General discussion


On a Contract and having issues, need input.

By danielnicholson ·
I am an I.T. Professional and have a contract with a city school system. Things are are less than perect with the entire system suffering from gross mismanagement. The most recent incident involves an I.T. employee that was supposed to helping (hands on) with a roll out. He was given specific instruction of what his responsibilities were. In a total of 32 man hours (in which he honestly worked about 2.5 hours) I have lots of video of this person sleeping right in front of me when he should have been working, surfing the net, etc.

I brought this issue to the Director of IT, showed her the videos and basicly she was unresponsive.

What would you do?
exit the contract early? Go to the School Super?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

40 total posts (Page 3 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Where to begin?

by jdclyde In reply to My Apology...

I will leave the flame for Oz, as he is a big boy and can handle this well enough on his own.

a few points on the post though.

First of all, Oz didn't say the First Amendment had ANYTHING to do with privacy. Re-read what he said and you will see he was clearly refering to the ignorant people that post that they have "Freedom of Speech", so they should be free to say what they want, when they want, where they want. These people are a source of shame to other Americans to have such ignorance displayed on a global scale.

If you go back to the original idea of the discussion, you have NO EXPECTATION of privacy in the work place, and EVEN LESS if you work for the Government (schools are under government).

Everything he said is dead on, and no amount of attacks based on sterio-typing will change that. Getting personal at that level, at least make it funny so people will think your making a joke, instead of posting like you did, showing that you were the joke instead.

Collapse -

Frozen Moose turds for brains?

by JamesRL In reply to My Apology...

Boy are you mature or what.

As for as your assertations, surely you can regonize the difference between a search by law enforcement and the rights of an employer to monitor the workplace.

Even your own site shows that under the right circumstances employers are able to legally install video surveillance. Much hinges on whether or not the presence of such equipment is made known.

Your wonderful site of policy requirements is from Corrections Canada. The people who run the jails. Perhaps you'd like to read up on the differnce between a policy and a law.

As for your Library of Parliament site (wonderful place to visit if you are ever in Ottawa) it is from a committee report on Police Powers and Drug Related Offences. How is that pertinent to the rights of an employer to have cameras in the workplace?

If you want to be taken at all seriously, stop the stupid ad hominems, and don't use sites out of context. Someone like me might actually read them.


Collapse -

I admit that generalization was uncalled for.

by DeleteMyStuff In reply to Frozen Moose turds for br ...

<i>Boy are you mature or what.</i>
<br/><br/>Not always, but I don't like being attacked by the school yard bully, either.
<i>...surely you can regonize the difference between a search by law enforcement and the rights of an employer to monitor the workplace.</i>
Well yes, but when a <u>public employer</u> is involved, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its state equivalents are indeed implicated. A few states now apply their Fourth Amendment equivalent to private parties as well. These states include Massachusetts, California and Florida. The distinction between what companies can do and what governments can do is beginning to blur. Neither has absolute carte blanche to do anything and everything they want.
<i>Even your own site [sic] shows that under the right circumstances employers are able to legally install video surveillance. Much hinges on whether or not the presence of such equipment is made known.</i>
That's right "hinges" doesn't it? It's not all one-sided, totally in favor of the employer's absolute right to do whatever they please, as OZ has suggested.
<i>Your wonderful site [sic] of policy requirements is from Corrections Canada. The people who run the jails.</i><br/><br/>
That's right and it doesn't get any more basic than determining what rights are left to criminals who are incarcerated, does it? They've already lost the right to vote, posess firearms, and move about freely. When you take all of that away and <i>STILL</i> leave them with the right to privacy ...I'd call that a pretty inalienable right, wouldn't you?
<i>Perhaps you'd like to read up on the differnce between a policy and a law.</i><br/><br/>
Actually, I work in government and I'll explain to you the difference between law and policy with respect to governmental process. Laws, as written by legislative bodies are flawed instruments that contain ambiguity, miss subtle points, and just flat out are contradictory. As pertains to government, policies are carefully written by executive branch administrators to codify the operational details of implementing the law. Policies are submitted as legislation and are examined, debated, amended and ultimately approved by the legislative body. So you see, for government, policies are very much like laws, have all the effect of laws, and are written by people who are much more operationally aware of running a government agency than are legislators. I hope that helps clarify it for you.<br/><br/>
As for your Library of Parliament site [sic](wonderful place to visit if you are ever in Ottawa) it is from a committee report on Police Powers and Drug Related Offences. How is that pertinent to the rights of an employer to have cameras in the workplace?
Well, you've got me there ...maybe that wasn't the best fit in an argument on employer video surveillance, but it does speak to the sensibility of the Canadian Supreme Court, at least at that point in time, with respect to privacy rights. I'll see if I can rustle up something that deals with Employees rights specifically for you, OK?<br/><br/>
<i>If you want to be taken at all seriously, stop the stupid ad hominems, and don't use sites out of context. Someone like me might actually read them.
I will stop using the ad hominems under two conditions:<br/><br/>
1. If OZ will too. He attacked me on the basis of the first amendment, for what reason, I don't know. If wasn't appropriate to the discussion at all. I responded by saying the fourth amendment was pertinent.
2. If you will stop using the noun "site" as in "web site", when you mean the verb "cite" as in "to refer to".

Collapse -

School Yard Bully?

by JamesRL In reply to I admit that generalizati ...

As Oz will tell you, he hasn't been spared from criticism from me. I don't consider him a bully most of the time. He does work up a lot of energy. I think you two are feeding each others outrage.

Yes I mispelled cite. If spelling is the only thing you can attack someone on....its clear you understood the meaning.

You might be suprised at exactly how much background I have in the issue. With regards to public policy and law, I studied political science in university, took a couple of law courses, worked a summer for a member of Parliament. In my IT life, I was heavily involved in Internet security and privacy for a Fortune 100 company. I have sat 15 feet away from a Supreme Court of Canada justice who was lecturing on electronic privacy issues. At the same conference, I also heard from the countries privacy commissioner. I've also worked for a government agency. So I think I might have a sense of where the Supreme Court of Canada might be in a general sense.

As your own cites show, private companies can implement surveillance with proper notice. At my current employer, they monitor not just phone conversations of our customer service reps but attach the corresponding video capture of what is going on with the PC screen of the CSR as they take down the information and or log on to the customers system. This was mandatory, and the employees had no ability whatsoever to object. The company did do an hour long briefing to the employees on it, and all employees signed a form acknowledging that they had attended and were aware of the practise.

Before you think this is big brother land, the monitoring is done for coaching purposes - its intended that every supervisor will review two or three interactions per staff member per month. But every interaction is monitored(and the customers are informed of the monitoring on the ACD message). And my employer has implemented this in US and Canada.

And we have video cameras in the workplace, but not for the purpose of monitoring staff, but for monitoring the entrance areas.


Collapse -

So if I understand your account right

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to I admit that generalizati ...

School Systems in the US are encouraging Paedophiles but not monitoring their activities while in the school grounds. NBL MATE!

Don't they have metal detectors to stop the kids bringing guns to school and you expect them not to look at what the workers there do? :^0

That's like saying they have a right to privacy while they abuse the children and shouldn't be able to be prosecuted for being caught Sexually Abusing the children because they had a right to privacy. :^0 :^0 :^0 :^0

Sorry I can not see one court in the entire world accepting that as an argument to stop a prosecution going ahead. Granted I know that the Legal System is totally Screwed Up but generally it leans toward protecting children not allowing Child Abusers free reign.


Collapse -

You DID NOT understand my account correctly.

by DeleteMyStuff In reply to So if I understand your a ...

With all due respect, you're being rediculous if you are trying to attribute your first statement to me! But like it or not, criminals do still have rights while violating the law. Unless maybe you're linked to terrorism by the US, but that's another thread altogether.<br/><br/>
The plaintiffs in this case were obviously not the specific target of the surveillance, as the judgement explains. During the day when plaintiffs were at work, the recording device was deactivated.<br/><br/>
The ISSUES ON APPEAL, and therefore germane to the topic of video surveillance by employers in the workplace are:
The arguments made by the parties present four issues:<br/>(1) is publication a
necessary element of plaintiffs? cause of action for invasion of privacy and, if so, did defendants defeat it?<br/>(2) were plaintiffs? expectations of privacy reasonable?<br/>(3) did
defendants conclusively establish that the surveillance was, under the circumstances,
justified? and<br/>(4) did defendants defeat plaintiffs? causes of action for the infliction of emotional distress?
That an appeals court would reverse a summary judgement for the defendant and take up the issue is significant in my mind. Oz's original statement on the matter is "If you presume you have a right to ANY privacy, outside of the washroom, while you are at work, you are sadly mistaken." Well this case says different.<br/><br/>
The opinion regarding issue 1 states <i>"A plaintiff is harmed when his or her privacy is invaded in an offensive manner without consent, not when information gained from the intrusion is disclosed or published."</i> Then later <i>"Thus, we conclude that the mere placement of the surveillance equipment on the shelf in plaintiffs? office itself invaded their privacy because it allowed the defendants, or anyone with access to the storage room, to ?activate? the surveillance system at any
time during the day without plaintiffs? knowledge, thus at least presenting the
possibility of unwanted access to private data about plaintiffs."</i><br/><br/>
The defendant didn't even activate the equipment in this case. Its mere presence and the possibility that it could be activated constituted the invasion of privacy.<br/><br/>
As for issue 2, the reasonable expectation of privacy the court said <i>"While plaintiffs did not enjoy complete and absolute privacy in their office, it
was reasonable for them to expect images of them in their office with the door closed
would not be transmitted to another portion of the building."</i> I ask you and anyone else who cares to comment, am I "sadly mistaken" or did the court say that employees do under some circumstances have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a closed office that belongs to the employer?<br/><br/>
Issue 3, is the employer required to establish some justification for the surveillance? <i>"Defendants argue that their surveillance was necessary and justified to catch whoever was accessing illicit pornographic websites in the early hours of the morning... The only evidence, however, offered by defendants to show their need to engage in this surveillance is the declaration of Tom Foster, the computer technician, and the deposition of Hitchcock. While Foster stated that in July 2002 the web logs he maintained for Jillsides in their mainframe computer indicated that illicit pornographic websites had been accessed, he offered no description of the type of sites accessed, how frequently, or their web addresses."</i><br/><br/>
Issue 4, emotional distress ...big deal.<br/><br/>
So if I understand THE COURT'S account correctly, in very plain language, the employer needs justification to engage in the surveillance, right? Oz said <i>"You can be spied on, have your email read and tracked, have your calls monitored etc. without ANY possible chance of claiming your privacy was invaded."</i> Well sorry, but the way I read it, Oz is just plain wrong's not absolute by any stretch of the imagination.<br/><br/>
Now HAL, about the matter of the rights of pedophiles, and criminal prosecutions ...I agree that it is a shame that criminals of the most dispicable type should escape justice based on a technicality such as an invasion of their privacy, BUT IT HAPPENS! You KNOW it does, and you're being overly emotional when you say not one court in the entire world would stop a prosecution on those grounds. Don't bet on it partner.<br/><br/>

Collapse -

Compare apples and apples and you will make your point

by Oz_Media In reply to So if I understand your a ...

While you continually focus on a case that is so far removed from teh topic of discussion it's hardly relevant, all you are doing is wasting keystrokes.

Simply because there is a long time appeal, this also does nto mean there is a great deal of question as to teh verdict, you make it seem so tricky and unique, it's not.

now, go and find a relevant case ad post your findings again.

try looking for the same issue happening in a public building such as a school or city office where the public is completely entitled to know how public tax money is being spent.

the ONLY thing that raises ANY grey area in teh case at hand, is the fact that a fellow employee video taped him, but even then, it is a public school and a public employee filming another public employee.

It's not different that when police use private video captured at public events to prosecute offenders. There is no privacy un a public building, unless in such a place as to where it woul dbe considered otherwise indecent.

Don't play the game with me, this is something I know very well. you are blatantly mislead, that's all, you can either be a grown up and conceded that your initial reply was hasty and unthoughtful, or you can simply keep digging deeper and deeper until you have changed the subject enough that you have a point based on a different issue, as you are attempting to do now. It's common, not clever though.

Collapse -

I cannot believe the level

by Tig2 In reply to My Apology...

Of absolute ignorance in your post.

To come onto an international board and be that offensive tells me that you spend the greater part of your online time in places like MySpace. Kindly take your flames there.

My guess? I doubt that Oz will even bother to reply. I am certain that he has a better use of his time. But I like Oz and have a more difficult time tolerating an unjustified attack on him.

You, sir, are an ***. Thank you so very much for making that so glaringly apparent.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to I cannot believe the leve ...

As I am just pi$$ing away time for a while until a meeting, I decided to have some fun. Sorry to let you down.

Collapse -

Yes Canada's laws protect people not companies.

by Oz_Media In reply to My Apology...

But you also posted a non-applicable law that, if INVESTIGATED properly, you will see has nothing to do with the case at hand at all, except to make you look like an idiot.

If you read a little closer, that law is with regards to video surviellance, not your employers ability to monitor use of his hardware and employees whil eon his dime.

As always people take law out of context, exactly what I was referring to with the Zfirst ammendment.

"a private office, a change room or a single office in an open office environment). "

Private office? Do you feel that when your employer pays you to work in his building and lets you have an office that it is considered a PRIVATE office? Give your head a shake, son. That's HIS office, not YOUR private office.

A private office in an open office environment, look at the application properly and you will find it refers to shared office environments, where you lease an office in a building that leases offices to multiple clients, consultants, small business etc. Not your employers offices.

My god, you lot are dumb sometimes; you run with little out of context quotes and think you look clever, only because the reality is you dont have a friggin clue what you are talking about but try to look equal anyway.


What a stupid tosser, no wonder people look at Americans as morons, what else are they supposed to think when pillocks like you shout from the rooftops abotu the land of the free?

Land of the free, my a$$, LOL, you incarcerate more people than any other country on Earth.

Like I said before, not a clue!

Back to Hardware Forum
40 total posts (Page 3 of 4)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums