SWAT cop gets swatted......whines
richard
Dumb ass cop too lazy to get his own private cell phone/texting device,
takes the boss to court for "invasion of privacy".
Well duhhhh. It ain't your property dude. That's kind of like the boss
finding your juicy porno collection on the company provided computer. Ok so
the guy paid for the overage charges as the company required. Sorry, but I
have to agree with the company. As they have the right to know why it is
you're spending so much air time on the damn thing.
For you people who are at work reading this, consider that. That machine
ain't yours. The company has every legal right to look at every single file
on that machine. That includes you Evan Platt.
richard
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:33:24 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/14/scotus.messaging/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
>>
>>Dumb ass cop too lazy to get his own private cell phone/texting device,
>>takes the boss to court for "invasion of privacy".
>>
>>Well duhhhh. It ain't your property dude. That's kind of like the boss
>>finding your juicy porno collection on the company provided computer. Ok so
>>the guy paid for the overage charges as the company required. Sorry, but I
>>have to agree with the company. As they have the right to know why it is
>>you're spending so much air time on the damn thing.
>
> *fvtu* evpuneq, lbh'er bar bs gur ovttrfg qhzofuvgf gur vagrearg unf
> gb bssre.
>
>>For you people who are at work reading this, consider that. That machine
>>ain't yours. The company has every legal right to look at every single file
>>on that machine. That includes you Evan Platt.
>
> *sigh* Yes, actually, it IS my machine. And no, the company does not
> have every legal right to look at every single file.
>
> You make the assumption people only have one computer at their desk.
>
> I have 2. A laptop and a desktop. The laptop is myne.
>
> Now go troll somewhere else, st00pid.
Au contraire mon ami, it may be your machine by law, but the law also
protects the company's interest. Consult with their attorney, I'm sure they
will promptly advise you that inspection of your personal property for the
discovery of any proprietary items is well within their legal rights.
During my days of being a security guard, I inspected many a briefcase, and
vehicles for the purpose of deterring theft. I was directly responsible for
having at least one employee fired for theft. Did I care? Not my problem.
Troll: Definition - Evan Platt.
Bigot: Definition - Evan Platt.
John Holmes
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:33:24 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/14/scotus.messaging/index.html?eref=ig
>>oogle_cnn
>>
>>Dumb ass cop too lazy to get his own private cell phone/texting
>>device, takes the boss to court for "invasion of privacy".
>>
>>Well duhhhh. It ain't your property dude. That's kind of like the boss
>>finding your juicy porno collection on the company provided computer.
>>Ok so the guy paid for the overage charges as the company required.
>>Sorry, but I have to agree with the company. As they have the right to
>>know why it is you're spending so much air time on the damn thing.
>
> *fvtu* evpuneq, lbh'er bar bs gur ovttrfg qhzofuvgf gur vagrearg unf
> gb bssre.
>
>>For you people who are at work reading this, consider that. That
>>machine ain't yours. The company has every legal right to look at
>>every single file on that machine. That includes you Evan Platt.
>
> *sigh* Yes, actually, it IS my machine. And no, the company does not
> have every legal right to look at every single file.
>
> You make the assumption people only have one computer at their desk.
>
> I have 2. A laptop and a desktop. The laptop is myne.
>
> Now go troll somewhere else, st00pid.
Evan, you're such a pathetic moron. If you're so disturbed by richard's
poasts, why do you reply to each and all of his poasts? Ending trying to
tell the froup "this is where RTS leaves the thread"? Or do you just want
to see your name, in blinking lights, on a billboard? (It's XMas time,
after all) Don't bother, you've been kf'd by lots of people here. I've
never used a killfile, but when I start doing so, you'd be the first one
to deserve a place in it. You have a severe problem, Evan. I bet you beat
up your wife or GF each and every night because you're a frustrated
jerkoff. Oh wait. You /don't/ have a wife or GF. You're just sitting
there, all alone, staring at your monitor, waiting for something to
happen. But nothing happens, Evan. In a few hours, you get tired and you
need to have some sleep. Upon waking up, you'll return to your monitor,
notice nothing has changed and you're still the fucking moron chasing
innocent poasters. Fuck off, Evan. And die. It doesn't have to be
horrible, just die.
HTH
--
<snip>
richard
And in his imaginary job of router sales, he has so much free time on his
hands he can waste it in usenet. Where as, I have no need of a job so I can
spend as much time online as I want. Using any one of my machines I choose
too.
Evan has followed me into a couple of other groups where he does the same
thing. He likes to make the others their know he's king of the hill too.
His GF daddy is a big bad trucker, so that makes Evan an expert on
trucking.
He's an expert at being a troll.
John Holmes
> Oh.. this is where you drop from the thread.
>
That would be because your answer was so retarded, making any reply
useless.
--
<snip>
Mike Yetto
> Au contraire mon ami, it may be your machine by law, but the law also
> protects the company's interest. Consult with their attorney, I'm sure they
> will promptly advise you that inspection of your personal property for the
> discovery of any proprietary items is well within their legal rights.
>
Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
Mike "ever see that before?" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
John Holmes
> I'd ask you a few questions, but why bother? You just fail to respond.
So do you, Evan. You fail to respond to any question you've been asked. We
all know why, because you don't have the answers.
--
<snip>
richard
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:58:54 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Au contraire mon ami, it may be your machine by law, but the law also
>>protects the company's interest. Consult with their attorney, I'm sure they
>>will promptly advise you that inspection of your personal property for the
>>discovery of any proprietary items is well within their legal rights.
>
> "For you people who are at work reading this, consider that. That
> machine ain't yours."
>
> Wrong. It IS myne.
You try telling the company that you own their machine. That should get you
a nice boot up the ladder.
>
> And yes, by bringing in a laptop to work, I lose a portion of privacy
> to an extent, but there's a number of ways around it - anyone with an
> above room temperature IQ (which eliminates you) can figure it out.
Duhhhhh. Oh you mean all those password protection schemes? No problem.
Reboot the machine, kills the program running them. Open task manager, shut
down the program. Poof! no more password.
>
>
>>During my days of being a security guard, I inspected many a briefcase, and
>>vehicles for the purpose of deterring theft. I was directly responsible for
>>having at least one employee fired for theft. Did I care? Not my problem.
>
> Richard the Security Guard. Holy carp, that's funny.
>
>>Troll: Definition - Evan Platt.
>>Bigot: Definition - Evan Platt.
>
> If by bigot, you mean I hate st00pid people, sure.
>
> So, please tell me the difference in the number of ribs between men
> and women?
>
> Oh.. this is where you drop from the thread.
Why do I not reply each time you ask this redundant question?
Because no matter how I answer, you will keep asking it.
I leave a thread when I damn well choose too. I don't need your fucking
permission.
richard
I'm sure that is what SCOTUS will be hearing.
Their is nothing unreasonable about a company inspecting it's own
equipment.
Same as you taking a peek at your kid's computer files and finding porno on
it.
Chief of Police inspects the SWAT vehicle. Finds a stash of drugs.
Unreasonable? No it is not.
Police come into your home with a warrant looking for a gun. They see your
computer and begin going through the files. That sir, is an illegal search.
They can though, open the case and look inside for the gun. If the warrant
is for a person, no, they can't look at your computer files and no they
can't open the case.
G. Morgan
<ev...@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote:
>(myne)
You do know that is not the correct spelling of "mine". That looks
too much like Lifshine's mutilation of the language.
Mike Yetto
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:01:53 -0500, Mike Yetto wrote:
>
>> Bada bing richard <mem...@newsguy.com> bada bang:
>>> Au contraire mon ami, it may be your machine by law, but the law also
>>> protects the company's interest. Consult with their attorney, I'm sure they
>>> will promptly advise you that inspection of your personal property for the
>>> discovery of any proprietary items is well within their legal rights.
>>>
>>
>> Amendment IV (1791)
>>
>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
>> shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
>> probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
>> particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
>> or things to be seized.
>>
>> Mike "ever see that before?" Yetto
>
> I'm sure that is what SCOTUS will be hearing.
Yes, this covers a person's expectation of privacy.
> Their is nothing unreasonable about a company inspecting it's own
> equipment.
("Their is"? I grieve for the language.)
Someone's personal messages do not come under the organizations
equipment until the Supreme Court says so.
> Same as you taking a peek at your kid's computer files and finding porno on
> it.
Not even close.
> Chief of Police inspects the SWAT vehicle. Finds a stash of drugs.
> Unreasonable? No it is not.
>
Apropos? No it is not.
> Police come into your home with a warrant looking for a gun. They see your
> computer and begin going through the files. That sir, is an illegal search.
> They can though, open the case and look inside for the gun. If the warrant
> is for a person, no, they can't look at your computer files and no they
> can't open the case.
Apropos? Correct? No it is not.
Mike "did you get your degree from _Law and Order_?" Yetto
Jordon
> Evan has followed me into a couple of other groups where he does the same
> thing. He likes to make the others their know he's king of the hill too.
> His GF daddy is a big bad trucker, so that makes Evan an expert on
> trucking.
A 5 year old with a Tonka truck knows more about
trucking than you do.
--
Jordon
richard
> Bada bing richard <mem...@newsguy.com> bada bang:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:01:53 -0500, Mike Yetto wrote:
>>
>>> Bada bing richard <mem...@newsguy.com> bada bang:
>>>> Au contraire mon ami, it may be your machine by law, but the law also
>>>> protects the company's interest. Consult with their attorney, I'm sure they
>>>> will promptly advise you that inspection of your personal property for the
>>>> discovery of any proprietary items is well within their legal rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Amendment IV (1791)
>>>
>>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>>> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
>>> shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
>>> probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
>>> particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
>>> or things to be seized.
>>>
>>> Mike "ever see that before?" Yetto
>>
>> I'm sure that is what SCOTUS will be hearing.
>
> Yes, this covers a person's expectation of privacy.
>
>> Their is nothing unreasonable about a company inspecting it's own
>> equipment.
> ("Their is"? I grieve for the language.)
>
> Someone's personal messages do not come under the organizations
> equipment until the Supreme Court says so.
Assume your company monitors and records all calls.
In and out. They told you on day one and remind you frequently.
One day they call you in to the big boss's office. He plays back recorded
calls of you chatting with a service that deals with sexually explicit
matter. You know what I mean right?
Violation of privacy? Or abuse of company property?
Let's say the calls were to your, uh well, mistress. Talking about what
you'd like have her do with the wife, in detail.
Dumbass. Use your own damn phone.
>
>> Same as you taking a peek at your kid's computer files and finding porno on
>> it.
>
> Not even close.
Oh so the kid now has privacy rights too? Did he pay for it? If you paid
for it, you have every legal right to inspect it at will. The same is true
for going through every item in his personal belongings.
>
>> Chief of Police inspects the SWAT vehicle. Finds a stash of drugs.
>> Unreasonable? No it is not.
>>
>
> Apropos? No it is not.
WTF is apropos?
>
>> Police come into your home with a warrant looking for a gun. They see your
>> computer and begin going through the files. That sir, is an illegal search.
>> They can though, open the case and look inside for the gun. If the warrant
>> is for a person, no, they can't look at your computer files and no they
>> can't open the case.
>
> Apropos? Correct? No it is not.
>
> Mike "did you get your degree from _Law and Order_?" Yetto
No I got my degree from the Ben Matlock school of law.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Mike Yetto wrote:
>> Apropos? No it is not.
>
> WTF is apropos?
It is an abbreviation for "a professional apostrophe."
>> Mike "did you get your degree from _Law and Order_?" Yetto
>
> No I got my degree from the Ben Matlock school of law.
Sorry, the Ben Matlock School is a non-accredited division of Phoenix
University.
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Mike Yetto
Settling these legal issues is what the courts do. Eventually
the Supreme Court will decide on the final definition.
> Let's say the calls were to your, uh well, mistress. Talking about what
> you'd like have her do with the wife, in detail.
>
> Dumbass. Use your own damn phone.
>
The fact that you were dump enough to do something like that does
not mean it was, or was not, a violation of your privacy when the
your boss caught you at it.
Settling these legal issues is what the courts do. Eventually
the Supreme Court will decide on the final definition.
>
>>
>>> Same as you taking a peek at your kid's computer files and finding porno on
>>> it.
>>
>> Not even close.
>
> Oh so the kid now has privacy rights too? Did he pay for it? If you paid
> for it, you have every legal right to inspect it at will. The same is true
> for going through every item in his personal belongings.
>
Yes, children have privacy rights. They may be somewhat
curtailed by custodial adults, but those rights exist. I won't
even get into moral rights or violations of trust.
>>
>>> Chief of Police inspects the SWAT vehicle. Finds a stash of drugs.
>>> Unreasonable? No it is not.
>>>
>>
>> Apropos? No it is not.
>
> WTF is apropos?
>
Certainly not your arguments.
>>
>>> Police come into your home with a warrant looking for a gun. They see your
>>> computer and begin going through the files. That sir, is an illegal search.
>>> They can though, open the case and look inside for the gun. If the warrant
>>> is for a person, no, they can't look at your computer files and no they
>>> can't open the case.
>>
>> Apropos? Correct? No it is not.
>>
>> Mike "did you get your degree from _Law and Order_?" Yetto
>
> No I got my degree from the Ben Matlock school of law.
Was that degree below freezing?
Mike "not an amateur pos" Yetto
wisdomkiller & pain
....
> *sigh* Yes, actually, it IS my machine. And no, the company does not
> have every legal right to look at every single file.
>
Not that ... but if you happen to connect your lap to the company netw0rk,
you risk to get fired for infecting that network with your viruses.
Or you risk to have your lap scanned by some automatic asset for illegal
files such as mp3s or whatever. Or you may even have updates applied
automagically, or files deleted due to corporate policy.
It rarely will happen, but the devil is almost as sleepless as I am.
wisdomkiller & pain
....
> If I owned the network gateway, and paid for the bandwidth... you're
> damn right I have the right to analyze and read whatever flows through
> my
> "pipe(s)". There is no expectation of privacy on a corporate network,
> and users should -assume- every keystroke is being logged.
>
Well, even corporate networks - as soon as they are permitting private use
of email and other services, in reasonable amount, are obliged to respect
privacy. Even if not permitting private usage, then maybe members of a
works council/committee use the network/mail/storage as well.
Only the monitoring of connectivity data (legally enforced for ISPs and
telcom providers as well) would be out of question, everything beyond may
be investigated and called into question by the works commmittee or any
lawyer.
As an example, visited websites or traffic volumes are always monitored
("connection data") and can be a good reason for firing people.
Scanning e-mails for (suspicious) content, however, is not allowed without
legal order or at least knowledge of the works committee.
> As a taxpayer, I'm not real keen on SWAT officers using cell phones for
> texting their wife AND girlfriend about sex stuff he plans on doing to
> them. Their should be an analysis of all the phone usage in that unit
> and see just
> exactly how much data, (data=$$$$) is truly work related. It's quite
> possible, and plausible that they can switch to a *lower* priced data
> plan -- and tell the officers to use their own phone and account to send
> personal
> smut. If the behavior continues, you fire the guy for not following the
> damn rules.
Of course, cellphones paid by the company belong to them - even more when
they pay the fees. Nevertheless, often it is wise to permit a limited
amount of private calls to have employees keep the work cellphone in their
pockets and continue to be reachable.