Judge Demands Email and Facebook Passwords From Women In Sexual Harassment Case 218
An anonymous reader writes "Back in September, a U.S. judge ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) rights of a 12-year-old student by forcing her to hand over her Facebook password to school officials who in turn used it to search for messages they deemed inappropriate. This month, another U.S. judge has ordered that women suing their employer for sexual harassment must hand over cell phones, passwords to their email accounts, blogs, as well as to Facebook and other social networks."
Lets split it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I propose /. split into two sites, one featuring litigation and the other focuses on news for nerds.
So interesting court cases are never news? I don't really have a problem with them turning up here.
The main issue I have with litigation stories are the inane comments threads. You have things that are blatantly wrong written by people who seem to have little understanding of the law (confusing civil and criminal matters, not understanding self-incrimination etc) and lawyers posting saying "I can't com
Re:Lets split it (Score:5, Funny)
I propose /. split into two sites, one featuring litigation and the other focuses on news for nerds.
So interesting court cases are never news?
It's like wrestling on the sci-fi channel. Yes, technically it is fantasy, but it just feels wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like wrestling on the sci-fi channel. Yes, technically it is fantasy, but it just feels wrong.
Unless it's Captain Kirk wrestling with a sexy blue alien, that IS wrong, but it feels so right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The crap legal stories that Slashdot runs are not news. The submitters, editors, and commenters don't know anything about law, so dozens of cases that are just ordinary applications of long-standing rules about evidence, procedure, etc., are published, usually with an absurdly over-dramatic leading question in the summary.
Duh, it's evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
A judge is perfectly permitted to require the defense access to potentially usable evidence given probable cause that the evidence is there. School officials, on the other hand, are not judges or part of the legal system.
Complete non-story by some muckraker. Naturally, /. posts it.
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
But a facebook password gives access to a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the case. This would be like the Judge demanding unlimited access to your house (without your oversight) so that they could have a look at what the TV in your living room looks like. There are better, more restrictive ways that the evidence could be gathered, ways that don't expose every intimate detail of a person's private life to the courts.
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
If, on the other hand, the defense wishes to use the email records as a defense, and the plaintiff disputes the veracity of these records, I can see the judge ordering access to the records to check on their veracity. If the plaintiff fails to provide these, then toss the case out: I have no problem with that. However, requiring a priori access to a person's correspondence at the outset of a case for no reason than to provide a judge with evidence outside the context of the court seems downright unconscionable.
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
The insidious implication of this ruling is that there is likely to be evidence in someone's Facebook or email. that pertains to a sexual harassment case, sight unseen.
You didn't read the article did you? Sight unseen? Of course it is sight unseen.. That's why the judge wants to see it - not to pass judgement on the case but to determine if there is anything there that will support the defense - as the defense alleges there is. If the judge finds that whatever is there is irrelevant then the defense cannot get access to it. If the plaintiff wants to avoid this then she can drop her complaint.
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much everything the defense "alleges" should have no bearing on the case (ex. "Sexually amorous communications with case members," a shirt with the word "CUNT" on it). Unless the Facebook contains the phrase "I am completely comfortable with the treatment I receive from my supervisor and in no way consider it a form of harassment" none of it should be admissible, and the judge should not even be investigating.
Wait, what? Why the hell should the word of the person filing the complaint be worth more than the word of the person defending?
A shirt with the word "CUNT" on it clearly has no bearing, but if it can be shown that you're having a consensual relationship with your supervisor that includes behavior that implies being comfortable with said relationship, case over. As it should be.
You're pretty much thinking about this the wrong way. The person filing the complaint should have to submit proof that they spec
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
A shirt with the word "CUNT" on it clearly has no bearing
It does when you're suing someone over them calling you a cunt...
Re: (Score:2)
Because you have batter understanding of the laws in question and the specific details of this case than the judge?
Re: (Score:3)
The alternative is fo
Re: (Score:3)
According to TFA it has already been shown that there is potentially damaging material on her Facebook page. I suppose it was either public or she was friends with someone who passed it to the defence.
In other words he doesn't just want to snoop or go fishing, he has been presented with evidence she has already lied and feels there is a good chance material on her Facebook page may undermine her and her co-claimant's case.
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
As does any kind of warrant. How is this any different than a search of a house, which will contain lots of materials that have nothing to do with the case?
Re: (Score:3)
As does any kind of warrant. How is this any different than a search of a house, which will contain lots of materials that have nothing to do with the case?
A totally different situation actually. If there is a criminal case against you, and the state wants to get evidence against you, they need a search warrant.
This is a civil case. There is a plaintiff, and a defendant, and they are supposed to be treated equally. There's no "innocent until proven guilty". The judge has to decide who is more likely to be right. And both sides have to hand over any evidence the judge asks for. Well, they don't have to. If they destroy or hide evidence, the judge _will_ assu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>But a facebook password gives access to a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the case.
What's your point? A search warrant for a house also "gives access to a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the case". Guess who's in charge of regulating what's allowed as evidence in both situations?
Re:Search warrant for a civil case? (Score:4, Interesting)
Right, the judge can't force the women to hand over access. He can say "hand over access or have your case thrown out for insufficient evidence", though.
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
I echo somebody else's comment above that comparing this to a school board is disingenuous. A court order is far different than a school board going fishing.
For this case, a court order for information from a person's web account should have a way to subpoena the information necessary without requiring disclosure of passwords. That's reasonable, just like how with a court order a suspect must provide the keys and/or open up a safe on their property if such is specified in a search warrant. It's similar. The problem comes that with some models of computer security, that information is not available without a privacy violation (giving up a password). It's quite a conundrum.
That being said, in this case (and many others) I'm shocked that Facebook (& friends) don't have some type of "legal request mechanism" that would work as a "backdoor" for this type of thing. They can reset passwords and such, so it's hard to believe they don't have a mechanism to handle requests from legal systems for a history of posts, images, etc. The law should always require a warrant to access it if it's not publicly posted, but other than that, I'm surprised it isn't already there.
Re:Duh, it's evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm shocked that Facebook (& friends) don't have some type of "legal request mechanism" that would work as a "backdoor" for this type of thing. They can reset passwords and such, so it's hard to believe they don't have a mechanism to handle requests from legal systems for a history of posts, images, etc.
You shouldn't be shocked; they do, of course, have such a mechanism. You might be shocked that in this case it wasn't used.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They have such a mechanism, but it requires some kind of LEO action or court order.
You mean, something akin to the court order stating she has to hand over her Facebook password?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should only be acceptable if it is directly relevant to the case. Judges shouldn't allow the defense to go on a fishing expedition. Judges generally don't handle this well. In this case the judge used an intermediary to check the accounts and then hand over the applicable information to the defense. I'm sure the judge felt that this was an acceptable way to protect privacy. But that still classifies as a fishing expedition since the courts decide that all 'relevant' information is turned over and not jus
Re: (Score:2)
was this ever resolved? (Score:4, Insightful)
We'e seen a few stories recently like this, where a judge has demanded someone to turn over information that they've already agreed not to in a TOS.
Was this ever resolved, whether a judge can order you to violate a TOS? Either it's legally binding or it's not. Not variable on who's asking or whether or not it's convenient. They need to make up their minds.
Re:was this ever resolved? (Score:5, Informative)
We'e seen a few stories recently like this, where a judge has demanded someone to turn over information that they've already agreed not to in a TOS.
Was this ever resolved, whether a judge can order you to violate a TOS? Either it's legally binding or it's not. Not variable on who's asking or whether or not it's convenient. They need to make up their minds.
Yes a judge can order you to violate a TOS. A judge's order obligates you and you can't be legally bound by contract to violate a judges order.
Re: (Score:3)
But by that reasoning, a judge could be a blank check for anyone to violate any contract.
If that power exists, either it's got to have some significant limitations to it, or it should.
It's not a judge's job to help people negate legally-binding documents.
Re: (Score:2)
But by that reasoning, a judge could be a blank check for anyone to violate any contract.
If that power exists, either it's got to have some significant limitations to it, or it should.
the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. Bankruptcy judges do this *all the time*. Ultimately the judge is the arbiter of the law and if they make enough bad rulings there exist avenues for recourse and possibly removal of the judge from his position entirely. But on the bench judges have extraordinary latitude to rule as they see fit. And while there are appeals and other legal options to override a judge's decision (the bulk of which require you to get another judge or judges to agree to overturn it), there are precious few opti
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a judge's job to help people negate legally-binding documents.
Of course it is. The law has always recognized different degrees of duty. One of the main points of even having courts and having judges is so that someone can sort out competing legal and ethical duties within complex relationships of multiple parties.
You claim I did not fulfill my legal duty to provide working conditions without debilitating forms of harassment. I ask the judge to bend the normal everyday rules to privacy to see some of your personal information. Happens all the time.
It may so happen
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry you can't sentence me to 5 years in prison, see I have this contract that requires me to be elsewhere.
That's not how it works (Score:4, Informative)
You cannot avoid a lawfully issued subpoena (or warrant) by pointing at a contract saying you are obligated not to turn over the requested discovery/evidence. There are certain very limited communications not subject to subpoenas/warrants, and online posts with your friends aren't on that list. (Personal communications with doctors, lawyers, spouses, mental health professionals, and religious ministers are.)
I can think of all sorts of malfeasance that could be hidden if a TOS magically inhibited the discovery process.
The idea of a TOS is legally valid (although that does not stop it from containing invalid terms) but it does not override a court order.
Aquisition of evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
So a woman claims sexual harassment, states that all the evidence is on her phone, email and facebook, and we're supposed to be outraged that the judge wants the evidence?
Yes, I checked the linked articles to make sure, downmod me for that, but without providing this information the accuser has no case whatsoever.
I'm impressed that the judge actually wants the evidence, most of the lawsuits that get to Slashdot seem to show judges who ignore all evidence and go with whatever lawyer has the prettiest tie that day.
Re:Aquisition of evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't disagree that all pertinent evidence should be gathered to prove or disprove a case, but the correct course of action here is for the judge to issue a warrant to the respective carriers/sites for the necessary information. Asking for someones passwords for evidence is like asking for someone's ATM PIN code to get their financial records.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't disagree that all pertinent evidence should be gathered to prove or disprove a case, but the correct course of action here is for the judge to issue a warrant to the respective carriers/sites for the necessary information. Asking for someones passwords for evidence is like asking for someone's ATM PIN code to get their financial records.
A warrant? On what grounds? She didn't commit a crime. This is part of discovery for her lawsuit. If she doesn't want to provide the evidence she can drop her case. There's no reason to force anyone to do anything. Certainly no reason to drag a third party into it. It's her case. Her choice. Give up the evidence or drop the case.
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies, I should have said SUBPOENA.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the defense trying to get evidence that contradicts the plaintiffs allegations.
Such as wearing a shirt with CUNT printed on it, then complaining for being called one after you labelled yourself.
And posting about your own sexual aggressiveness isn't the best idea either.
Re:Aquisition of evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife calls me sexy. I don't want my boss calling me sexy. I might call my wife a fucking bitch while playing a game if she makes a move that blocks. Her boss calling her a fucking bitch would be inappropriate in a professional office environment.
The plaintiff may have been at a bachelorette party where friends put the shirt on her or she was otherwise having a good time and went along with it. That doesn't mean it was appropriate, right, or that she appreciated her boss calling her that or saying that to her.
Context is very key and context can not be fully determined just from a picture. And even if it could, it still doesn't mean that the boss didn't sexually harass her or other plaintiffs.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife calls me sexy. I don't want my boss calling me sexy. I might call my wife a fucking bitch while playing a game if she makes a move that blocks. Her boss calling her a fucking bitch would be inappropriate in a professional office environment.
The plaintiff may have been at a bachelorette party where friends put the shirt on her or she was otherwise having a good time and went along with it. That doesn't mean it was appropriate, right, or that she appreciated her boss calling her that or saying that to her.
Context is very key and context can not be fully determined just from a picture. And even if it could, it still doesn't mean that the boss didn't sexually harass her or other plaintiffs.
Context is key, yes.
Which is why the judge ordered that access to the accounts be turned over so that they can be independently reviewed for pertinent information.
Otherwise you have the prosecution cherry picking things that eschew context and the defense doing the same.
Judge thinks we need to see the full picture instead of sitting through a my word vs your word battle.
The full picture does include behavior outside of the workplace. If you talk about the case, the defendants, or aspects of your life that
Re: (Score:2)
So a woman claims sexual harassment, states that all the evidence is on her phone, email and facebook, and we're supposed to be outraged that the judge wants the evidence?
Yes, I checked the linked articles to make sure
What?
I checked and rechecked the linked articles and they sure as shit don't say that the plantif stated the evidence is contained in any of those things.
What they do say is that the plantif discussed what she hoped to gain by the lawsuit (money), what kind of employment she might be able to get in the aftermath of the lawsuit and then a whole bunch blame-the-victim kind of thinking. Like complaining that the plantif wore a shirt that said CUNT on it and that because of that she shouldn't have taken offens
wtf? (Score:2)
Even if the sexual harassment suit doesn't involve these forms of communication? Or could be verified by other means?
That's the equivalent of saying that they need to allow the defense attorneys to search their home and make copies of all their personal documents.
OTOH, seems as though a woman with a solid case for sexual harassment that does involve electronic communications would want to submit these all their electronic records to help the case (although not the passwords).
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
a way for Facebook to allow this "properly" (Score:3)
Facebook should have a secondary READ ONLY password that can be voided after say 7 days
or Facebook should simply give the court a dump of the required info
btw whats with them needing the actual hardware since the phones themselves should not have the needed data anymore
(i could see asking for the NUMBERS but not the hardware)
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, the judge should have gotten a subpoena on FB, asked for a snapshot of the records, preferably at the time the incidents happen, or at least one of the current day, and have that sent. That way, the username/password is not involved.
Asking for a password can mean the defendant can always state that they use two factor authentication and their phone happens to be inoperable so no text messages can be received (which isn't destruction of evidence or contempt of court, although the judge is no
Rights (Score:2)
Not quite the same thing being compared here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The plantiff can drop out of the lawsuit. A 12-year-old girl doesn't have the option of not going to school anymore.
If the plantiff's don't want a court to poke around on their Facebook page, then drop the suit or settle out of court.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice slut-shaming.
It doesn't matter if the plaintiff enjoys sex, or is flirty with some people, or anything else. If she was sexually harassed at work, she has a case. Her dress, her sexual conduct outside the office, and her general attitudes make no difference to the question of sexual harassment.
Re: (Score:3)
Follow the links, which go to a PDF of the case. The judge refers to court cases suggesting otherwise. For instance, "Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 68 (1986) (in sexual harassment case, totality
of circumstances including plaintiffâ(TM)s own conduct is potentially relevant)."
We need a "valet key" passwords. (Score:4, Interesting)
As a first step we should demand "read only" access passwords from our service providers. Almost all the accounts, from trivial throwaway email accounts to brokerage/mutual fund accounts holding hundreds of thousands of dollars offer just one level of access. Either you get full access to do anything you damn well please, or nothing. If we have a "valet key" access with limited privileges at least we can be sure these cops or judges won't be able to mess it up.
Other benefits include third party services that can watch for bills being posted, bills being paid on trime, or do investment portfolio analysis etc. E-Trade used to have something similar. They had a regular password and then a second "trading password" to invoke non-const member functions like ordering funds transfer or to buy/sell securities. But, sadly, they took it away.
Re: (Score:3)
Even better, expanding on that idea, why not go with snapshots? if the relevant data is from two bounds of time, then either have that data put on media and sent or allow read-only access to the account, and only data between the two temporal boundaries.
Due to statute of limitations, it means data that is older than 2-3 years (assuming a civil case) would not be able to be fetched because it happened (the actual "transmission") far enough in the past that it is not relevant to any present proceedings.
The p
Terms of Service Violation (Score:2)
If Facebook does close the account does the account holder have any recourse to get the account reinstated? Does the judge?
Re: (Score:2)
Orders of court trump terms in contracts. If a judge orders a violation of an NDA for evidence purposes, the person ordered to testify is immune of the NDA consequences. The only recourse is for the non-testifying party to the NDA to petition for sealed records.
How Facebook will react, illegally if they to terminate in this case, is unknown and whether the person handing over the password at the judge's behest is willing to fight them on it.
The relevant element in the Facebook TOS is 19.11, which states Y
This will cause a terrible precedent.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be the decision of the plaintiffs to provide that information as evidence, not the position of the judge to order private information.
No. A thousand times no. Defendants have rights, and they should have rights. One of those rights is necessarily the right to obtain evidence necessary to mount a capable defense. Telling the defense "you can only have the evidence the plaintiff wants to give you" puts his defense at the mercy of the plaintiff (who, you will remember, is fundamentally adverse to the defendant).
Re: (Score:2)
You would say I don't have a facebook page.
Of course if the other side shows that you do you are going to be in a world of hurt.
Wow, never thought I'd here of a woman ... (Score:2)
... sexually harassing another...maybe she is butch...
No I didn't RTFA... and yes I can guess that my statement is off target... that it was the woman whom the judge now wants to harass sexually.
Of course maybe she is a bitch that deserves invasion of her privacy..... But not by the Founders of this country's agreement.
this is the wrong way to run a society (Score:2)
I will state that I think its *wrong* for anyone to compel anyone else to reveal passwords or security secrets to anyone.
PERIOD.
nope, no exception. I don't care if jesus is asking for the password. this is just plain WRONG.
judges should honor the basic freedoms we have a bit better.
shame on you, judge (and anyone else who think its their business what's inside someone else's private files)!
every time I read about some authority figure trying to 'get inside' of someone else's stuff, it really ticks me off.
Better: Judge order FB to preserve account history (Score:2)
Rather than demanding the password from the customer, the judge should either order the parties to hand over all relevant information to the court, or if they are willing but unable to do so, order Facebook, etc. to preserve the account information for later review by a court-appointed official. The court should of course pay the service providers their actual costs of complying, then send the bill to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can then add the amount to the damages they are seeking.
While expedient, han
um (Score:2)
one was about opening up your private information to a school, the other is evidence in a court of law. They aren't the same thing.
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:5, Informative)
Not at all.
If you are suing, then cell phones, Facebook and email are all part of the evidence in the case. Without reading the sepcifics I cannot tell you why the judge wanted it.
The teachers requiring a FB p/w were on a fishing expedition that went beyond the purview of their positions.
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:5, Informative)
Usually in discovery you turn over data, often times even processed data (scans, copies, PDFs rather than original files).
Redactions are very common. Handing over 100% of communication, relevant or not, completely ubredacted is NOT how things are supposed to work.
note, always make sure to send a message to your lawyer with every account. They should then be able to argue that it contains priveledged info and needs to be turned over by the lawyer in a different format (not saying it will work, but It's worth a try).
Back when records were physical, lawyers were given temporary, unrestricted, but observed access to documents, and able to ask for broad sections to be copied and sent based on what they saw.
I think the facebook equivalent is to give access to the account supervised for x number of hours, and then allow requests to be made for all messages in this date range, or these people, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I can maybe see the argument for 'discovery', but despite the myth that sexual harassment suits are slam dunks, they usually go pretty badly with judges traditionally being hostile to them... so there is a real possibility here that the judge (or the opposing council) is trying to punish the plantif through invading her personal life.. it makes a nice example to others...
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:5, Informative)
The plaintiffs were using it to communicate about the suit. It is their own ignorance that caused it.
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to see how a subpoena to Facebook and her mail provider couldn't accomplish the same thing without having to give out passwords.
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how a subpoena to Facebook and her mail provider couldn't accomplish the same thing without having to give out passwords.
Because it involves a third party and makes thing even more complicated than it should be. It is a waste of time and could be money (process fees). The plaintiff is the one who wants to use it for the suit, why not simply give the real sources. Over complicate a process often times is not a good solution but cost more on both time and money.
The DEFENDANT is the one that wants the info. They're claiming that on the internets you can find the plaintiffs:
Wearing a shirt with the word CUNT on it (one plaintiff claims the word cunt was used around her or in reference to her, and that that offends her and she needs lots of money for it)
Discussing their financial situation after being fired
Discussing their job prospects after being fired
Discussing their interactions with the defendants
Discussing the suit in general
Passwords must be given (just change it to something random and hand it to the court) so the court can appoint a reviewer to select which info is pertinent to the case. The reviewer then hands it off to the owner of the account (the plaintiffs) and they block/redact any info they say is private or unrelated. The reviewer then presents the evidence to the court (both plaintiff and defendant) and tells the judge if he thinks the owner of the account chose to block / redact any pertinent information.
Re: (Score:2)
Discussing their financial situation after being fired
Discussing their job prospects after being fired
I don't see that either of those would be relevant to her harassment claim.
Re: (Score:3)
You cant?
"God damm it, I am broke, and cant find a job guess I should sue my former employer"
Re: (Score:3)
Passwords must be given (just change it to something random and hand it to the court) so the court can appoint a reviewer to select which info is pertinent to the case. The reviewer then hands it off to the owner of the account (the plaintiffs) and they block/redact any info they say is private or unrelated. The reviewer then presents the evidence to the court (both plaintiff and defendant) and tells the judge if he thinks the owner of the account chose to block / redact any pertinent information.
The more normal process is for the attorney of the party requested to provide the data to sift through the mass of potentially relevant information and to extract what needs to be disclosed, redacting anything that isn't relevant to the questions at hand. The attorney's duty to the court ensures that all relevant information is provided, and the attorney's duty to the client ensures that nothing else is.
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting, my interpretation was different.
She's claimed abuse, yet perpetrates that abuse herself.
She's claimed harrassment, yet has engaged in that behaviour.
She's claimed loss, yet has stated she's benefited.
It doesn't seem inappropriate that the court would seek clarity on these matters.
I'd rather they demanded "all material" than passwords, and it would also make more sense: I don't know where the cellphone I owned in 2009 _is_, and I did a factory reset on it before I stopped using it. So it has no text messages, no email, etc. on it; giving it to the court is futile.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen someone given access to a corporate account for the sake of discovery, they are given access to the data.
the turning over the password is not legit, a copy of the timeline, activity log, and messages to and from relevant people (with details redacted) is.
In every case I've been involved with, a lawyer gets to go over all of these thongs before turning it over, this is highly unorthodox.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers get to go over all her thongs. Maybe i should be a lawyer.
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh no. The Plaintiff is making claims. The defendant needs to be able to defend themselves against accusations. If there were rights to lean in favor of one party over the other, I would hope it would favor the defense.
It is obvious in cases such as sexual harassment, the first defense is "s/he no reasonable cause to be offended over language or to feel harassed given the type of language she uses on a frequent basis." I recall one particular female who used to work where I work now... she was pretty rowdy with her language and behavior. But from time to time when it was convenient, she would begin to make noises about harassment. In her case, she had no reasonable cause to be offended given her behavior. I was glad to see her go. She really upset a lot of people.
You are making the classic assumption that because she is a 'she' that she is a victim and is completely honest about her claims.... you know, like a particular single mother with a single child collecting child support from three men in three states.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, if you look at actual cases, it isn't a 'classical assumption' when it comes to sexual harassment suits. They tend to be a significant uphill battle with a lot of 'she is just sensitive, she is just selective, she is just taking advantage of the law' stuff thrown in.. it has disturbing similiarities to the arguments brought up to discredit rape victims.. including the BS 'but she uses that language' argument (which they seem to be fishing for here) since that is just a recasting of one of the common defenses against rape allegations.. 'well, she was a loose woman who slept around', as if somehow because she does something privately it means someone doing it to her non-consentually is ok.
You should RTFA.
One plaintiff is suing because of the word cunt. She can be seen wearing a shirt with the word cunt on it.
Various plaintiffs are suing because they were fired and can't find employment. There are messages sent between them indicating they actualyl had job offers.
There are also messages between the plaintiffs detailing their interactions with the defendants, their plans to sue, etc.
This isn't victim blaming, it's bog standard evidence discovery.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's imagine for a moment that the crime (this is not a criminal case, but a civil one, but since you are talking about rape...) is theft by burglary or theft by robbery. It's say victim A has never been a victim before, but always kept his doors locked and his money and valuables concealed from view. Let's say victim B has also never been a victim before, but level locked his doors and was pretty flagrant about his valuables.
Neither victim "deserves" to be robbed or burglarized. No one is asserting tha
Re:Do as a I say... (Score:5, Informative)
If you are suing, then cell phones, Facebook and email are all part of the evidence in the case. Without reading the sepcifics I cannot tell you why the judge wanted it.
Also, TFA clearly states that the accounts are turned over to the forensics expert not to the defendant. Forensics expert hopefully being an impartial observer here - it's not like the defendant has their account to himself.
Re: (Score:2)
...not as I do!
Different judge and different circumstances.
Re:What do you have to hide? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck you and your terrorism fear mongering. Seriously, just fuck you. People like you are a far bigger threat to our freedom than any terrorist.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck me, I agree - used to able to engage in a argument on slashdot - not so much anymore - I am finally starting to see why so many say they no longer even read here. Yes, I'm stupid for hanging around.
But just in case any of you R-turds get the notion, could you argue against any of the points? or does lack thereof speak to the arguments?
Re:What do you have to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead and post your social security number.
And your mother's maden name
And your date of birth
You have nothing to hide? Prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am stunned that you're ignorant enough to believe there's any truth to that, yet also able to type. Go forth and educate yourself. And no, I am not your teacher.
not necessarily true (Score:2)
I imagine they're looking for something like a private FB/email message to a friend planning what false story they're going to tell.
Re:I didn't RTFA but (Score:4, Interesting)
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ? If not it has nothing to do with the case.
Uh, false?
Certainly there are numerous ways that facebook communications could have something significant to do with the case, without being the specific venue for harassment.
If only the article mentioned something specifi...OH LOOK:
Statements that discuss her financial expectations in [the] lawsuit; a photograph of herself wearing a shirt with the word “CUNT” in large letters written across the front (a term she alleges was used pejoratively against her, also alleging that such use offended her); musings about her emotional state in having lost a beloved pet as well as having suffered a broken relationship; other writings addressing her positive outlook on how her life was post-termination; her self-described sexual aggressiveness; statements about actions she engaged in as a supervisor with Defendant . . . ; sexually amorous communications with other class members; her post-termination employment and income opportunities and financial condition . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ? If not it has nothing to do with the case.
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Suppose there's a wall post by the defendant, or a note or a message to a friend that says something on the lines of "Boy my employer is a hottie, I'd just like to take him for a ride if you know what I mean!" - how would that having nothing to do with the case? A statement like that would pretty much throw this case out - if it's reasonable (or provable) that she was the one that made these statements (meaning someone else didn't make the statements via a hacked acc
Re: (Score:2)
What part of the constitution does this violate? And do you know what a warrant is or how it is issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. This is pretty clearly unreasonable. Normally when you have a situation like this, you go to a computer forensics company and get them to sift through the dataset for data that is relevant. They get a copy of the data, not access to the original data. This way, the worst that can happen is that they violate your privacy. The search is done according to instructions given by the judge, and only matches are provided to the opposing council.
Letting opposi
Re: (Score:2)
There is one thing that can defeat your claim and that is the ability to change your password. The passwords are not hard wired into the sites and any user at any time can change their password. So you give them a password, they do their thing, you change your password, and everything is as it should be.
Also, a court order is a warrant. A judge issues a warrant upon probable cause. This is what has happened here except the warrant is issues within a civil matter and not necessarily a criminal one (although
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure....
1) Applies in the criminal, not civil, context, and
2) Is not being breached in this case anyway. This is standard discovery, and the defense is quite entitled to discover evidence that would bolster its own case or impeach the plaintiff's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could, but they wouldn't need to. The judge could also throw the case out with prejudice meaning the plaintiff loses all ability to sue over the claim for non compliance with a court order he considered pertinent to some aspect of the case.