Civil liberties of employees (Re: FYB_oss)
At 10:03 PM 5/12/96, John Young wrote:
5-12-96. NYPaper:
"Who's Reading Your E-Mail? Maybe the Boss. More Companies Say Messages Are Their Property."
Reports on various spying policies and employee rights. Quotes PRZ demurring: "You don't check your constitutional rights at the door." Notes Apple's snooping not.
Actually, one _does_ check one's Constitutional rights "at the door" (of an employer), and the confusion over this issue is pervasively destroying real Constitutional rights. For instance, if I hire someone, I can require him or her to wear a uniform, to not wear blue jeans to work, to not smoke (or even to smoke, if this is what the job involves), to take off his or her clothes, to tap dance, to not say anything to my customers, and on and on. If the government required these behaviors, this would be a legitimate issue, but not if employers set these conditions as terms of continued employment. If an employer says that all messages will be read by him, this is not a violation of anyone's "civil liberties." (And, on a practical note, companies are often held responsible for the messages emanating on company time from employees, so there are actual reasons why such monitoring may be necessary.) An employee who dislikes the terms of his employment is of course free, in our society, to leave. The Constitution is about what the government can and cannot require, not about what I as an employer can require. This point is frequently confusing to people who, in my opinion, haven't thought about it. Thus, a "Hooters girl" suddenly decides she doesn't like "displaying herself" to men and announces that her civil liberties are being violated by being told to wear skimpy outfits. (I haven't read Zimmermann's comments in full, to get the full context, but I doubt we'll agree on such things. His achievement with PGP was considerable, but I know from first-hand experience that his political views are very non-libertarian and are, in fact, counter to liberty.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
TCM
(I haven't read Zimmermann's comments in full, to get the full context, but I doubt we'll agree on such things. His achievement with PGP was considerable, but I know from first-hand experience that his political views are very non-libertarian and are, in fact, counter to liberty.)
hmmmmm, surely you don't think you can get away without anyone requesting an elaboration on this.... maybe post the comments through a remailer if necesary <heh> actually, I agree with this, but probably for other reasons. it is well known (i.e. reported in articles) that Zimmermann was considering moving out of the country to australia or canada during the 80's because of the Reagan cold war situation. well, I don't blame him, but can he really cloak himself in the mantle of a national patriot after this kind of thinking? it may also be that Zimmermann has a set of beliefs that he champions in front of the public, but that his private ideology is more radical. I tend to get this impression. he is very, very careful about his public image and his reputation. I suspect that Zimmermann's star is on the way to fading out, at the moment, for some various reasons. I only write this because of a letter I read ealier from Raph Levien that tended to confirm some of my suspicions. 1. he has a "I want it all" or "I want to win while everyone else loses" ideology. this is what it took to write PGP when no one else had ever even heard of public key crypto. but suddenly when crypto becomes mainstream, the pioneers are often pushed to the sidelines unless they adapt. 2. he attained much of his accomplishments via the work of others. there is no problem with this, but the issue of due compensation arises when he begins to sell this labor. frankly I don't think PRZ is into "sharing". this is the first point in a different context. 3. PRZ is actually somewhat anti-business in some ways. he came from the outside, challenging the "establishment" during nuclear war protests. he can put on a business suit but I suspect there is a lot of different thinking going on beneath the exterior. 4. PRZ has a bad track record as far as meeting deadlines. it is not how his brain works. but this is how business works. with public domain software, no one rants at you if you don't come out with something when you say you will, or even if you don't even say when you are going to be ready. but when money is involved, this is the very first thing you have to be accountable for, no excuses. 5. etc. now, I am trying to be as generous as possible here. I really admire PRZ and think he has an incredibly enviable feather in his cap with PGP, a very significant accomplishment. but PGP can only be seen as a stepping stone unless he adopts an aggressive strategy to stick his work into the standards of tomorrow. PRZ has shown a great unwillingness to do this. unless PRZ's personality changes in some fundamental way that I think is highly unlikely, I think he will sentence himself to obscurity in the face of a zillion people working on the same ideas. obscurity is not a bad thing, really. PRZ has reached the point where he has enough security to last him the rest of his lifetime.
Vladimir wrote:
. . .
4. PRZ has a bad track record as far as meeting deadlines. it is not how his brain works. but this is how business works. with public domain software, no one rants at you if you don't come out with something when you say you will, or even if you don't even say when you are going to be ready. but when money is involved, this is the very first thing you have to be accountable for, no excuses.
I don't mean to be too rude, but what planet do you live on? Freeware authors are regularly criticized for delays, at least on the Mac newsgroups. And nearly everybody in software development misses deadlines. Where I've worked, us low level grunts (the guys and gals with no rights, 'cause we signed them away in our contracts) make our plans based on the assumption that the schedule will slip. Management always manages to meet the schedule by changing plans at the last minute - lengthening the deadline or removing committed features that didn't make it. If the software business had to meet deadlines to survive computers would have ceased to exist several years ago. Would it be unfair of me to assume that the rest of your points regarding PRZ are just as specious? -- if not me, then who? mailto:ethridge@onramp.net http://rampages.onramp.net/~ethridge/
Freeware authors are regularly criticized for delays, at least on the Mac newsgroups. And nearly everybody in software development misses deadlines. Where I've worked, us low level grunts (the guys and
I'm sorry, but if you're getting paid for work, then it should be delivered on time (or close to on time). Whether or not the work you getting paid to do is going to be distributed for free or not is beside the point. -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-601-9777x3 Community ConneXion, Inc. FAX: 510-601-9734 The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376 http://www.c2.net/ (or login as "guest") sameer@c2.net
Hello, On Tue, 14 May 1996 sameer@c2.org wrote:
Freeware authors are regularly criticized for delays, at least on the Mac newsgroups. And nearly everybody in software development misses deadlines. Where I've worked, us low level grunts (the guys and
I'm sorry, but if you're getting paid for work, then it should be delivered on time (or close to on time). Whether or not the work you getting paid to do is going to be distributed for free or not is beside the point.
In my case what seems to happen often is that my boss(es) will make some minor change (to them) that requires making many changes to the code, and so it takes me longer than I expected, or my homework load gets very heavy for a few days (when projects are due :) and I have less time to finish the program. Just why I sometimes go over-deadline. ========================================================================== James Black (Comp Sci/Elec Eng Senior) e-mail: black@eng.usf.edu http://www.eng.usf.edu/~black/index.html "An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all." Oscar Wilde **************************************************************************
A deadline is a wish your heart makes... --- Cause maybe (maybe) | In my mind I'm going to Carolina you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th. And after all | Email address remains unchanged You're my firewall - | ........First in Usenet.........
On Sun, 12 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Actually, one _does_ check one's Constitutional rights "at the door" (of an employer), and the confusion over this issue is pervasively destroying real Constitutional rights.
Yes and no...and kinda no. Yes: your employer can require as conditions of employment many many things that the government could never require, e.g. the many examples Tim gives. No: The constitution prohibits slavery. This is in fact the *ONLY* part of the constitution that *directly* regulates private behavior (everything else either empowers or disempowers the goverment). Hency your employer cannot enslave you constitionally. And "sorta no": The constitution empowers congress to legislate in many areas. Congress has legislated many "civil rights" that do not arise directly from the Constitution, but rather from Congress's use of the powers delegated to it under that document. Thus, an unsuspecting reader might be mislead when TCM serves up the bait by writing... [...]
The Constitution is about what the government can and cannot require, not about what I as an employer can require. This point is frequently confusing to people who, in my opinion, haven't thought about it. Thus, a "Hooters girl" suddenly decides she doesn't like "displaying herself" to men and announces that her civil liberties are being violated by being told to wear skimpy outfits.
The issue here isn't a constitutional issue. It's a *statutory* right. And a real one. Sex discrimination in employment is prohibited by law. We can call this a "civil right" or something else, but the if the facts alleged in the case to which TCM refers are as claimed, they seem to have a fairly good case under the law as it stands. And there's a lot more than skimpy outfits at issue, including a refusal to hire men for what are allegedly food service jobs (gender may only be a determination of employment if it is a bona fide occupational qualfiication, e.g. policing the showers in the gym; gender is not a BFOQ for food service jobs.) [I am away from Miami from May 8 to May 28. I will have no Internet connection from May 22 to May 29; intermittent connections before then.] A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm there.
participants (7)
-
ethridge@Onramp.NET -
James Black -
Michael Froomkin -
sameer@c2.org -
Simon Spero -
tcmay@got.net -
Vladimir Z. Nuri