I do find it interesting how there seems to be more protections around phone calls than anything else. As-in your employer can not just randomly listen to all your phone calls but can just record your screen all day?
Unrelated, I really wish this quote "The Court relied principally on the fact that the employee was an at-will employee and the employer had no legal interest in his future employment plans. " made its way into more lawsuits.
If we go back through history phones were first popular amongst the rich, powerful, and well connected. And politicians. None of whom wanted to be recorded. Even my dad explained to me how they didn't have a home phone line growing up. So as a result, we see lots of legal protections around phone calls.
The story of the computer, the internet, and by extension all work on the computer is the opposite. It's seen as an element of the common people or the nouveau rich. The people least likely to be using a computer are the rich, powerful and well connected. Thus, no legal protections exist.
There’s a further wrinkle: Neither of the major parties at the time pushed the lie that government can do no good for society, and lobbyists weren’t the force they are today, so there was much more tendency for legislators to effectively legislate. It’s not that there wasn’t corruption, of course, but legislators didn’t quite so often go against exactly what their constituents wanted when acting corruptly.
That really needs to be combined with strong protections for the employees to be effective. If you can be fired at the drop of a hat for no reason, many other protections become very moot.
Often when discussing civil liberties, and protections thereof, the argument is "it's a choice you don't have to work for them and they're not the government they're a private entity so they can do whatever they want".
It strikes me how absurd that argument is. It almost deliberately ignores that all citizens are private entities and would do whatever they want were it not for laws restricting the ability of one person to abridge the happiness of another.
So how in the world have we become a society that's okay with TLS inspection "because security and compliance" but not okay with recorded phone calls? It's a crock of crap. Traditionally, the social value of whatever enterprise wants to engage in that type of spying would need to out-weight the fundamental right to privacy of all its employees. And you'd of course need to demonstrate that e.g. TLS inspection is actually required to sustain that immense value.
Laws exist to make unethical creepy things also illegal things. You don't get a pass on being subject to limits on your ability delete the privacy of other citizens just because you're not the government. At least not in my book.
And it's not really how things work. Your employer can't make hiring decisions based on protected classes or political alignment. So why should they be allowed to subject you to undue invasion of privacy? Is Civil Rights Act the only relevant legal framework these days?
I do find it interesting how there seems to be more protections around phone calls than anything else. As-in your employer can not just randomly listen to all your phone calls but can just record your screen all day?
https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/can-an-employer-mo...
Unrelated, I really wish this quote "The Court relied principally on the fact that the employee was an at-will employee and the employer had no legal interest in his future employment plans. " made its way into more lawsuits.
If we go back through history phones were first popular amongst the rich, powerful, and well connected. And politicians. None of whom wanted to be recorded. Even my dad explained to me how they didn't have a home phone line growing up. So as a result, we see lots of legal protections around phone calls.
The story of the computer, the internet, and by extension all work on the computer is the opposite. It's seen as an element of the common people or the nouveau rich. The people least likely to be using a computer are the rich, powerful and well connected. Thus, no legal protections exist.
Before phones, there was mail. Laws around the handling of mail are also extremely strict.
There’s a further wrinkle: Neither of the major parties at the time pushed the lie that government can do no good for society, and lobbyists weren’t the force they are today, so there was much more tendency for legislators to effectively legislate. It’s not that there wasn’t corruption, of course, but legislators didn’t quite so often go against exactly what their constituents wanted when acting corruptly.
The telephone was invented in 1876.
The FBI was created in 1908.
The CIA was created in 1947.
The Internet was invented in 1983.
.
The government was a heck of a lot less overpowered and nosy back when phones were new than when the Internet was new.
Except wiretapping was made illegal in like 1968, so the gov was powerful and nosy then.
I'm guessing its not "weak government" but actually "good government"
wsj just says "Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker"
So here's a direct link:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes...
Some countries have laws that require companies to disclose what they monitor about their employees. That seems fair.
That really needs to be combined with strong protections for the employees to be effective. If you can be fired at the drop of a hat for no reason, many other protections become very moot.
Often when discussing civil liberties, and protections thereof, the argument is "it's a choice you don't have to work for them and they're not the government they're a private entity so they can do whatever they want".
It strikes me how absurd that argument is. It almost deliberately ignores that all citizens are private entities and would do whatever they want were it not for laws restricting the ability of one person to abridge the happiness of another.
So how in the world have we become a society that's okay with TLS inspection "because security and compliance" but not okay with recorded phone calls? It's a crock of crap. Traditionally, the social value of whatever enterprise wants to engage in that type of spying would need to out-weight the fundamental right to privacy of all its employees. And you'd of course need to demonstrate that e.g. TLS inspection is actually required to sustain that immense value.
Laws exist to make unethical creepy things also illegal things. You don't get a pass on being subject to limits on your ability delete the privacy of other citizens just because you're not the government. At least not in my book.
And it's not really how things work. Your employer can't make hiring decisions based on protected classes or political alignment. So why should they be allowed to subject you to undue invasion of privacy? Is Civil Rights Act the only relevant legal framework these days?
When the company you work offers you a company phone they built, don’t.
https://archive.is/q6EK0
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41936906
A non-paywalled source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/consumer-watchdog-cautions-comp...