Slashdot Log In
Northwest Searches Employees' Home Computers
Posted by
michael
on Wed Feb 09, 2000 08:11 PM
from the pretty-poor-privacy dept.
from the pretty-poor-privacy dept.
J.t.Qbe writes "The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Northwest Airlines has begun searching home computers belonging to some of its employees for e-mail evidence that the employees helped organize a 'sickout' over New Year's. Scary stuff. Still eager to take that 'free PC' from your employer?" The best quote is from a corporate lawyer who redefines commercial speech to be speech about a corporation rather than speech by one: "Business speech is not subject to the same protections as political speech," said John Roberts, a Minneapolis attorney who specializes in cyberlaw. "You can't say whatever you want about a company."
Update: 02/09 20:41 by michael : Some slashdot readers are not reading the story before commenting. The computers in question are the personally-owned machines of their employees. The company is fighting the union in court, and obtained a court order to search the personal property of these people who are not even union officials.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Northwest Searches Employees' Home Computers
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 460 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Re:Also, this is apparently civil not criminal (Score:3)
Most workers do have a right to strike, but this right is limited in some cases (like this one),
Well, actually, it's so restricted that it's not really much of a tool any more. It would be more accurate to say that "have a right to strike, but only in such a way that it's going to be damned ineffective"
This is not a story about corporate bullies,
Oh , I think it is - just because they are acting legally doesn't mean that they're acting morally.
Two comments (Score:3)
The post said:
Still eager to take that "free PC" from your employer?
But these computers were not provided by Northwest. So this story has no relevance for employer-provided computers.
Second, this action does not seem that unreasonable in the context of a lawsuit. I think that framing it as a free speech issue is pretty misleading. These people are being sued for allegedly organizing an illegal sickout; their computers (and presumably paper communications) are being searched as part of the discovery process in the lawsuit.
No one (other than that idiot talking about "business speech") is trying to take away their right to say whatever they want. But as they always say on cop shows, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
After all, not very many people seem to complain about the internal Microsoft emails that were used as evidence in the antitrust trial. The same principle is at work here, except in this case it's poor little union members on trial.
Also, this is apparently civil not criminal (Score:3)
One important distinction to add here is that it apppears that this is a civil action by Northwest for damages against the union and two individual flight attendants that ran a web site. (Much of the rhetoric about this story here seems to be invoking issues such as warrants that apply in criminal cases.) Their homes were not searched and the police did not show up on their doorsteps demanding their computers. Most likely, as part of the discovery process, subpoenas were issued by the judge for information on the computers. Since Northwest had been able to show that it had a basic case that it had been improperly damaged (according to the story), the judge ruled that the company had the right to have reasonable access to the information they needed to make their case. The two flight attendants in this case, probably on the specific advice of counsel, turned their computers over to an (allegedly) expert party, Ernst and Young, at that firm's offices. This is normal procedure in civil cases.
A previous story that is linked to has the following quote:
Most workers do have a right to strike, but this right is limited in some cases (like this one), and the kinds of things you can do in support of a strike are limited. As the government itself is not a party here (beyond supplying a judge) this is not a First Amendment issue. In fact, the judge appears to be concerned that his ruling not become one:
This is not a story about corporate bullies, or invasion of privacy -- it is about the liability of web site operators for the actions of people who post anonymously on their sites. In that way it is like the DeCSS case.
Re:feudal system (Score:3)
As more and more "telecommuting" and things like corporations buying computers and real videoconferencing to the home (sponsored by the corporation, of course), become a reality, the boundary between "work" and "home" will fade even more. What if you have your own computer, but your employer provides a high-speed ADSL line as a fringe benefit and to help you telecommute? Are they allowed to sniff packets?
Of course, here in the U.S. we already work more hours a year than in any other industrialized countries. And yet people look at me like I'm nuts when I say I'm not interested in working more than 40 hours a week (especially in this industry) because I have to get home to my real job -- being a husband and a father. An engineer friend of mine recently said "You're just gonna have to learn that you're just gonna have to work 45 or 50 hours a week, 'cause that's what professionals do." This from a guy who is having serious marital problems.... anyway,
---
A few comments on Northwest airlines (Score:3)
I've lived in Minneapolis all of my life so far, and since Northwest is based here, I know them all too well. This will sound like flamebait twords them, and, well, it probably is. All the things I state are from my recollection of news reports over a number of years, so my comments won't be 100% accurate, but you'll get the picture.
If you were to put all corporations out there on a scale from best to worst, as far as how they treat their employees, and their customer service, Northwest would be VERY close to the bottom. They are truly horrible. The people who run the company are arrogant bastards. They've proven this again and again.
They are at perpetual war with their unions. Now you could probably say that about any company who has unions, but I think the situation at Northwest is worse than it is at, say, the big 3 automakers. A strike by one of the mechanics unions in the summer of 98 shut them down for almost 2 months if I remember correctly. The flight attendants have had the worst situation of all the unions there the past year or two. I beleive they haven't had an official contract for three years. After years of watching the news, it became obvious how much seething anger the executives have for these damned peon workers who dare ask for a raise. If they didn't care about PR, this is what they'd be saying.
Here in Minneapolis they control about 90% of all the gates. The Metropolitan Airport Commision (I beleive) controls who gets which gates, and for some odd reason, they decided to give Northwest a near monopoly! Hmm, I wonder what kind of money was being passed under the table....
So of course, what happened to airline prices? They went up, up, up! If I compare a flight from Minneapolis to any given city, and a flight from Des Moines (few hundred miles away) and that same other city, the Des Moines flight will usually cost less.
They've used public money before for their own good as well. They're the largest employer in the state, so the government here always caves into them. In 1994 I believe, they were on the brink of bankruptcy. The government gave them something like 50 to 100 million of MY tax dollars. A few years later, they were highly profitable again. Did this money come back to us? Of course not.
While this makes me sick (I have venemous anger for the northwest executives because I know people who work for them) this isn't that suprising. It isn't that the people who run them are a lot more evil than everyone else, this could happen anywhere. It's the state of the world that allowed them to become what they are, just like microsoft or hitler, for that matter.
So like I always say, get out there and protest, becuase we don't have many other options...
If anyone else from Minneapolis has more accurate figures on what I've stated here, please reply.
I think NW backed off... I think ... (Score:3)
The whole deal is sorta blurry though (coming down with flu and haven't had very good sleep.) Does anyone have further data confirming/denying that NW stepped away from this PR nightmare?
Re:You left out the important bits... (Score:3)
No, no, no. This is not the way the law should proceed. If I buy a computer for my personal use, I am entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I, personally, am paranoid beyond belief, so I encrypt everything. Your average Joe does not, but that's beside the point. Joe is still entitled to privacy. If Northwest has to look through its employees' personal computers for evidence of contract violation, Northwest doesn't have a very strong case.
Short version: This is a case of a corporation playing big brother. And it's wrong. They have no right to search people's private posessions. As far as I can tell, they don't have probable cause. This is a case of a corporation muscling the little guy around, yet again.
--
Bill of rights (Score:4)
If these people just stepped aside when a private investigator said "move, I'm searching your stuff on behalf of your boss" and it was THEIR personal computer, then they're really, really less informed about their rights than they ought to be.
If these people just stepped aside when a cop said "move, I'm searching your stuff on behalf of your boss" and DIDN'T have a warrant, they're really, really less informed about their rights than they ought to be. And somewhere there's a cop who misused his badge and needs disciplined.
If they stepped aside when a cop with a warrant said "move, I'm searching your stuff on behalf of your boss" then we've got bigger problems. This is what the article seems to say. The day a company can order a judge to grant a warrant with no evidence is the day we've started a slide into some Orwellian fantasy. It seems to me that either these folks did something dumb to raise suspicion, in which case a warrant could have been issued for correspondance, or this "federally authorized" search is actually not. The fact that they say it's just like taking a deposition makes me wonder if in fact it was authorized. I'm not a lawyer, but hell, I don't think you can enter someone's private residence and take their stuff under the guise of "fact finding".
My question is, WHY THESE PEOPLE? And what was the grounds for granting a warrant for getting their correspondances? Was one actually granted, or is this just a big mess that's slipping under the nose of some local judge who's busy with an overly full docket? Any attorney out there care to tell me if a "search warrant" covers anything and everything, or if a separate order has to be obtained to wiretap or monitor correspondance?
--
feudal system (Score:4)
--
A defense of NWA - in THIS case! (Score:4)
NWA obtained a legal court order to search for evidence of an *illegal* action by the flight attendants. If this was searching for paper rather than computer records, would Slashdot even fucking care? Speech may not be less free because it happens on a computer, but it isn't MORE free, either.
Some background on this case, since the media usually fails us... NWA has been in contract negotiations for i think three years now with the flight attendants, who are represented by the Teamsters. This fall, NWA and the Teamsters negotiators agreed on a contract, and the Teamsters took it to the flight attendants. The flight attendants voted it down. They responded with their list of demands, which would make NWA the industry leader in every single area of employee benefits for flight attendants, and refused to budge from that. The federal mediator then cancelled negotiations, on the grounds that the *flight attendants* were not negotiating in good faith.
Now, federal law prohibits airline employees from striking without court permission. Obviously, if the flight attendants were booted from the negotiating table for acting in bad faith, they aren't going to be allowed to strike. This includes actions like sick-outs. So, when they staged a sick-out, it was basically an illegal action. However, union officials have denied that it was officially organized or sanctioned, because they realize it will further undermine their position.
So presumably, NWA went to court to get the order to search personal computers for evidence that union officials were indeed behind the sick-out - a big win for NWA in court, and a deserved one.
I could make a lot of other points here, but i'll close with this one - speech should be no more or less protected on a computer than on any other media. If union officials stage an illegal action and then deny it, the company has a right to get a court order to search for evidence to the contrary, whether those records are on paper or on computer.
---
Just another reason to use PGP on all your e-mail. (Score:4)
That being said, I'm disgusted that Northwest is being allowed to search the home computers of the employees. If Northwest owns the computers, that's one thing. But if they're searching employees' private property, they need to be stopped. Even if the workers did organize a sick-out in violation of their contracts, they should still be entitled to privacy on their own computers.
Moral of the story is, use PGP religiously, and don't trust anyone. Especially the people you work for.
--