Privacy violated, should there be charges laid?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chester Drawers
Privacy violated, should there be charges laid?

What is your opinion on this? This is a serious breach of privacy and all should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

 

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Privacy+breach+feared/3060016/story.html

RosaL

Chester Drawers wrote:

What is your opinion on this? This is a serious breach of privacy and all should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

 

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/Privacy+breach+feared/3060016/story.html

I'm all for it. The end justifies the means. (Just kidding.) What are you getting at, exactly? It's hard to see any broader significance in this incident. 

Tommy_Paine

 

I think they should face the same penalties that the Crown Attourney's and OPP in Ontario faced for spying on prospetive jurors, Chester.

 

 

Chester Drawers

Some one who works for a government agency uses their position to provide personal information to a third party without the consent of the people who are having their personal information disclosed.  It doesn't matter whether these were union members involved or not.  It is a violation of the privacy act, plain and simple.  Information was shared without the written consent of the people who had their private information discolsed.  It would be like a v.p. of your employer providing a political party with your info with out your consent.  It is illegal.

I believe the maximum fine is $100,000, plus the people violated can sue the entities involved and criminal charges to the individuals who released and used the info.  Because this involves the government and a person in a position of public trust, the max should be the goal.

Chester Drawers

I really do not care who does the violating.  You do the crime you do the time.  This is a serious violation, no one has the right to share your personal information without your written consent.  From the details of this story it appears that there was no consent and therefore a criminal act occurrred.

Unionist

Ah, delusion. It's such a soothing substitute for reality.

j.m.

But unionist they committed a crime! CRIMINALS!

[edit] I shouldn't just bait, but this is annoying considering what just happened on the ottawa bank firebombing thread. I don't like the double standards and that is probably because I find the moralizing to be thick these days.

Can we reflect on the tactics of the union?

Tommy_Paine

 

 

Thing is, I don't actually dissagree with Chester in principle.   If that's what happened, then those who leaked that information should face prosecution and penalties.

 

I'm very much law and order.  In those terms, I'm more Edmund Burke than Tommy Paine, I suppose.   People that rob others or break into houses aren't Robin Hoods, you know.  They are stealing much more often than not, from people who face the same dissadvantages as they do but abide by the rules and work hard against long odds.    These kinds of criminals are class traitors, and if they run afoul of Harper's get tough on crime crusade, don't expect me to cry a river over their lazy asses.  Looks good on you, asshole.

 

Where I imagine the Chesters of the world and I part company is that I think the law should be applied equally, that no one is above the law.  That in terms of the law, no one is better than me, and I'm no better than anyone else.

 

The Chesters, if I guess right, have a deep down inferiority complex, where they believe their upper class betters should have free reign to invade the privacy of, say, prospective jurors, or steal from the E.I. fund, or drive drunk and posses cocaine, or have an illegal hand gun.

 

They are a flavour of class traitor too.   

 

 

 

 

NorthReport

Ya reap what ya sow!

Unionist

j.m. wrote:

[edit] I shouldn't just bait, but this is annoying considering what just happened on the ottawa bank firebombing thread. I don't like the double standards and that is probably because I find the moralizing to be thick these days.

Can we reflect on the tactics of the union?

Sure. If the union burns down the workers' homes while they're away, I will condemn them just as I condemned the assholes who torched the bank and escaped in their luxurymobile.

See? Single standard.

Until then, this thread is anti-union baiting and unworthy of a serious response.

NorthReport

I totally agree with Unionist.

Unions are usually at at a big disadvantage when it comes to organizing as the laws are always stacked against them.

What about all the unfair corporate tactics that are used every day against workers. Sure they may be legal because they can buy the legislation they want, but they are sleazeball tactics nevertheless.

Why should a union not be allowed access to the employees in an organizing drive - what does the employer have to hide?   

j.m.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Thing is, I don't actually dissagree with Chester in principle.   If that's what happened, then those who leaked that information should face prosecution and penalties.

 

.....

Where I imagine the Chesters of the world and I part company is that I think the law should be applied equally, that no one is above the law.  That in terms of the law, no one is better than me, and I'm no better than anyone else.

 

The Chesters, if I guess right, have a deep down inferiority complex, where they believe their upper class betters should have free reign to invade the privacy of, say, prospective jurors, or steal from the E.I. fund, or drive drunk and posses cocaine, or have an illegal hand gun.

They are a flavour of class traitor too.   

 

 

I think there is an interesting critique circulating about the (un)lawfulness of tactics in these forums. I particularly agree with the latter sentiments, that critiques of the unlawfulness of the actors challenging injustices often fail to acknowledge the atrocities committed by more powerful groups/the upper class/the political class.

I am becoming increasingly sensitive to how the actions of progressive actors are perceived within and outside progressive movements. Afterall, we do share a world and co-produce it day in and day out with other people, and they are indirectly actors shaping our causes, and moreover, potential allies.

Unionist

Try getting a job and not telling your employer your home address.

Or the Canada Revenue Agency.

The most shocking part of this story is that the name of the union was revealed publicly, while no charges have been laid.

The exhibitionist "employee" who revealed the name of the union should be charged, given a fair trial, then locked up forever for violating the union's privacy.

Then, as a penalty for this violation, all FedEx employees should be forced to join the union whether they like it or not. And, their cell phone numbers should be broadcast on CBC and CTV every 1/2 hour for a month.

 

j.m.

Unionist wrote:

j.m. wrote:

[edit] I shouldn't just bait, but this is annoying considering what just happened on the ottawa bank firebombing thread. I don't like the double standards and that is probably because I find the moralizing to be thick these days.

Can we reflect on the tactics of the union?

Sure. If the union burns down the workers' homes while they're away, I will condemn them just as I condemned the assholes who torched the bank and escaped in their luxurymobile.

See? Single standard.

Until then, this thread is anti-union baiting and unworthy of a serious response.

This is becoming dogmatic. I understand the context in which unions must operate: it is limiting, hostile and punitive. But you justify breaking the law in one case and condemn it in the other. So, if you use the law as the yard stick, you are creating a double standard.

Tommy_Paine

LOL

 

You know, of all the people who are getting away with stuff, Chester feels motivated by this news story.

 

It's like he went to Niagara falls, and stood there telling eveyone to watch the water in the curb going down the sewer.

Unionist

j.m. wrote:

 

This is becoming dogmatic. I understand the context in which unions must operate: it is limiting, hostile and punitive. But you justify breaking the law in one case and condemn it in the other. So, if you use the law as the yard stick, you are creating a double standard.

Your capacity to read is obviously in need of remedial work.

You think I attacked the arsonist assholes because they broke a "law"!!??

You don't think we break unjust laws every day when fighting in the cause of justice and peace and equality!?

You missed my statement that we would do "far worse" when the time came?

Let me say this clearly:

I believe in civil disobedience.

I break laws.

I have organized illegal strikes.

I have violated picket line injunctions duly imposed by courts of law.

I have done things in confrontations with police which are borderline. I have in fact been charged for some of them.

If the union had stolen a list of addresses and used them to further their campaign, I'd say: BRAVO, well done!! - because this society and its laws does everything to inhibit workers from being unionized.

But your assholes - the SUV party crowd - they broke the law of the people. For that, they stand condemned.

 

j.m.

Are you trying to be inflammatory, Unionist?

 

Unionist wrote:

Then, as a penalty for this violation, all FedEx employees should be forced to join the union whether they like it or not. And, their cell phone numbers should be broadcast on CBC and CTV every 1/2 hour for a month.

Will "firebombing terrorists" be allowed to make phone calls to the employees? If the "terrorists" are also employees of FedEx will they be allowed to join, and if so, will you get the union to pass a by-law that allows you to drive them far away in an SUV?

 

Unionist

What happened to our bylaw that banned humourless types from posting here?

Okay, j.m., let me tell you something:

I think you are a progressive person, and part of the progressive movement.

Happy?

Let me tell you something else:

When you accuse those who condemn asshole arsonists of splitting the "left", expect an argument.

And come well-armed to these debates. With wit and wisdom.

RosaL

I answered flippantly above because I have read previous posts from Chester Drawers.

More seriously: if you know anything about the policies and practices of the Saskatchewan government with respect to unions, I think you can see why the person with access to the SGI database acted as she did. I hope nothing bad happens to her. And I am appalled that the FedEx workers aren't unionized.

Moreover, I agree with unionist that the issue isn't "breaking the law".

Chester Drawers

I can't believe there are those that feel this is ok.  I do not care if it a company or union.  This is a criminal act.  They violated the right to privacy.  Union or not, nothing justifies the right to invade an individuals privacy.  Look in the mirror and say you would be ok to have someone having access to your info without your consent.   What if a disgruntled employee or moderator at Rabble decided to share it's members private info with the RCMP?  Whats the difference between than and what the SGI employee did.