On Thursday 6 June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee who sends personal messages or phone calls on a phone, pager, or computer issued by their employer runs the risk of being monitored. This is the result of a law suit brought by police officers from a police department in Ontario, California (isn't Ontario a province of Canada?) who sued the city for reading personal text messages -- some of which were sexually explicit.
Don't we know this already? Shouldn't phones etc. issued by a business be used solely for the business? I mean, the only job that I can think of that would need to sext (send sexually explicit messages, see A Teenager Could Have Figured This Out from 4/20/2010) is someone along the lines of a prostitute. Also, aren't all things issued by a company monitored? I don't have a job, and I know that. For God's sake, there is software out there specifically designed to monitor employee's computers and phones. Of course these people are going to get caught. (Also, if this police officer was married, then his logic for not being discovered for infidelity was totally backwards -- just saying.)
And how is this a violation of a person's rights? If you are using something issued to you by your employer, then you don't own it. How is screening a call / text message on a business phone an invasion of personal privacy? Second, shouldn't a business phone be used for, like, business only? Why didn't the police department to which these officers belong simply demand the phone / computer / pager back from the officers or dismiss them? This should never have come as far as the US Supreme Court having to announce this for America, and this should never have gone to court in Canada.
I'm currently in school. If I use the school's Wi-Fi or a school computer, I don't go using the internet in ways that would make me look bad or disobey rules. I don't send IMs on these school computers. I barely check my Facebook on said computers. If I want to do that (but who still uses an instant messenger anyway?), I do it at home.
You can also see that I'm not alone in my opinion: the Supreme Court voted unanimously that companies are allowed to monitor activity on employer-issued devices.
So, just to conclude:
- This is just common sense.
- People shouldn't use their business phones for cheating on their wives.
- Companies have the right to monitor phone and internet activity on employer-issued devices.
- Who let this case get so far?
Today, June 25th, marks the fourth year that Gilad Shalit has been held captive by Hamas. Throughout these years, Gilad was not given any visitation rights, even by the International Red Cross -- the most recent of these refusals was this Tuesday. His sole form of communication has been a recorded video message released last fall.
In addition, Hamas is using Gilad as a bargaining chip for the release of 1,000 Palestinian militants. Earlier this year, Hamas released an animated video with the intention of terrorizing the Israeli government and Gilad's family.
I normally don't make appeals on my blog, but I think that if I had to chose to do it for one cause, this would be it. So today, please just keep him in your thoughts today.
...giving in to public demands. This is insanity. First of all, Israel has every right to defend itself. The Gaza Strip is home headquarters for Hamas. This militant organization has vowed to destory Israel and restore Palestine. Israel, under the ruling of a completely legitimate vote by the United Nations in 1948, has every right to exist and to defend itself. Since the Gaza Strip is still Israeli territory, it has control over it. Besides, any country has the power to impose and embargo / blockade on another country to prevent import or export of certain objects that can be considered hazardous. (Didn't the US impose an embargo on Iraq a while ago? Didn't a bunch of countries impose an embargo on Iran last month?)
But what if this was happening on American soil? Or British soil? Would everyone be so uptight about the blockade and would the supposed "raid" (remember, these soldiers came on armed, but their guns were not drawn, and they had to wait for permission from superiors before opening fire. This permission was given after the activists started impaling and throwing the soldiers overboard.) be so unethical, immoral, evil, etc.? Hamas has even admitted to the press that there is no shortage of food and relief supplies. These people are all facing poverty on their own free will. They want to be poor.
Now, I perfectly understand why Turkey is all upset -- after all, it was their ships that were boarded. But when Reuters admitted to doctoring an image to remove the knife on an Arab pro-Palestinian activist? That's pushing it. The point is here, people, that Israel had every right to defend itself. It should continue defending itself.
Moreover, it should not give in to all of the pressure by Europe and everywhere else and loosen the blockade. So now, Israel, I'm talking to you: do NOT loosen up the blockade. Keep it up.
