Courts halt web monitoring? What about us?

[surrealchereal]

But here, this is by common consent. I know that is not a typical situation.

Oh yeah? Well here comes the ole "she has real issues with authority gal".. and what is the consent? Something signed at hire? I hope not, because that is not consent, it is coercion no matter how one tries to disguise it. We do what we have to do to eat and pay the rent.

[This message has been edited by surrealchereal (edited 08-27-2001).]

[caddmannq]

Don't presume too much, there, Surreal.

This is a small, close-knit outfit. I'm the only PC geek here & I convinced 'em it was a good idea. The first time one of them got a virus & started passing it around the office, they all knew I was right. They never had a clue, in spite of all the warnings I'd given. These guys are structural engineers, and PC's are just a black-box to them.

When I said all internet activity goes through me, literally it does. No one else has a connection (I pulled them all out) and no one will get on until I get DSL & a hardware firewall built up on the network.

As I said, it's not the typical situation.

[surrealchereal]

I'm the only PC geek here & I convinced 'em it was a good idea. The first time one of them got a virus & started passing it around the office

Well, in that case I bet you really didn't need to do much convincing! That ole virus probably did a pretty good sales job!
Should every network guy be so fortunate !

[caddmannq]

It's nice. Though the work we do is intensive & technical, the user base is small. There are daunting technical problems at times, but I'm not constantly having to train people in the basics. What a bore that would be.

[MTAtech]

Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution says:

"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."

This is a limitation on the government, not private individuals or employers.

[krimig]

The words government and private party don't even exist in Amendment IV as it is presented. It seems to me the priority and intent of the amendment was to protect the individual's right to privacy, and not so much to limit the government's ability, or any specific entity's ability, to monitor others. The amendment doesn't speak to any specific limitations on any specific entity. It only says that there shall be no unreasonable monitoring of the individual. Wether it be government, an identity thief, or corporation that monitors you "unreasonably", your Forth Amendment rights have been violated all the same. I don't see how you are any less violated because it was a corporation doing the "unreasonable" monitoring.


[This message has been edited by krimig (edited 08-30-2001).]