5 ms·

> If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years? Would you mind if a snoop through your wife's underwe

by j4kp07 10y ago

> If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years? Would you mind if a snoop through your wife's underwear drawer? You have nothing to hide. Right? Why do you close your window blinds at night? You have nothing to hide. Right? Would you mind if a place a GPS tracker on your vehicle for data collection purposes? You have nothing to hide. Right?

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Corporations are not people my friend. They do not (and should not) have the same rights. EDIT: Going through my wife's underwear drawer is not the same as having to provide payroll data to enforce labor law. EDIT 2: If you're a government contractor, you have certain labor rights obligations, by law. If you violate those, the US government has the authority to pursue you. "The department in a complaint filed with an administrative judge in Washington said the company was prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination given the hundreds of millions of dollars it receives as a contractor with the federal government." "The U.S. Labor Department has sued Oracle America Inc, alleging that the technology company systematically paid its white, male employees more than other workers and unlawfully favored Asian applicants in its recruiting and hiring efforts." It's in the first two paragraphs! Does anyone read the article anymore?
- Trundle 10y ago
  They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > They are owned by people though That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.
    - Trundle 10y ago
      The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Because ownership rights are not absolute. The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances to ensure you're compliant with your required tax liability payments, why would you think the Department of Labor wouldn't be permitted the same? EDIT: > I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry. Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.
        Trundle 10y ago
        When you denied corporations having personhood despite them having personhood in the eyes of the law, I assumed you were interested in discussing the concept from an ethics pov rather than a legal one. I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer. I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
        Trundle 10y ago
        Because we find discussing theory fun? What does "all that matters" mean? This is a recreational discussion that carries no practical weight.
        j4kp07 10y ago
        > The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances Keyword: Finances And from what I understand, Oracle has turned all of those over. But you and others, are demanding unfettered access to every nook, cranny and file cabinet they possess. You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life. > Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? Said the person who hasn't read SCOTUS rulings on corporation's right to privacy, due process of law, etc.
  - Quanttek 10y ago
    > and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either. wtf?? When you invade a person's privacy it's rarely jsut about the personbeing nude. Of course it is almost always about private possessions or data. So this reasoning is complete BS. The thing is that the owner is in one case a person, in the other case a corporation. Just because the corporation is owned by group of people rarely means the private data of the company is the private data of its owners.
- rconti 10y ago
  It has nothing to do with whether or not corporations are people. And the article is light on the details, so we're left to our imaginations. But, if Oracle was under no legal obligation to provide the information (and the article is not clear), why would they?
- SamReidHughes 10y ago
  > They do not (and should not) have the same rights. Yes they should. Otherwise all the powerful organizations in the country are under the heel of the government.
- j4kp07 10y ago
  > Corporations are not people my friend. It doesn't matter. That wasn't the argument stated; What was proposed was "Why does it matter if you have nothing to hide." > They do not (and should not) have the same rights. Corporations are protected from illegal search and seizures just like people. > Does anyone read the article anymore? I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the previous poster.
  - azernik 10y ago
    I am repeating this comment all over the place but - in those same government contracts, they also agreed to share this data with the government. See page 5 of the complaint: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20170071.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
  - omginternets 10y ago
    >It doesn't matter It does matter. He's arguing that actual people should have a greater right to privacy than do corporations. Granted, this is not a legal argument, but an ethical one. Moreover, he might actually have some legal standing (INAL, etc) since there are laws that mandate corporate transparency whereas there are no direct equivalents for private persons.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yarou 10y ago
Well, if you want that expectation of privacy, maybe you shouldn't have become a federal contractor.
Mtinie 10y ago
Not the same context, are they? Federal investigators asking to review documents and information that portain to areas that they provide regulation for is completely different than someone arbitrarily digging through a spouse's underwear drawer.
- j4kp07 10y ago
  > Not the same context, are they? Of course it is. The context is/was (as stated by the previous poster), if you have nothing to hide, then why not be completely open? Which is what my point is; You don't need to justify your reasoning for privacy. It is a constitutional right. No justification is needed.
  - Mtinie 10y ago
    Again, completely different context. You, as an individual in the United States have a Constitutional right to privacy through the Fourth Amendment. Governed businesses operating in the United States have no such right.
ghurtado 10y ago
That's a pretty complete list of false equivalences.
Infinitesimus 10y ago
Come on, you know this isn't an argument about privacy. This is a public company and federal contractor. That status has some expectation and if the article is to be believed, those expectations include "don't racially discriminate". This isn't DoJ harassing some poor startup. This is "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?"
- j4kp07 10y ago
  "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?" Hey, we're going to assume you are guilty. Can you prove otherwise?
  - azernik 10y ago
    "Hey, you signed a contract saying you will provide us with these papers on request. Are you gonna do so or not?"

by j4kp07 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

Corporations are not people my friend. They do not (and should not) have the same rights. EDIT: Going through my wife's underwear drawer is not the same as having to provide payroll data to enforce labor law. EDIT 2: If you're a government contractor, you have certain labor rights obligations, by law. If you violate those, the US government has the authority to pursue you. "The department in a complaint filed with an administrative judge in Washington said the company was prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination given the hundreds of millions of dollars it receives as a contractor with the federal government." "The U.S. Labor Department has sued Oracle America Inc, alleging that the technology company systematically paid its white, male employees more than other workers and unlawfully favored Asian applicants in its recruiting and hiring efforts." It's in the first two paragraphs! Does anyone read the article anymore?

Trundle 10y ago
They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > They are owned by people though That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Because ownership rights are not absolute. The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances to ensure you're compliant with your required tax liability payments, why would you think the Department of Labor wouldn't be permitted the same? EDIT: > I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry. Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.
      - Trundle 10y ago
        When you denied corporations having personhood despite them having personhood in the eyes of the law, I assumed you were interested in discussing the concept from an ethics pov rather than a legal one. I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer. I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
      - Trundle 10y ago
        Because we find discussing theory fun? What does "all that matters" mean? This is a recreational discussion that carries no practical weight.
      - j4kp07 10y ago
        > The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances Keyword: Finances And from what I understand, Oracle has turned all of those over. But you and others, are demanding unfettered access to every nook, cranny and file cabinet they possess. You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life. > Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? Said the person who hasn't read SCOTUS rulings on corporation's right to privacy, due process of law, etc.
- Quanttek 10y ago
  > and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either. wtf?? When you invade a person's privacy it's rarely jsut about the personbeing nude. Of course it is almost always about private possessions or data. So this reasoning is complete BS. The thing is that the owner is in one case a person, in the other case a corporation. Just because the corporation is owned by group of people rarely means the private data of the company is the private data of its owners.
rconti 10y ago
It has nothing to do with whether or not corporations are people. And the article is light on the details, so we're left to our imaginations. But, if Oracle was under no legal obligation to provide the information (and the article is not clear), why would they?
SamReidHughes 10y ago
> They do not (and should not) have the same rights. Yes they should. Otherwise all the powerful organizations in the country are under the heel of the government.
j4kp07 10y ago
> Corporations are not people my friend. It doesn't matter. That wasn't the argument stated; What was proposed was "Why does it matter if you have nothing to hide." > They do not (and should not) have the same rights. Corporations are protected from illegal search and seizures just like people. > Does anyone read the article anymore? I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the previous poster.
- azernik 10y ago
  I am repeating this comment all over the place but - in those same government contracts, they also agreed to share this data with the government. See page 5 of the complaint: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20170071.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
- omginternets 10y ago
  >It doesn't matter It does matter. He's arguing that actual people should have a greater right to privacy than do corporations. Granted, this is not a legal argument, but an ethical one. Moreover, he might actually have some legal standing (INAL, etc) since there are laws that mandate corporate transparency whereas there are no direct equivalents for private persons.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

yarou 10y ago

Well, if you want that expectation of privacy, maybe you shouldn't have become a federal contractor.

Mtinie 10y ago

Not the same context, are they? Federal investigators asking to review documents and information that portain to areas that they provide regulation for is completely different than someone arbitrarily digging through a spouse's underwear drawer.

j4kp07 10y ago
> Not the same context, are they? Of course it is. The context is/was (as stated by the previous poster), if you have nothing to hide, then why not be completely open? Which is what my point is; You don't need to justify your reasoning for privacy. It is a constitutional right. No justification is needed.
- Mtinie 10y ago
  Again, completely different context. You, as an individual in the United States have a Constitutional right to privacy through the Fourth Amendment. Governed businesses operating in the United States have no such right.

ghurtado 10y ago

That's a pretty complete list of false equivalences.

Infinitesimus 10y ago

Come on, you know this isn't an argument about privacy. This is a public company and federal contractor. That status has some expectation and if the article is to be believed, those expectations include "don't racially discriminate". This isn't DoJ harassing some poor startup. This is "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?"

j4kp07 10y ago
"hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?" Hey, we're going to assume you are guilty. Can you prove otherwise?
- azernik 10y ago
  "Hey, you signed a contract saying you will provide us with these papers on request. Are you gonna do so or not?"