3 ms·

Yes but would it always hold up in court? You can give your soul away by installing a piece of software without reading the agreement but it wouldn't hold water

by geddy 7y ago

Yes but would it always hold up in court? You can give your soul away by installing a piece of software without reading the agreement but it wouldn't hold water, of course. Curious how this would work with federal or state level wiretap laws.

CydeWeys 7y ago
It's your employer's hardware. It's legal for companies to oversee the work their employees are doing.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  Activating the camera and/or the microphone remotely without notification, on non-corporate owned premises may be illegal. There are wiretapping laws, etc. Just because I own a microphone and camera doesn't mean I can use it unknowingly in your home. Even if you were to borrow it and willfully bring that camera and microphone into your home, there are reasonable expectations of privacy that can't be violated. If I explicitly said I'll be using that microphone and camera to record you, made that very clear, and had you sign off on it without duress, then there may be grounds. The problem is, as a condition of employment, at least for me, would be a form of duress. If it becomes widespread and everyone caves into signing off on that sort of recording, then itll start to lose strength as being a form of pressure.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Camera/microphone isn't what was being discussed in this conversation thread. The topic at hand was taking screenshots of the desktop.
Frost1x 7y ago
Holding up in court is one facet. Needing to litigate in and of itself is typically a deterrent, especially for complex issues where there's a time/cost deterrent for pursuing combined with perception of success in court. There's a lot you can get away with by making a process complex, arduous, and potentially expensive. Faced with that option vs letting some employer take photos of you in your pajamas without shaving while watching your every move, people tend to forego privacy. When the working population at large starts to follow suit, you've artificially introduced a new trend with artificial social acceptance. Now, it makes a single employee battle concerned about privacy even more daunting and introduces perception of increased risk of failure if legally pursued for the employee thinking of litigating. The end result is: privacy is eroded. Rinse repeat, for just about anything you want to change. Just make change gradual and give it time. It then takes someone with the financial and time resources to take a hit and pursue as well as eagerness to bother.
- californical 7y ago
  This is a really well-worded comment, thanks!
ska 7y ago
Generally at work you have far fewer expectations of privacy, particularly on non-personal devices.
monocasa 7y ago
Ehhhh, the supreme court has found that you can sign away rights in a shrink wrap agreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc...

by geddy 7y ago

CydeWeys 7y ago

It's your employer's hardware. It's legal for companies to oversee the work their employees are doing.

Frost1x 7y ago
Activating the camera and/or the microphone remotely without notification, on non-corporate owned premises may be illegal. There are wiretapping laws, etc. Just because I own a microphone and camera doesn't mean I can use it unknowingly in your home. Even if you were to borrow it and willfully bring that camera and microphone into your home, there are reasonable expectations of privacy that can't be violated. If I explicitly said I'll be using that microphone and camera to record you, made that very clear, and had you sign off on it without duress, then there may be grounds. The problem is, as a condition of employment, at least for me, would be a form of duress. If it becomes widespread and everyone caves into signing off on that sort of recording, then itll start to lose strength as being a form of pressure.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Camera/microphone isn't what was being discussed in this conversation thread. The topic at hand was taking screenshots of the desktop.

Frost1x 7y ago

Holding up in court is one facet. Needing to litigate in and of itself is typically a deterrent, especially for complex issues where there's a time/cost deterrent for pursuing combined with perception of success in court. There's a lot you can get away with by making a process complex, arduous, and potentially expensive. Faced with that option vs letting some employer take photos of you in your pajamas without shaving while watching your every move, people tend to forego privacy. When the working population at large starts to follow suit, you've artificially introduced a new trend with artificial social acceptance. Now, it makes a single employee battle concerned about privacy even more daunting and introduces perception of increased risk of failure if legally pursued for the employee thinking of litigating. The end result is: privacy is eroded. Rinse repeat, for just about anything you want to change. Just make change gradual and give it time. It then takes someone with the financial and time resources to take a hit and pursue as well as eagerness to bother.

californical 7y ago
This is a really well-worded comment, thanks!

ska 7y ago

Generally at work you have far fewer expectations of privacy, particularly on non-personal devices.

monocasa 7y ago

Ehhhh, the supreme court has found that you can sign away rights in a shrink wrap agreement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepcion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc...