Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  CleverName, 18 May 2009 @ 5:19am

  
  

  Business As Usual

  1) Why did the defense not ask that question of the jury during the selection process ?
  2) Why is the privacy of the employee who performed the access more important than that of the victims ?

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 6:02am

  
  

  ...but it's not clear why it happened in the first place. You are kidding, right? It is clear as the size of the potential jury award in the case. The motive is money. Someone high up in the leadership new the data was there and ordered someone to mine it.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  NullOp, 18 May 2009 @ 6:46am

  
  

  No Surprise...

  Yep, when given the opportunity companies/governments/people will invariably snoop in the data. Its not a maybe, a possibly or perhaps. Its a sure thing. That is why people should be very concerned about entities holding large amounts of personal data. Especially governments and insurance companies. These groups in particular feel like they are exempt from any laws concerning privacy. The only real "cure" for it is prison for the offenders and perhaps the CEO. This problem is only growing worse as the data available grows. Don't doubt your data will be snooped/analyzed at some point...

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  BB, 18 May 2009 @ 6:55am

  
  

  Blackberries in the courtroom

  I remember my first introduction to Blackberries - in court at the jury selection part of the trial. As the name of the prospective juror was announced there was a flurry of blackberry activity, and before the prospect was sworn in, a complete background check was completed and presented to the attorney's own blackberries...

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    woodbomb (profile), 13 Jun 2009 @ 2:35pm

    
    

    Re: Blackberries in the courtroom

    In which jurisdiction did this occur? (And ~ when?)

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 7:03am

  
  

  Bah! None of you are getting the real reason behind all of this. The company just wanted to make sure everyone was getting the lowest rate possible and anyone on the jury not in their database they would sent a flyer to their house and advertise some of their low low rates :D

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Juan Monico, 18 May 2009 @ 9:56am

    
    

    Re: ICBC

    This is even more outrageous when you realize that ICBC is government owned, is the agency that issues vehicle registrations and license plates for the province and is the only legal source for government mandated automobile insurance.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 7:34am

  
  

  Electronic Medical Records anyone?

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  bob, 18 May 2009 @ 8:49am

  
  

  I know how to stop this

  Make ICBC pay 1 million dollars to each and every one of the jury pool, for that trial.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Baloney Joe, 18 May 2009 @ 9:10am

  
  

  but it's not clear why it happened in the first place.,
  
  
  
  Really, it's not clear to you? It's pretty clear to me.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Kevin M, 18 May 2009 @ 9:36am

  
  

  Michael Scott

  I thought Michael Scott ran a paper company.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2009 @ 11:10am

  
  

  Figures... Stupid Canadians.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment