As in court case. . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045009224646091.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124045009224646091.html)
They used the word 'murky' to describe the employees' rights to online privacy. That's a good choice of words. [laugh]
It's a mistake to assume that anything you type online is somehow private. Whether you're on a password-protected chat site or not, a website is still pretty much the public domain, IMO. It's not like the employers are tapping their employees' home phone lines and eavesdropping on a truly private conversation. The case is arguing about commentary made in a semi-public discussion group with multiple members, and I think the employees' privacy claim will come up short.
But I'm not a judge or lawyer, so my opinion is really not that valuable. ;D [coffee]
My opinion? If it was a private site that required a log-in and password to see what was being written, they broke the law by forcing the other employee to give up her log-in information. This was not an arbitrary post on Facebook for all to see, this was a restricted site which they accessed illegally. The company had no right to the information and the employees were fired as a result of that information. The company (as a whole) is liable for wrongful termination. Again, IMO...
done on work time, with work's computers?
oh, and doing things that would get them fired if done openly at work??
they're boned.
Quote from: JEFF_H on April 24, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
done on work time, with work's computers? Not according to the article.
oh, and doing things that would get them fired if done openly at work?? Yes, but again, not on company time or assets.
Regardless of the outcome of this specific case, it's very naive to assume that online chat forums are somehow 'private' communication.
This particular case probably hinges on the hostess who might claim she was coerced into giving up her login info under an implied threat of termination.
If you read the article, it wasn't an "online forum" it was a private, log-in and password required "group" on Myspace...
Quote from: BALLAST on April 24, 2009, 01:20:57 PM
If you read the article, it wasn't an "online forum" it was a private, log-in and password required "group" on Myspace...
Yes, I read the article. I still maintain that posting negative commentary about your employer on a website (password access or no) is flirtation with disaster. Once Ms. St. John showed the private Myspace group site to her manager, it became a slippery slope.
From the article:
"The supervisors were tipped off to the forum by Karen St. Jean, a restaurant hostess, who logged into her account at an after-hours gathering with a Houston's manager to show him the site. They all had a laugh, Ms. St. Jean said in a court deposition, and she didn't think any more about it."IMO, the only remaining question is how the court/jury will view the managers' use of Ms. St. Jean's login info.
Well, I'm not an attorney, but what if the employees had a private party where they badmouthed their supervisors, and one employee, out of spite or coercion, taped the others and the business fired them. Far-fetched, I know, but would it be ok for a business to do that? Seems like a near equivalent to me.
I don't understand how the grounds for termination was in any way legal, if the violation of "positivity and professionalism" occurred off the clock. Even if they wanted to make the case for libel, they would first have to prove how coercion to get access to that site was legal or even reasonable. And even if the password info was volunteered, it seems to be that the burden to prove that whatever was written on that site was damaging (that is, the whole world could read it, and thought worse of the restaurant for it) is on the restaurant.
I disagree about the legal expectation of privacy. Technically, we all know (or should know) that if it is in 1s and 0s it can be decoded. There should be no technical expectation of *security* Locking your front door does not guarantee that no one can break in, but it definitely means the general public can't come wandering in.
The intent in putting together their little online pregnant dog party was to keep it to a private group - password-protected, invite-only means exclusive to the public. In my eyes they did what they needed to do to keep any of their grievances from making their employer look bad - that is the only way I see it would be right to fire them for their online, off-the-clock conduct.
I've stopped making any comments on threads regarding my employee for just such a reason. I don't want anything to be misconstrued.
There is a reason if you google me, you get absolutely nothing. ;)
Nothing comes up on me either.
If google can't find me, does that mean I don't exist?!?!
We have an explicit company policy against online "leaks" as well as a "weasel worded" policy that implies we shouldn't badmouth the company online. The fact is that in most of the US you can fire someone for just about anything except so called "protected classifications" (Race, religion, age, etc.)
In this case however, it's pretty clear cut: They illegally impersonated a user of a private board. If this was an "invitation only" board, they are doubly wrong. It's the equivalent of donning a disguise to enter a private club in order to spy on the patrons.
That fact that it's a virtual private club makes no difference.
Quote from: Drunken Monkey on April 25, 2009, 09:32:03 AM
In this case however, it's pretty clear cut: They illegally impersonated a user of a private board. If this was an "invitation only" board, they are doubly wrong. It's the equivalent of donning a disguise to enter a private club in order to spy on the patrons.
This is not true. The restaurant management was invited to view the board by one of its participants (Ms. St. John).
The two individuals who were fired are naive and stupid.
Quote from: MrIncredible on April 24, 2009, 06:11:50 PM
There is a reason if you google me, you get absolutely nothing. ;)
+1 on that!
Quote from: Sinister on April 25, 2009, 11:38:53 AM
This is not true. The restaurant management was invited to view the board by one of its participants (Ms. St. John).
The two individuals who were fired are naive and stupid.
But she had no authority to invite someone without the owner's permission. That would be like you and me are neighbors. You have been invited over to my house. Then at another time, you tell someone it's OK to go over to my house without asking my permission...
Quote from: NAKID on April 25, 2009, 07:01:22 PM
But she had no authority to invite someone without the owner's permission. That would be like you and me are neighbors. You have been invited over to my house. Then at another time, you tell someone it's OK to go over to my house without asking my permission...
Well, no, it's nothing like that. What rules were in place which she violated? What did she do that, in DrunkenMonkey's words, was "illegal." If it was illegal, there must be a law in place to break. What was it?
you could argue that the management later hacked the account by intimidating staff to surrender their account/login info.
Quote from: redxblack on April 26, 2009, 09:21:31 AM
you could argue that the management later hacked the account by intimidating staff to surrender their account/login info.
Or, you could stick to the known facts.
I guess we didn't read the same article that said as much.
Quote from: redxblack on April 26, 2009, 04:56:23 PM
I guess we didn't read the same article that said as much.
We read the same article, then you read into it what you wanted. Sure, Ms. St. John
later said she was "worried about being fired" when she gave up her login, but her integrity is somewhat clouded by the fact that she was the one who ratted out the two who were fired.
I still say nothing illegal was done, and no one has brought forth any laws to bolster a claim otherwise.
and as you handed over your login and password, you'd say you were worried about being fired? of course she said it later. She was worried about being fired.
Quote from: Sinister on April 26, 2009, 05:17:50 PM
We read the same article, then you read into it what you wanted. Sure, Ms. St. John later said she was "worried about being fired" when she gave up her login, but her integrity is somewhat clouded by the fact that she was the one who ratted out the two who were fired.
I still say nothing illegal was done, and no one has brought forth any laws to bolster a claim otherwise.
Identity theft? I am not sure what the scope of those laws are, but one thing is clear: if the restaurant management could have logged on with their own credentials, they would have.
I still think that their termination was legally sketchy at best. There is nothing there that would warrant anyone getting fired, disciplinary action being taken, etc.
Quote from: MrIncredible on April 24, 2009, 06:11:50 PM
There is a reason if you google me, you get absolutely nothing. ;)
How do you do that? I want to be invisible!
If I was on the jury I'd rule against the company given the facts in the article.
They logged into a private site using the username/password of a different person, knowing full well they wouldn't be able to get their own legitimate password. Further, the username/password was passed throughout management, presumably without the consent of the user. According to the article she only gave the one manager permission to use her information, not all of upper management...and that was sketchy since that person was a superior. It is entirely plausible that she feared she would lose her job if she didn't allow her information to be used...whether it was specifically stated or not.
It is irrelevant if the 2 people fired were being stupid by creating the private site (which they were). On that note, restaurant management might as well fire the entire staff if they don't want anyone working for them who also bad mouth them behind their back...that's pretty common.
I just ran across this article - reminded me of this thread
Montana city backs off of requiring Facebook passwords as job requirement (http://www.inquisitr.com/27183/montana-city-backs-off-of-requiring-facebook-passwords-as-job-requirement/)
Good on em for backing off this policy, but it was a pretty Orwellian measure for them to implement to begin with...
That one was a crazy situation. Not only did you have to hand over your login credentials for ALL social networking sites, but also list and credential all internet sites you visit.
I thought about applying with lots of "interesting" sites just to give their HR people something to do.
Quote from: redxblack on June 25, 2009, 07:27:54 AM
I thought about applying with lots of "interesting" sites just to give their HR people something to do.
[clap]
It is funny how many HR people focus so much on personal aspects, yet there are so many people that are hired to high level positions that have lied about their credentials.