they would likely get away with it too. I do appreciate the need for pressure against employers who refuse to give fair treatment and compensation to their employees, but I often feel that unions are yet one more bureaucracy that employees have to deal with.
I have no problem with the notion that the woman's friends may, under subpoena, disclose information she considers private. The problem I have is with the blanket statement that there doesn't exist any reasonable expectation of privacy. Think of how you'd react if one of your friends publicly distributed online but restricted-access pictures of your children without your permission and then tell me there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.
If the data isn't public, then it's private.
Certainly. On the other hand, that a document lacks such protection does not automatically nullify any expectation of privacy I may have.
Only with respect to that third party. With respect to others, I still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That's a technicality. A person's expectation of privacy depends more on the nature of the service (such as the fact that it has privacy controls) than on the contents of a document most people never read. While I don't think there's any problem in allowing access to private data when it's legally warranted, the notion that my Facebook profile is public even when I've made it private is not at all reasonable.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy due to the fact that access to my profile is limited to those who are authorized to see it. As for Facebook's privacy policy, that only covers the relationship between Facebook and myself, holding Facebook harmless for legitimate disclosure of information found on my profile. That Facebook isn't liable for such disclosure does not mean the disclosure is legally appropriate or that the information disclosed isn't private.
That's exactly right. People make their profiles private so only their friends can see them. It's one thing when a court of law orders my friend testify, but the notion there's generally no reasonable expectation of privacy is ridiculous. If I limit access to my profile so only my friends can see it, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that only my friends will have access to it.
The key distinction being that your friend did indeed have access to your profile. The general public did not.
Except that, unlike a physical object that is relinquished to another, a person's Facebook profile remains under that person's control.
That makes about as much sense as saying that my medical records are public information because doctors at the hospital have access to them. Access to a restricted group of people (administrators, doctors, etc) does not in any way imply the information is public.
That information is only available to those who have legitimate access to your postcard. The fact that letter carriers can see what's written on a postcard in no way implies that my neighbor is also to be granted access to its contents when it's not in plain view.
No, it's not. If I lock down my profile so only my friends can see it, it's really no different than only allowing my friends into my home. Unless your profile is open to the public, there doubtless exists a reasonable expectation of privacy. That doesn't mean the court should not allow access to a person's private profile in cases where it's legally warranted, but the standard should be as high as with any other case where private data is being sought.
4. The methods used by copyright holders to identify infringement are not very reliable, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.
5. Somebody who's out to get you makes a false complaint and your ISP is too lazy to investigate, so you get flagged without ever having done anything wrong.
Here's one notable example. I'm sure you can find many others.
Part of the problem is that filing a DMCA notice requires no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, and that the automated systems used in detecting infringement are far from perfect.
You're assuming the complaints are legitimate. Your assumption is wrong.
I've never actually tried buying any e-books, but I do recall iTunes not accepting my credit card because it wasn't issued by a US bank, and places like Netflix won't let me stream movies to my computer despite the fact that I'm in Puerto Rico (a US territory), where DVD movies are all Region 1. Needless to say, I don't much like downloadable commercial "media". It's just too confining.
I'd love to buy some e-books, but I don't want any of the DRM restrictions they come with. I can't sell an e-book online once I've read it, I can't give it away to a friend, I can't check out an e-book from the public library unless the publisher allows it, and often I can only copy my e-books onto a limited number of my own devices. While I expect e-books will someday become the standard for book publishers, I don't want to be part of that future unless and until these DRM issues are resolved. Publishers have little motivation to do so, which means I'll likely remain a technological dinosaur with respect to books and will never own a Kindle or whatever device has replaced it in the future.
I don't buy software for the box. I buy it for the software, and so does everybody else. The product being sold is the software in a box.
It's an interesting concept, but won't government agents with an agenda simply look to non-Microsoft software as an excuse for a raid?
While the act of attaching a tracker to a car can conceivably be seen as different from conducting a search, the act of retrieving data from the device -- locally or remotely -- may reasonably be considered a search in the same way that looking at the files on a person's computer by installing spyware may be considered a search.
I used to dream about newspapers that had video where the pictures would normally go, but otherwise the pages with video didn't look any different from the pages you see in real newspapers. It's not as impressive when the video screen is small and the page is as thick as cardboard.