[traithJah]

*shrugs* I have no big stake in this as I am always careful what I say online, but I do note that whole thing about "When they came for my neighbors, I was silent, and when they came for me there was nobody left..." etc.

*shrugs again*

That's overly dramatic.

I think you are looking at this too much from one side. Imagine if you owned a company and had a staff member employed under probation. Then imagine they sucked at their job and couldn't even do the simple jobs. Now imagine they then slagged you off as a perve to everyone she knew including you.

Would you still not fire her

[zU8KbeIU]

That's overly dramatic.

I think you are looking at this too much from one side. Imagine if you owned a company and had a staff member employed under probation. Then imagine they sucked at their job and couldn't even do the simple jobs. Now imagine they then slagged you off as a perve to everyone she knew including you.

Would you still not fire her

Its overly dramatic as long as you don't take into account the larger picture. It just might well be that this person was stupid and the manager was justified in firing her, but in the real world, these cases are used to establish a precedent.

Once it becomes common that no internet communication is private, who else steps in to take advantage of that principal? I have heard a zillion times about people saying how great it is to be anonymous on the web and say what they really think...

The article I printed about the town wanting passwords shows how far it can go: and these are still early days! Would you want that to become common practice? How long before some data-mining corporate type decides that you need to turn over your passwords and etc for almost any reason?

Why not stop it in its tracks, now?

EDIT: As far as looking at it too much from one side.... Guilty. The companies, government and etc have all too many well paid people to look at it from that side. I will leave them to it. The public side is all too often represented by apathy, so everyone who has the energy and interest to speak up is valuable.

[traithJah]

Steady on [rofl]

We are talking about someone who invited their boss to be a friend on a social networking site.

And then she made these comments about him on the social networking site. If she has him as a friend, she probably has some other co-workers as well.

The boss did not invade her privacy, he did not go searching the net, or install spy programs. She put it out their for all to see and may as well have said it at a meeting.

How does this compare to whatever else it is you are talking about?

And you are telling me you would not fire her?

[zU8KbeIU]

Steady on [rofl]

We are talking about someone who invited their boss to be a friend on a social networking site.

And then she made these comments about him on the social networking site. If she has him as a friend, she probably has some other co-workers as well.

The boss did not invade her privacy, he did not go searching the net, or install spy programs. She put it out their for all to see and may as well have said it at a meeting.

How does this compare to whatever else it is you are talking about?

And you are telling me you would not fire her?

Because if you look at the assembled cases, this one is the exception, not the rule. In the wider world bosses and etc are deliberately searching for that information, and using cases like this as precedents.

I think facebook and the like (if they do not already do so) should start specifying that it is against the EULA to befriend another user for the purposes of gathering employment related information of any type. (not to mention harrasment)

Once access is gained, (by whatever means) many of the comments of anyone else the person has communicated with may also be accessible to the employer(s) as well, including statements by co-workers family, etc. Did they also give permission to have their statements read?

There is also the fact that in the US there are many types of federally or legally protected information that are not allowed as considerations of a persons job that can be exposed once an account is breached. Sexual orientation, religion, political affiliations...

Its an enormous can of worms, because who can say, why a person was really fired. In fact, the employer can also be placed at risk if the person claims that the real reason was based on protected information.

I'm not saying that I would not have fired her (I might) Just that I am not very sure that I should be allowed to fire her, based on any information gained in that way.

[Z2sc8gEz]

Because if you look at the assembled cases, this one is the exception, not the rule. In the wider world bosses and etc are deliberately searching for that information, and using cases like this as precedents.

I think facebook and the like (if they do not already do so) should start specifying that it is against the EULA to befriend another user for the purposes of gathering employment related information of any type. (not to mention harrasment)
[/I]

That ought to kill the twesume

http://www.redshoespr.com/blog/bid/8...earch-Strategy