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.