Northwest Searches Employees' Home Computers 460
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.
Re:You've misunderstood something. (Score:2)
--
Re:Long time no smell (Score:2)
--
Stenographic tools (Score:2)
I have Jsteg (as patches [ofdoom.com] against version 4 [ofdoom.com] of the Independent JPEG Group's software, and a prebuilt windows version [ofdoom.com]), as well as White Noise Storm [ofdoom.com]. They both, in my opinion do excellent jobs of hiding data.
Meanwhile, on the same day... (Score:2)
So not only can you boycott Northwest, you can boycott in comfort.
Re:Now before you start spouting your righteousnes (Score:2)
...phil
Re:Now before you start spouting your righteousnes (Score:2)
You must have read a different article than the one on the Star-Tribune page, then. The Slashdot description talks about free pcs, but the linked article does not. I just read it again to be sure. At no place in the original article is there any implication that the company provided the PCs for any of the employees.
Are you one of the computer users that feels "powerful and excited" when using a computer?
Amusing. Lame, but amusing.
...phil
Hmm. (Score:2)
but upon reading this story it looks like many of the people affected here were not technology people, who were perhaps in roles not so much in demand (the airline industry)..
...and much more easily victimized by this sort of behaviour. the corporate masters know damn well the employees can't do very much, it's not like there's 8 other airlines down the street they can run off to.
Perhaps the best way to help these folks is to call your friendly Northwest Airlines office and explain why you don't plan on flying with them anytime soon.
Of course you could also book a flight with them and take the oppurtunity to pass out pamphlets on the flight.
Lawyer: getting through the misinformation here (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an atrorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This one needs hip-waders to get through.
This is not an employer searching employees. It is a litigant going through the normal discovery process in civil litigation. The other litigants just happen to be a group of employees (not all of the employees) of the airlines.
There are *no* privacy concerns here that are not present *every* time civil litigation looks at private papers or other materials of a litigant.
In this case, there was a very large number of "sick" employees during a labor dispute. Not just a little above average, but so many sick employees that it is beyond belief that they were all sick. *someone* organized this violation of federal labor law. The airline has sued those it believes to be impossible. If these people did it, it is probable that they exchanged email (which for some reason, people don't tend to delete). The litigant is entitle look.
> "If Northwest succeeds in gaining access to the hard drives of the
> home computers of its employees, it will certainly put a chill on the
> uses employees everywhere make of their home computers," said Beth
> Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in San Diego.
*duh* If criminals belongings can be sorted through, it will certainly chill the stolen things they keep. In *no* way is this a general search of employees by an employer. To prevent this, we would have to create a special right for employees in litigation with their employer to withhold relevant evidence.
Note that the search was done only after getting a warrant from the court, which required a judge to review the search.
Also note (if you actually read the article) that it is not Northwest, nor even their attorneys, that are looking at the data. An accounting firm has been hired, and will only turn over data covered by the warrant.
hawk, esq.
hundreds? (Score:2)
eleven employees? All of whom were either organizing the activity,
or running "related" websites?
Assuming that all of them really are defendants, and that there is
enough evidence for the suit to have gotten this far, there's
really nothing unusual about a search this intrusive.
Maybe that should be changed, but given the current system, the
protections offered (third party review) seem to have been well done.
hawk, esq.
Good book to recommend to people (slightly OT) (Score:2)
The Cold Cash War, by Robert Asprin. (Same guy who edited Thieves' World and wrote the Myth series of fantasy-humor novels, BTW).
The plot starts out as a nice, easy-reading story: wargames, a little bit of intrigue... Corporations doing financial battle with each other, in both legal and "gray area" ways. Then they decide that the governments (of various countries) are getting in the way of their little games. The logical solution, of course, is to get rid of the power of said governments. That's when it starts to get interesting (and more than a little scary).
Now if you're already concerned about corporate abuse of power, you'll be thinking ahead as you read the book and it won't catch you completely off-guard. But just recommend it to someone else, then casually mention (after they've read it and been shocked by the ending) "Hey, did you know the corporations are already trying to take over the power of the government?" Then when they answer, "No way, I'd have heard something about that," you can explain about the RIAA, the MPAA, Northwest, that quote by that lawyer about "Business speech isn't protected like political speech. You have the right to bad-mouth the government, but you don't have the right to bad-mouth a corporation." I mangled the quote, I'm sure, but that was the gist of it. Be sure to quote that one, then if they don't believe anyone ever said that, pull out the source and show them!
As has been pointed out time and time again, there are several key components to keeping your rights, and one of them is mindshare. Corporate PR tricks would be much less effective if more people saw through them. Educate your friends!
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Slander and Libel of public figures (Score:2)
In England I think it is easier to sue for slander/libel because in most cases the defendant has to demonstrate evidence to justify what he/she has stated.
--
It's still big brother (Score:2)
Criminal investigations conducted by an appropriate government agency with a legal warrant should be the only searches of private property allowed in a free society.
--
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
As for the tied-to-the-land thing, okay, I'll grant you that (given the admission that it's often practically different) but it's a nitpick and doesn't really change the situation.
--
from britannica (Score:2)
from encyclopedia britannica [britannica.com]:
Hey look, "personal and freely accepted links". I think the first part is very clearly what we've got today. And the "another aspect" mentioned is becoming more and more true, as this story demonstrates.
--
Re:from britannica (Score:2)
A difference in our modern system would be that the "serf class" is no longer,as you say, tied to the land but instead gets to be tacked on to the bottom of the king->duke->earl->baron->knight hierarchy. This is certainly an improvement, but as I said, it's a nitpick -- the overall system is striking analogous. And really, by the time one gets down to the bottom of the chain, there's not much left over.
--
Free PC's are still relevant (Score:2)
Consider: It's illegal to tap a phone line proactively, and it's impossible to tap a phone line retroactively. The speech was either recorded from the realtime source or it was lost to the passage of time. Similar considerations affect person to person contact.
However, email is based upon my message staying on your machine until you see it. AIM, ICQ, and other instant messaging systems also are based on the concept that your text remains for as long as the client desires. The courts have ruled--correctly, incidentally--that you should not have the same rights against recording of an email as you should of a phone call because of this.
That's not to say that email shouldn't be private material not dissimilar to any other form of non-realtime communication--a paper letter, a video tape, or whatnot. But it's intrinsic in the format that it gets recorded.
And that's why corporations love the concept of informal communications shifting to email.
There are many protections on informal speech that have gone unspecified because they've been implemented by the protections against recording realtime communications. As everything shifts to non-realtime, an individual's informal communication profile is far easier to track, maintain, and correct.
Give your employees free PC's, and start logging not just the memos but the chatter. Start watching the buzz, not the hype. Start attacking the quiet dissidents, not the martyrs.
Don't get me wrong--I personally think Ford Motors is embarking on a bold and honorable step in giving 350K free pc's to their employees. But as we shift towards a society where informal communications are intrinsically non-realtime and logged, we need to be aware that the separation between public and private speech needs to be maintained. If the Free PC's are given in a cynical attempt to fund a employee monitoring infrastructure, or even if that becomes the unintended consequence, the harms to business will be significant.
It's the ability to speak privately that has maintained most of business's immunity from free speech codes. Should Americans start needing to go to onerous lengths to be able to speak without fear, there will be a backlash and Corporate America will be hurt by the resultant votemongering. I am not convinced that this would be a particularly good thing.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Re:A defense of NWA - in THIS case! (Score:2)
In this case, the employees did not have permission to strike, or to stage quasi-strikes like a sick-out. So, if it turns out that the employees DID organize an illegal sick-out, NWA would be allowed to fire them as no-shows. They weren't sick, they were bullying the company, in defiance of the orders of federal mediators.
---
I stand corrected... (Score:2)
1) Consider how recent it is. It certainly took the government there some time to get a clue. It's there, but it took long enough.
2) Look at the wording difference between the two. The CCRF guarantees the right. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that this right cannot be taken away, something which the Charter you've linked to does not do. It grants the right but does not guarantee it.
3) All right, the US is one of two nations. If anyone else can find another nation with a free-speech clause, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear it. I stand by the assertion that while other nations might practice it for the time being, there are now only two nations which speficically grants that right, and is the only nation to actually guarantee it.
This is sick... (Score:2)
If a business wants to search its own computers for evidence that's, well, its business. The computers are its property, and it has the right to search it.
But going for employees' personal computers is way out of line. This is not cool. And this bit about abridging free speech to only poitical matters: no way. I'm sorry; the US government is bad in a lot of ways, but it's done one thing I'm proud of: it's the only nation with a free speech clause in its Constitution. And no, that doesn't mean just political matters. It means all speech. Whether or not a few fat-cats in penthouse corner offices like it. Whether or not a few crazed zealots like it. Whether or not perfectly reasonable, sane people like it. It doesn't matter. It's all speech.
Yeah, if you're using speech to commit a crime (like shouting "Fire!" in a theater) that's one thing; the right to swing my fist ends at the other man's nose. But this is hardly such a case. No crime was comitted, and no one has the right to cause such a gross privacy invasion on those grounds.
Come to think of it, is this even legal?
a very fine line (Score:2)
"Business speech is not subject to the same protections as political speech," said John Roberts, a Minneapolis attorney who specializes in cyberlaw.
The statement is true, but obtuse. You can say or print some pretty evil, nasty things in a political context, and not be sued for slander, libel, or defamation of character. But the issue here is whether business speech is differently protected from common speech. IANAL, but the comparison to political speech seems irrelevant.
"You can't say whatever you want about a company."
Again, it's true, in the strictest sense. You can say or print things that are slanderous and libelous, and most likely you'll get sued. Is this different from saying similar things about your neighbor or co-worker? I don't think so. How does this relate to the search and seizure of private email? If private, personal email was used to broadcast a message (i.e. multiple copies sent to a broad range of recipients) and that message can be shown to be legally actionable, then maybe they do have a leg to stand on. It's not private email anymore. However, the implication of Roberts' statement is that companies enjoy some sort of special protection or extension of slander/libel definitions. Such an implication is just silly, unless you take into account that Northwest Air has enough money to form a protective barrier against critical speech based on litigiousness.
Northwest management (Score:2)
In my mind, this is akin to a company getting a court order to examine the calling records of employees home telephone lines. I can't say that I have heard of that happening, and perhaps it isn't all that unusual.
However, Northwest may be setting precedent only in the fact that we can point out and say "this is what badly run companies do."
It is unusual to hear of an airline so disliked as Northwest is, and the reason many point out is Northwest's management, which has been extremely effective at demoralizing its employees. A demoralized work force is not a good work force, and I hope that any idiot manager knows this. It's why many people refuse to fly the airline, and the biggest loser is the state of Minnesota, which is beholden to Northwest's high fares and bad service.
The reason for examing the computers had to do with illegal union action. While I am not necessarily the biggest fan of unions, illegal union action in the airline industry isn't all that unusual. The reason it occurs is usually because airline management is doing something stupid or not answering employee demands (which admittedly may be unreasonable.)
Illegal union action has generally been viewed as not as severe as, say, stealing something from the airline. Most airlines get the picture, or they just continue to let the situation worsen (a la Frank Lorenzo and Eastern airlines...a good example of bad management turning a good airline into crap and then destroying it.)
It surprises me that the union isn't as concerned about this, but perhaps they are trying to take the high road, letting the airline discover nothing, and then mocking it's attempts later.
My favorite quote (Score:2)
Did the employees "own" the computer? (Score:2)
If the employer owned the machine, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. If the employee owned the machine, it should be illegal. (I didn't see in the article whether the employee definitively owned the machine or not - correct me if I'm wrong)
It's the same reason why when you work at an office, and they give you an email account and a computer, most real companies make you sign something that says "This is our equipment that we are letting you use, don't ever be fooled into thinking that you can't be monitored" -- in other words, generally speaking, when the company owns the machine, they give you fair warning that you have no privacy on their equipment. Even without the warning though it makes sense that they would have that right.
But all of that assumes that they in fact own the machines, which I'm not sure about. Please post below if you know.
Typical (Score:2)
All of you that are fed up with this crap, go to the nearest window, open it (with something large and heavy if needed) and scream "I'm mad as hell and you try this shit I'll stab you with a protractor!"
Karma be damned.
Re:That's way out of line. (Score:2)
Re: pop the boot disk (Score:2)
Re:Of course you can't say whatever you want... (Score:2)
They have every right to search anything they own.
You're not allowed to speak badly about or take actions against your employer and expect to keep your job (obviously sexual harrassement and cases of the like are different).
They can search your home computer if they have a court order.
They can search your work computer whenever they want, and don't need to tell you shit.
now.... how I've swayed from my argument is beyond me, but these are the breaks. I wouldn't even call this an argument, because these are facts.
end of story.
Of course you can't say whatever you want... (Score:2)
Those are the breaks in a capitalist society.
Re:Of course you can't say whatever you want... (Score:2)
Re:please don't make capitalists look bad (Score:2)
Re:Of course you can't say whatever you want... (Score:2)
Don't quote me here, I'm not an expert, but I believe thats how it works.
Moderate the above post up, please (Score:2)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled misinformed Slashdot rant-orgy.
----
Re:passwords? (Score:2)
Security through obscurity. Physical access trumps every security consideration except encryption. Never forget that.
How would PGP help with this? (Score:2)
The story doesn't talk much about email, it's all in reference to some web site. Probably a messageboard or something. My guess is that they're looking for temp files left behind by textbox editors, or they're looking at browser caches and URL history logs. PGP isn't going to help with that sort of thing.
---
remember Microsoft subpoenaing "bad-attitude"? (Score:2)
Read the details here. [jwz.org]
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
Re:passwords? (Score:2)
Re:passwords? (Score:2)
Uh, don't be so sure about that. Unless the files are encrypted or on an encrypted file system, if a person can get physical access to the machine it isn't at all difficult to get files off of it. There are lots of ways to do this regardless of the operating system in question. Given physical access to the machine I can retrieve files off of any variety of Windows (including NT and W2K), Macs, or any variety of UNIX (including Linux).
If you want to keep your files safe, you need to use encryption. Strong encryption. And you need to protect your passwords and take other security precautions.
Re:consequences (Score:2)
That would be here [nwa.com].
Give the Devil a Finger... (Score:2)
But the more frightening aspect of this story is how Northwest was able to get a court order allowing them to seize information on home systems in a period of discovery. In spite of what I've read in some Slashdot comments, Northwest did not supply those systems. Stretching to the limit the court's willingness to stop "cybersmearing", Northwest was given legal permission to essentially trample over the right to assembly and free speech.
In this age, assembly can be physical (as in a rally downtown), or electronic, as in a chat room or a on web site such as Slashdot. The same First Amendment rights that allow physical assembly and free speech can and should apply equally to their virtual equivalents. We've got to push this issue and make people understand there is no difference between the two.
Beware Techies Playing Lawyer (Score:2)
While I wish it was otherwise, Boyd is (all but?) dead. It was decided over 100 years ago, and has been whittled down to (next to) nothing.
In Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) the Supreme Court stated that private papers are an owner's "dearest property." Id. at 627-28. Relying on both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Court found that allowing the state to compel production of that property would be "abhorrent to the instincts" of an American and "contrary to the principles of a free government." Id. at 632. The rule in Boyd has been criticized. For example, Judge Friendly called it "ringing but vacuous" because it "tells us almost everything, except why." Henry J. Friendly, The Fifth Amendment Tomorrow: The Case for Constitutional Change, 37 U. Cin. L. Rev. 671, 682 (1968). Nevertheless, as recently as Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974), the Supreme Court reemphasized that the Fifth Amendment protects "'a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought', an inner sanctum which necessarily includes an individual's papers and effects to the extent that the privilege bars their compulsory production and authentication." Id. at 91 (quoting Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 327 (1973)).
Nevertheless, it seems very likely that a majority of the Supreme Court would hold that the rule found "abhorrent" in 1886 is now the law because the rule in Boyd has been whittled away to irrelevance: First, only natural persons can find shelter under the Fifth Amendment, and only for papers they both own and control. Thus, corporations can never claim the privilege, and neither can natural persons with regard to corporate records, even if they created and now control those records. Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 109-10 (1988). Second, once papers are handed to another, the legitimate expectation of privacy needed to maintain a claim under either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments disappears. (The attorney-client privilege is an exception to this general rule.) Third, records required to be kept for legal or regulatory purposes are outside the privilege. Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1948). Fourth, persons can be forced to perform nontestimonial acts such as giving handwriting samples. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 266-67 (1967). This rule has also been applied to voice samples, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 222-23 (1967). and blood samples. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 (1966). Fifth, aliens outside the sovereign territory of the United States do not ordinarily enjoy Fifth Amendment rights. Finally, in Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight, the Supreme Court, analogizing the mother's care of the child to a required record, held that producing a child was not testimonial, and therefore the Fifth Amendment did not apply. See also Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 472-73 (1976) (holding that a legal search of the petitioner's office resulting in the seizure of voluntarily recorded business records authenticated by a prosecution witness was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment); Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 101 (1974) (holding that a dissolved law partnership had its own institutional identity, and its records were held in a representative capacity; therefore a grand jury subpoena for those records could not be ignored on Fifth Amendment grounds); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 698-99 (1944) (holding that an officer of an unincorporated labor union could not refuse, based on Fifth Amendment protections, to produce the union's records); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 56-58 (1906) (holding that a witness who, because of statutory immunity, cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment as to oral testimony cannot invoke it against the production of books and papers).
In light of these decisions it is fair to ask whether the Fifth Amendment applies to anything other than oral testimony. The odds are that the Supreme Court would hold that it does not, that Boyd has therefore lost all its vitality, and that Justice O'Connor was correct when she stated that the exceptions have now swallowed the rule: "[T]he Fifth Amendment provides absolutely no protection for the contents of private papers of any kind." United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 618 (O'Connor, J., concurring).
A. Michael Froomkin [mailto],
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
I honestly don't know about this one... (Score:2)
All I gotta say is that I am glad I am running an alternative OS. I know for a fact that nobody at my company could even figure out the whole lilo: thing, let alone get inside my machine and poke around.
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
As to the potential evil of meganationals, show me their armies, their police, their courts and their jails, and then I'll worry.
Re:Who cares if it's all legal. (Score:2)
It's even more unjust for a law to require an employer not to fire an employee who fails to clock in.
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
So you would use the same governments bought by the corps to fight the corps with? Crazy! Sort of like summoning demons to perform an excorcism with.
"As for the tied-to-the-land thing, okay, I'll grant you that (given the admission that it's often practically different) but it's a nitpick and doesn't really change the situation."
A nitpick!?! The feudal lord WAS THE STATE! He had the power of summary EXECUTION! He threw into the gibbet any serf that QUIT! Don't give me any bullshit that your boss has anywhere near the power over you that a feudal lord would. That's just delusional.
Hey Rob! Does Larry get first night rights?
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
<EM?That's fine, because the badges are totally unnecessary.</EM>
Careful, you're starting to step over the line into the lunatic fringe of conspiracists.
<EM>if you've got a better idea that prevents this, let me know</EM>
Simple. And you already said it: "<EM>I think being able to use them is what matters</EM>". Take the power away from the government. Only if the government first has the power to enter your home and perform an illegal search and seizure could it possibly sell that power to Northwest Airlines. Only if it already has the power to prevent you from reverse engineering your DVDs could it ever hope to sell that power to the MPAA. Limit government to only its legitimate functions. Don't let it have so much power that it feels compelled to sell off the excess to the highest bidder.
Of course, this means we have to keep a closer eye out on the government. We can't go to sleep like we did during the fifty years or so. And we will also have to stop demanding new laws and start demanding that a lot of the old ones get repealed.
Apropos the junkie and the dealer analogy, if we keep yelling at the junkies and keep ignoring the pusher, we will never solve the problem.
Re:from britannica (Score:2)
On the other hand, this thread is more concerned with manorialism, the economic system that the workers had to live under. As such, it is extremely dissimilar to the modern workplace. The closest we've ever come to this in the US was the chattel slavery of the south (which was far worse than serfdom).
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
If that's true, then every nation in the past, present, and as far as I can see, the future, has been a fuedal nation. Every employer would be a manorial lord. Even you, if you hired someone, would be a tyrant.
When you redefine a word to mean everything, it will end up meaning nothing. Study what feudalism, particularly the manorial feudalism, and you'll see that it is not just a quantitative difference between it and modern employment, but they're radically divergent in every area.
Re:ever heard of pinkerton? (Score:2)
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
Sheesh! Is your world so small that you can only find one corporation in it? Within walking distance of where I sit there are VA Linux, SGI, Microsoft, and Sun. There are also several dozen computer and internet related startups. And if I wanted to get out of computing, there are Alza and Acuson. Those poor sots working at AOL/Time/Warner's Netscape building down the street are hardly bound to their employer like a medieval serf.
"Oh yea the corps have first amendment rights granted to them by the Supreme Court so it follows that they MUST have second amendment rights too. You can bet your ass they are going to raise armies soon."
Are you actually imagining that a company would raise and arm their own army?!? Sir, either your brain has short circuited or you've been at the wacky-tabacky again. You scenario might make a good Tom Clancy novel, but a plausible occurance it is not. Remember, every one of their employees (who incidentally outnumber them) also have the same second amendment rights. Ooh! That's another difference between feudalism and employment. Here is the US, employees and employers have identical legal rights.
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
Ridiculous! (Score:2)
When drug testing began, no one objected, since they didn't do drugs themselves. Then they refused to hire smokers and no one complained because they weren't smokers themselves. Now they want to base employment on your opinions. You let the camel stick its nose under the tent, and now it's all the way in.
Re:a very fine line (Score:2)
Thanks, Crush
Re:This is why I PGP (Score:2)
Re:Where will regulations stop? (Score:2)
Obviously there needs to be some kind of control - but this should be the employees' self-control and pure considerate behavior, :
Like not organizing demonstrations that are deemed to be illegal by the same legal system that decrees that it is permissible to search and seize the private property of employees. Come on! Who makes and implements the laws? Give you a hint: it's not the employees of this world.
some things just shouldn't be done (like sharing trade secrets with competitors, bad-mouthing your company on company time/property
Sharing trade secrets with competitors is a bit differnt to the other example there - a much more pithy way of putting would have been if you'd said:
"some things just shouldn't be done (like sexually abusing children, bad-mouthing your company on company time/property, or organizing pesky union activities"
With regard to your regulation screed, well, as far as I'm concerned we need more of it: regulation inspired, controlled, changed and created by the working people of this country, not by the freakin' bosses. I'm convinced that this will lead to letting
people have at the least basic freedom to do what they want on their own time with their own lives. Things that aren't dangerous to others shouldn't have to be regulated.
I sympathize with the goal but disagree with the method because I don't think it will work.
Re:Stop panicking, it's all legal. (Score:2)
Re: commercial speech vs. political speech (Score:2)
Re:feudal system (Score:2)
Sorry to trivialize. I agree totally with your point, we seem to be moving further and further into the corporatist model of society - wouldn't Benito, Adolf and Josef have been proud.
Re:Now before you start spouting your righteousnes (Score:2)
Evidence.. all in the evidence and law. (Score:2)
1) Law that has potentially been broken
and
2) Reasonable evidence to suggest that evidence would be found on people's home PC's, and the 'data' being looked for can be specified clearly.
then I can see how this can happen. The law probably allows it.
Personally, it seems totally wrong. It's private communications.
Another reason why encryption is necessary.
Re:Not a 1st Amendment Issue... a 4th & 5th. (Score:2)
Is NorthWest to be blamed for aksing, and receiving permission from the justice system to do it? What about the lawyers? Who's to blame?
What about the employees who decide to rebel out and all call in sick for new years... gee... that's really grown up.
Re:Not a 1st Amendment Issue... a 4th & 5th. (Score:2)
Having just read the document you reference, can be summarized as follows.
If you read the whole thing.. the supreme court ruled that:
1) Forcing defendant to either bring his papers in voluntarily, or to be considered having confessed to the charge at hand violated the 5th.
2) That the act used to obtain the warrant did not in fact give any power of search and siezure, and therefore that search and siezure constituted a violation of the 4th.
It does not in any way say that you can never have your personal papers admitted to evidence. Specifically, the act in question, that was used to obtain a warrant, dealt specifically with *NON-CRIMINAL* matters, mainly customs.
Oops, sorry Judge (Score:2)
This is un-fscking believable! Reagan spent us into a 4 trillion dollar national debt and near bankruptcy to beat the "evil empire" (USSR, now Russia and assorted components) and now we have adopted the same governmental intrusions and lack of freedom that we tried to eliminate.
You may be absolutely sure that I will not be flying this airline and I will let them know exactly why.
Russ
Re:You left out the important bits... (Score:2)
Granted this will alienate their employees, which is a bad thing, but anyone who has every flown NW can tell you morale and service is so bad there that it shouldn't make any difference (morale can't go below zero can it?)
Except (Score:2)
Far from cut and dried...
Re:Quit spreading panic (Score:2)
When you enter into a contract with a union, they do your collective bargaining for you. They agree to certain terms in exchange for a more favorable wage and benefits package.
One of the things they agree not to do is organize a sickout, where employees are directed to take time off with pay in an effort to cripple the employer. The employees signed the agreement saying they wouldn't do a sickout, and therefore, Northwest has a right to sue for breach of contract. In order for them to prove breach, they have to prove the sickout was organized, and this is a step along that line.
Here's a quarter, old man. Go getcher self an education.
Security through obscurity - NOT! (Score:2)
Stop panicking, it's all legal. (Score:2)
If you deal drugs, The Man will get a search warrant and comb your house looking for evidence.
If you call a sickout at work when it's illegal, The Man will get a search warrant and comb your house looking for evidence.
In both cases, computers are just as fair game as your answering machine, your fridge, or your trash can. Why are you all suddenly so paranoid? Don't you realize they've had this same right for a long, long time? Nothing's changed about this. Even Al Capone had to let the feds look through his cooked books, and this is no different. He owned his accounting papers, you own your computer, but if you use it for illegal activities and The Man gets a warrant, you're wide open.
Quit spreading panic (Score:2)
If you drive down the highway with five keys of coke on the back seat, don't you think the cops will search the rest of your car?
And if you participate in an activity that is blatantly illegal (a union sickout), don't you expect to get prosecuted? If we were talking about handwritten notes on somebody's fridge ("Call in sick on next Monday") would you still be horrified? The employee owns the paper and pen, but that's still subject to search and seizure.
Relax, stop being a knee-jerk. They did something illegal, and their stuff got searched. It doesn't matter who owned the computer, or that it was even a computer. They did something illegal, and that's what happens when you do something illegal - or even look like you did. You get seached. C'est la vie.
Re:I honestly don't know about this one... (Score:2)
Re:Now before you start spouting your righteousnes (Score:2)
The free PC thing is something provided by ford motor company for its employees. And it has nothing to do with Northwest Airlines. Really, I'm surprised your reading comprehension is so low.
[ c h a d o k e r e ] [dhs.org]
Re:I honestly don't know about this one... (Score:2)
Re:Define away the voice (Score:2)
Of course Heinlein had it right! The times I've disagreed with Heinlein's thoughts have been very few and far between. The man was a political genius, in addition to having an amazing flair for storytelling. If only someone with power would realize the perfection behind many of Heinlein's ideas and put them into practice....
--
Re:Now before you start spouting your righteousnes (Score:2)
I don't think you read it right, they weren't using company property, they don't even work on computers, they're flight attendants.
This is a bad precedent, downright scary if you ask me (which you didn't).
Compare to Microsoft Case & Watergate (Score:2)
Now, before everyone jumps on the obvious difference, let me point it out: MS is a corporation, these were private individuals on there personal computers.
In the US there is no legal difference between a corporation and a person. It is obviously absurd, but that's the law as constituted by our elected officials and within our power to change if we're sufficiently motivated. Also, I for one use my "home" computers almost exclusively for work (well, and Slashdot), and would expect them to be searched in the case of a lawsuit just like my paper records. If Union officers and members use their home computers for union activities, they probably should expect them to be treated the same way that paper records in the union office are.
Somebody asked how this is different from wiretapping. This is an interesting question -- are getting private e-mails like wiretapping, or they like subpeonaing paper records? I think the issue with wiretapping is that it creates a fixed and permanent record of something people expect to be ephemeral: conversation. In the case of web forums and e-mail, their very operation involves creating a fixed record. Even if you encrypt your messages, you may be reasonably ordered to unencrypt them, or be held in contempt. Furthermore, if you delete them under the expectation that they can be used against you, that is obstruction of justice.
This reminds me rather of the Watergate tapes. Nixon recorded everything that went on in his office and foolishly assumed that it would not be used against him. The Senate subpoenaed the tapes, even though he considered them personal and private, and was within their rights. Obviously, he felt his rights were violated because they were his personal records. But records are records; once the records exist, they are fair game to be searched for specific evidence that can reasonably be expected to be there. You are not completely without protection: records cannot be searched in fishing expedition style for embarassing tidbits or for evidence of unrelated misdeeds. Obviously this isn't much protection unless you get yourself very good lawyer pit bull insticts.
The bottom line is, don't conspire my means of (or within earshot of) any medium whose very operation requires creating a fixed and permemant record (what about IRC?). If you do use such a medium, make sure that it does not record any kind of information that could be used to identify people.
As James Michael Curley, the convicted felon/many time mayor of Boston used to say: "Never write when you can speak; never speak when you can nod."
Re:This is sick... (Score:2)
May I take this time to point out how ignorant you are and direct you to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [justice.gc.ca].
You might enjoy freedom 2 b, I know I do.
-- iCEBaLM
Re: commercial speech vs. political speech (Score:2)
The issue of commercial speech comes up when you're discussing the right of some bozo to call you during dinner every night. Or the right of his friend to cross your fence and walk onto your property to leave a flyer on your door. Or the right of another chum to start up a loud rally next door to your house.
If the purpose of that those acts is to collect like minded people to march down to the next town council meeting to air their grievance, that's the heart of democracy. If the purpose of the acts is to remind you that Billy Bob's Bag 'o Boots is having a special 9/10th price sale for only one more week (just like the sales they've had for the past three years), then that speech is interfering with your right to "peaceful enjoyment" of your property to such an extent that most jurisdictions say "enough!"
Never forget: nobody went out looking for reasons to restrict commercial speech until the local equivalent of Herb Tarlek made it clear that it would take a court order to make him shut up and go away. It's easy to ignore a newspaper that's nothing but ads, ditto a tv or radio station. It's a damn slight harder to ignore the ringing phone, jammed email box, or minivan with loudspeakers on top.
Re:You left out the important bits... (Score:2)
Though on the side, I find it absolutely absurd that federal law prevented these employees from striking. What particular right does the government have to do regulate a group of employees pooling a resource that they have in order to charge a higher premium for it?
put companies on the ballot (Score:2)
Re:"You can't say whatever you want about a Compan (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Plaintiffs *can* search in civil cases (Score:2)
The second is a quote from one of the defendants' lawyers:
The final quote is atributed to the local union president:
The reporters went out of their way to carefully state several times that the judge authorized the search of the home computers -- they never stated in any way that the police was involved, and there is no indication that anything else was subpoenaed. This was a search by Ernst and Young, acting as agents of Northwest, of computers as part of discovery in a lawsuit by means of subpoena -- something that goes on all the time.
Re:Define away the voice (Score:2)
Besides, how could we continue to have the SickFare state if only people with military service could vote...
Re:Just another reason to use PGP on all your e-ma (Score:2)
they can subpoena your passphrase (Score:2)
On the other hand, you can make a good case that this falls under the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination.
The constitution does not prohibit seisure of evidence with a warrant, and common law definitely permits it; but is it really evidence before they decrypt it? That is, is subpoenaing a passphrase the same thing as saying, "tell us where you buried the body or we'll throw you in jail", which is prohibited by the 5th amendment.
I don't know if which I think is more "correct" from the two conflicting views. I hesitate to say that it should be decided on the grounds of what is preferable in most cases, because I think there might be a clear reason one interpretation should be preferred, but I just haven't figured out what that reason is.
--Kevin
Why is a sickout illegal? (Score:2)
1. We don't think the government has the (moral) authority to make a sick-out illegal. Do these people have contracts that say their employment is not at-will? If not, then the government has no business sticking it's nose in.
2. It sounds awfully similar to the church of scientology seizing computers with the assistance of various law enforcement agencies, which was clearly a free speech issue, and also a due process issue -- is the standard procedure to have the f-ing PLAINTIFF seize and inspect the defendents computer?
--Kevin
please don't make capitalists look bad (Score:2)
A consistent capitalist would have to maintain that outlawing sick-outs is only different in degree from slavery. (Both are instances of forcing someone to work against his will.)
--Kevin
Story is incomplete (Score:2)
This question cannot be answered from the article because they chose to focus on the computer angle, as if it added anything new to the story. Had they done so, and if it's indeed true that a company could have obtained federal court authorization to go through employees' personal papers just as readily as their computers' hard drives, then this story could have been a great springboard to a serious discussion of privacy rights in general, and possibly a spur to political action. But they didn't.
And if it's not true, and the court considered data stored on a computer less worthy of protection than someone's personal papers, it would have been interesting - and possibly a cause of outrage - to know why. That question wasn't answered either. I don't think that reporter understood the issues well enough to report on them effectively.
small suggestion :) (Score:2)
That way, regardless of whether or not the encrypted files are considered self-incriminatory, you'd be safe.
:)
Best regards,
SEAL
P.S. IANAL and under the f-ed up U.S. legal system, I would still expect to get held in contempt of court for a stunt like this...
Based on the article, (Score:2)
I'd hate to see another knee-jerk privacy reaction to this article when there's not really anything here to be concerned about.
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.
--