- Find a hidden treasure at auction. Give it back. You’re a better man than I.
- It’s a bad idea, but a provocative thought experiment. “What if, just for a change of pace, it was the opponents of free speech whose ideas were deemed hateful?”
- Though the lede is about investing in the new cannabis industry, the most fascinatingly weird part is about the work being done in laboratories to isolate (then market) product with specific properties.
- So we know birds came from dinosaurs. Now scientists have taken chicken embryos part of the way back. Honest, I thought it was The Onion at first and not the BBC. And no, that “photo” of a sharp-toothed chicken at the top isn’t real; the scientists aren’t hatching any of their embryos at present.
- It’s a $9 chip. It’s a computer, complete with browser and apps. (H/T MJR)
- Worker fired for disabling an app that let her boss track employees 24 hours a day. The creepitude just gets creepier all the time. (Via Jerry the Geek.)
I know it happens, and I know it is bad, but I have a really hard time understanding why anyone, including an employer, would want to track most individuals 24/7 – by whatever means. Someone condemned to follow me around like that would probably be bored to death the first day. And might be suicidal after the first week. Who would do such a job to start with?
I just don’t get it. What is the point of such an “app” anyway?
She shouldn’t alter company property, but why not drop the phone into a faraday cage when off company time? If the employer doesn’t like that, and really does want to track her 24/7 for whatever reason, quit and find a new job.
“What is the point of such an “app” anyway?”
For tracking, of course. With GPS, what else?!
Probably the company who built the app is in cahoots with fedgov, and maybe the company she works for as well. Or her company may suspect theft, or spies in their midst.
If it is a company provided phone, issued because one is on call for that company, GPS app on in case the phone or employee is stolen. It probably wasn’t the intent of the company to be creepy but looking out for their property and quality of customer service. I would of probably turned it off or at least left the phone in a fixed location and forward the calls to my personal phone.
So, would the genetically engineered Chickenosaurus know what it is? Would it be a coelurus that scratches the ground and eats cigarette butts?
I’m sorry, the thought experiment about hate speech was too convoluted for my brain.
[The suit, which claims invasion of privacy, retaliation, unfair business practices, and other allegations, seeks damages in excess of $500,000…]
Of course in a free world, the employer can make any condition for employment he pleases. The prospective employee can agree or go elsewhere. This is just ambulance chasing lawyers looking for some cash.
I wouldn’t want to be tracked by my employer 24/7, either, but it was a condition of her employment and a company-issued iPhone. Creepy, yes, but illegal? I don’t think so (of course, this is the People’s Republic of California, so I suppose anything is possible). If you don’t like it get a new job.
I REALLY want them to hatch one of those dino-chickens!
Paul, I fail to see what is “convoluted” about the hate speech article. He’s merely saying that opposing free speech is itself a form of oppression which should be cognizable under the “hate speech” laws. Sauce for the goose and all that. Sounds entirely reasonable to me.
Not to toot my own horn (or troll for readership *wink*), but perhaps not coincidentally, I’m doing a series on “hate” and “hate speech” over at my site. Part 1 and Part 2 are already up, and Part 3 should go live this weekend.
But yes, punishing calls for “free speech suppression” as “hate speech” is just as bad an idea as punishing “hate speech” to begin with. It’s just another form of “idea control” and “thought crime”, taken right from the pages of Animal Farm and 1984.
As someone else pointed out, and I’ve become fond (not really the right word) of repeating, “1984 was meant as a warning, not an instruction manual!”
In response to “I wouldn’t want to be tracked by my employer 24/7, either, but it was a condition of her employment and a company-issued iPhone.”
“After researching the app and speaking with a trainer from Xora, Plaintiff and her co-workers asked whether Intermex would be monitoring their movements while off duty. Stubits admitted that employees would be monitored while off duty. Stubits admitted that employees would be monitored while off duty and bragged that he knew how fast she was driving at specific moments ever since she installed the app on her phone. Plaintiff expressed that she had no problem with the app’s GPS function during work hours, but she objected to the monitoring of her location during non-work hours and complained to Stubits that this was an invasion of her privacy. She likened the app to a prisoner’s ankle bracelet and informed Stubits that his actions were illegal. Stubits replied that she should tolerate the illegal intrusion…..”
She (and others) did NOT know this monitoring would be done on their off-hours when it was installed. And in fact he “admitted” as much, and even stated “she should tolerate the ILLEGAL INTRUSION.” [My emphasis. He admits its illegal, and knows it is an intrusion.]
I can’t see that ANY employee is obligated to accept monitoring off the job.
Archer — Well said. Looking forward to part 3. By all means come back and toot your horn and troll for readership whenever you post new segments. 🙂
C.H.I.P. looks awesome! I might actually get one of those.
Golden rule of political power: “The power you give the government to do unto others will be used to do unto you.”
Pat, you’re quoting the (obviously biased) statements of the plaintiff’s attorney, not of the employer himself. That quote is from the pleadings in the lawsuit and has to be read as such (in other words, keeping in mind that it is putting everything in the best possible light from the plaintiff’s perspective).
“Admitted” is a loaded word; would you feel differently if he had merely “acknowledged” it? Because that’s probably a better characterization of the actual conversation. And the description of the activity as being “illegal” is the plaintiff’s (or her attorney’s), not the employer’s. There is no indication that the employer has conceded that the actions were “illegal” (again, we have merely the attorney’s third-person description of a conversation at which, as far as I can tell, he wasn’t even present; such a statement wouldn’t even be admissible in a trial as it is hearsay). It is certainly possible that such monitoring is specifically illegal under CA law (I don’t know), but I rather doubt it.
Absent that, I maintain that this appears to have been a condition of employment and the employer had every right to fire her for violating it. I wouldn’t work at such a place, either, but I respect the employer’s right to set whatever (lawful) conditions he chooses.
Laird – you could be right about it all. (And, in fact, if he “acknowledged” it, yes, I would feel he was admitting it.)
But there is no proof, either, that she *did* hire on knowing that 24/7 monitoring was going on – and nothing has been said by either side that she and other employees agreed (verbally or written) to round-the-clock monitoring. Until the company shows proof that that clause is in the contract, or was made known to the employees in another manner, I feel it’s justified to accept the accusation made by her.
In any case, the business of tracking employees off-duty with company equipment is the real issue. (And as this IS company equipment, why is it available off-duty?) That’s like giving students school computers to take home so they can be monitored. That’s a no-no also.
BTW, as far as disabling the phone, I feel that’s a monkey-wrenching job which she has taken the correct action to settle – namely, taking it to court! Somewhat akin to Jury Nullification, it is *challenging the law* – or an implied right, in this case – which allows the company to monitor employees on their off time. It will be interesting to see what the courts do with it.
Claire – Thank you for the compliment! That means a lot to me!
FYI, Part 3 should go live at 3 am Saturday, “Pacific NorthWET” time (I’m in Oregon), barring any unforeseen difficulties.
[I can’t see that ANY employee is obligated to accept monitoring off the job.]
That’s true. Quit the job if it bothers you. But in a free society anyway, the practice is not at all inconsistent with liberty. Employers can put any condition on their employees that they please, as long as it’s agreed to in the employment contract. Who is going to stop them (other than the difficulty in finding employees)?