> For a company of reasonable size opening a branch
> in a handful of states isn't going to be an issue.
They don't even have to open a branch. All they have to do is find an employee or someone they know who has friends or relatives in that state and have them file the request. Give them a Best Buy gift certificate for their time or something.
> Their bypass method is unlikely to work in
> the long run, the state is likely to take
> action against people who attempt to deceive them.
How is it an attempt to deceive? They're declaring themselves in-state residents (true) and they're making a legitimate request (true).
What 'action' can the state take against anyone who shares information gleaned from a FOIA response? That's the whole *purpose* of the FOIA law in the first place-- for citizens to be able to access their government's documents and share that information.
And while the Supreme Court may have upheld restrictions on who may *file* a state FOIA request, any attempt to procecute someone for sharing that information with an out of state resident or simply putting it on the internet would be bright-line violation of the 1st Amendment.
> it would seem to me that the constitutional
> issue is not if companies can force you to
> give up those logins in return for employment.
> its really if a state can pass a law that says
> they have that right.
If it's not an enumerated power of Congress under Article I, Section 8, then the power belongs to the state and/or local governments per the 10th Amendment.
> Are you implying that the companies aren't
> supposed to follow the Constitution? Heck,
> even law enforcement need warrants to go to
> such lengths. Are you mad?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but assuming you aren't, and that you're a U.S. citizen, it's a stinging indictment of our educational system that you'd even ask that question. (If you're not a U.S. citizen, then disregard.)
The Constitution only legally prohibits the GOVERNMENT from doing certain things, like infringing freedom of speech, or searching a home without a warrant. It has no application or restraint upon conduct between private parties. The only part of the Constitution that regulates conduct between one citizen and another is the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery.
So in answer to your question, no, companies are not supposed to (nor are they required to) follow the Constitution.
> And if a candidate is not on a social media
> site? Are they disadvantaged for making a
> choice not to be on one? There is a serious
> issue of equal opportunity here if candidates
> are evaluated differently.
All candidates are evaluated differently all the time. Social media doesn't change that.
If you and I are applying for job at Company X and you have a masters degree and I don't, we will be be evaluated differently if Company X values post-graduate work.
If I have extensive real-world experience in running a business and you don't, we will be be evaluated differently if Company X values that type of experience.
And if Company X values people who know and use social media, they will evaluate candidates who don't even have accounts differently than those who do.
None of the questions you raised even come close to the most serious question, especially in regard to applicants and employment law.
There are various federal and state laws that prohibit employers from asking or raising a whole host of issues during an pre-employment interview. Things such as family status, ethnicity, religion, etc. cannot be the basis for an employment decision. However, being forced during an interview to allow the company to peruse your Facebook account basically does an end-run around all of that and gives the employer a voluminous amount of information to which it is not legally entitled.
> What if you don't have social media account?
I know of several police departments in the Southern California area that require applicants to allow them to peruse their Facebook accounts and if an applicant doesn't have one, they assume it was either deleted prior to applying or the applicant purposely never opened one in the first place because the applicant had something he/she didn't want them to know about.
Not having a Facebook account is pretty much a black mark on your application that you have to work hard to overcome.
> What if a cop arrests someone today, and that
> person is a US citizen who hasn't watched/read
> Jack Webb, Dragnet and Law & Order? You can't
> just assume someone knows their rights.
I'm personally in favor of the Miranda rule being eliminated entirely. It was a ridiculous decision when it was first issued and only gets more ridiculous with each further judicial 'refinement' of the rule.
The U.S. provides criminal defendants with more due process and substantive protections than any other society in the history of mankind. We bend over backward to give the accused every presumption of innocence and put high hurdles before the government to convict.
If you as a citizen can't be bothered to educate yourself on the basics of what your rights are and what burden the government meet to convict you, then that's on you. There ought to be some minimum personal responsibility on the part of the citizen and that's where I'd draw the line.
> "It's great for BitTorrent and disingenuous
> of Cinedigm," said the executive. "The fact of
> the matter is BitTorrent is in it for themselves,
> they're not in it for the health of the industry."
Why should BitTorrent be obligated to do anything for the health of the industry? It's not *their* industry.
Does the movie industry go out of its way to prop up the health of the car industry or the steel industry or the fabric industry? No? Well, why not? They expect others to help out *them* out of the goodness of their hearts. Shouldn't they reciprocate?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Think in terms of info, then
Yes, yes, they have to say that don't they, in order to save face? They keep moving the goalposts whenever reality doesn't jibe with their agenda.
The fact is, we were already supposed to be in a full-blown melt-down according to the predictions these same people were making 10-15 years ago. Now that none of that has come to pass, and the opposite seems to be happening, they're backpedaling and saying, "Well, maybe it's 30 to 40 years, but it's still a crisis, so give us money!"
A more honest quote from that article comes from David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation: "If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change."
It was never anything but a huge scam from the beginning and now people are waking up and seeing the naked emperor for what he is.
> Then you get slapped with 'contempt of court',
> which is basically the legal way to coerce you
> to cooperate, and can involve pretty much unlimited
> jail time until you agree to do what they want you to.
That only works when there's undeniable proof that the defendant *can* produce what the government is requesting.
Unless the government can prove that you have the password and are refusing to provide it-- that you haven't forgotten it, that you purposely never learned it, etc.-- they can't keep in you jail forever based on that.
The key concept behind these kinds of contempt rulings is that "the defendant has the keys to his own jail cell". In other words, he can let himself out at any time. All he has to do is cooperate. If the defendant actually *can't* let himself out because he doesn't have the information the government wants, then the contempt charge is invalid and if his lawyer can show that on appeal, the trial court's contempt order will be overturned.
Still and all, while you can theoretically be subject to indefinite incarceration for contempt, no jailing for contempt in America has ever gone beyond a couple of years, and that's at the extreme. So if I was a defendant and knew that I had stuff on my computer that would send me to the state pound-you-in-the-ass penitentiary for 10-15 years, I'd take two years in the county jail for contempt every time and leave the evidence encrypted where the government couldn't get to it.
> The police can still compel you to turn over
> a password if they know beyond reasonable doubt
> that you know it, and they know beyond reasonable
> doubt what they'll find when they use it. That
> hasn't changed in this ruling.
I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a jury standard that has to be met by the prosecution at trial. It has nothing to do with the police and the standards by which they conduct their investigations.