Blind Item #2
Posted by ent lawyer at 8:15 AM
Labels: blind item
Crazy Days and Nights is a gossip site. The site publishes rumors, conjecture, and fiction. In addition to accurately reported information, certain situations, characters and events portrayed in the Blog are either products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Blog’s proprietor does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. Links to content on and quotation of material from other sites are not the responsibility of Crazy Days and Nights.
Cookies & 3rd Party Advertisements Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on your site. Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to your users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet. Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy. We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit https://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp.
24 comments:
Jim Toth
Technically all of what he is doing is legal I believe, as long as it is his employees conversations.
We've had a couple blinds imply Toth is no Boy Scout and that Reese may know more than enough to leave.
I think you have to let the other person know they are being recorded.
When it comes to surveillance, there are one-party and two-party consent states. In Texas, only one person has to know a conversation is being recorded. In California, both parties have to know. That's why when you call a help desk or customer support line here they always inform you right up front that the call may be recorded. Can an employer listen in on calls? Only if all of the parties have been adequately informed. Reading employees email may be different. I think that's company property.
True. Full disclosure is necessary or not admissable.
.... and they live in Nashville. Not sure the laws in TN.
When it’s an employer situation, all they need is a line in an employee handbook saying communications are company property/may be monitored. Then they have employees sign a paper stating they have read and received the handbook or document. Whether they have actually read it or not.
+1 to Christina and Han Niam.
I wanted to add that student e-mail is not private either.
I did a dive into the laws that govern this. Eavesdropping is different than recording. An employer is allowed to listen in on employees' calls without necessarily telling the second party. (To *record* the call, they absolutely need to to inform the second party though.) So this surveillance is more unsavory than illegal for the clients. Meaning, if they clients knew, they'd likely walk, not sue -- like the blind says.
@Christina - Thanks! I have worked for employers who have done this but the employees knew about the eavesdropping "for training purposes."
California where CAA Jim Toth is based is a two consent state you need consent of both parties otherwise it’s illegal. This is definitely illegal.
Yep, California is two party consent. Merely informing employees is not enough, both parties must be notified.
There are T's and an I (that would be dotted). I wonder if that is part of the clue for Toth.
Not when it’s your company and your phones and email server. You’re entitled to be privy to anything anyone does on company time.
+1
You are all assuming he is doing it for a legal reason. He’s listening so that he can have the heads up if anything is coming at him. Obviously,he’s not worried about the laws of consent.
It is an agency though. The CLIENTS are being spied on through the employees. That changes things a little bit, because if the clients ever find out they will most likely fire the agency.
If they have a quality monitoring disclosure then they are covered, even if it's pre recorded. If not then they are boned.
This.
If the company is paying for the phones (both landline & cell) and email system, they can listen to/read any interactions/correspondence those systems were used for. It’s work property, including conversations.
This seems to be a difficult point for some folks to grasp.
Even in a one party permission state? In this case, the one party is the employer.
It’s entirely possible that there’s a disclaimer in the company’s contracts, such as “by signing this agreement, you understand that some or all of your communications with employees of the agency may periodically be recorded or otherwise monitored”....
In which case it’s perfectly legal.
Or one of this little email disclaimers tacked on to signature files that no one ever reads.
I’m chronically amazed that people don’t understand how legal disclaimers work.
@Kno Won Uno -- True all that! It all depends on the contract language and who knows what these people signed. There's a great episode of South Park called "HUMANCENTiPAD" in Season 15 where Kyle "Agreed by Accident" to iTunes terms and conditions that turn out to be torturous. Anybody who likes South Park and is interested in contract law will love this episode.
Post a Comment