Welcome to the Killington Zone Message Board
https://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/
Tom wasn't giving out his phone with naked pics of Giselle for his boss and the rest of the world to see... We all know about the sketchy leaks the NFL is capable of disseminating.Bubba wrote:Finding classified material in Hillary's e-mail after all her denials sure makes you wonder about what was on Brady's phone given all his denials.
Actually, a registered independent who surely voted for more Republicans than many here, butt that stuff belongs in the Political Forum.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Boy, Coydog. I knew you were democrat/liberal, but a sheep? You can't possibly assert Hillary has done no harm and made no foul, can you?Coydog wrote:You mean the emails identified as classified only after they were sent and received? Yep, sure makes you wonder.Bubba wrote:Finding classified material in Hillary's e-mail after all her denials sure makes you wonder about what was on Brady's phone given all his denials.
And I'm certain that you, like most people, would gladly hand over your personal cell phone to your employer - whatever the circumstance.
Yes, I'd hand over my personal cell phone to my employer if (1) I was conducting business using my personal phone, (2) I was accused of perpetuating fraud, etc. and my phone would clear my name, (3) it meant that if I didn't provide it I may lose my job and the ability to support my family. I might be inclined to engage a lawyer to assess the employers rights, but my primary goal would be to preserve my job to support my family.Coydog wrote:Now, back to you handing over your personal cell phone to your employer ...
Can you please list the citation where the SCOTUS says this in regards to a personally owned phone.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Yes, I'd hand over my personal cell phone to my employer if (1) I was conducting business using my personal phone, (2) I was accused of perpetuating fraud, etc. and my phone would clear my name, (3) it meant that if I didn't provide it I may lose my job and the ability to support my family. I might be inclined to engage a lawyer to assess the employers rights, but my primary goal would be to preserve my job to support my family.Coydog wrote:Now, back to you handing over your personal cell phone to your employer ...
Having worked in industry that are highly regulated, most have a BYOD or acceptable use policy regarding use of mobile devices. My current employer has the ability, to some extent, to monitor data on my phone. It's my understanding that recent Supreme Court rulings have been in favor of the employer obtaining/reading text messages when an employee is suspected of breaking workplace policies or procedures.
The SCOTUS ruling was in relation to phones paid for / provided-by the employer. Doesn't change my opinion.SnoBrdr wrote:Can you please list the citation where the SCOTUS says this in regards to a personally owned phone.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:Yes, I'd hand over my personal cell phone to my employer if (1) I was conducting business using my personal phone, (2) I was accused of perpetuating fraud, etc. and my phone would clear my name, (3) it meant that if I didn't provide it I may lose my job and the ability to support my family. I might be inclined to engage a lawyer to assess the employers rights, but my primary goal would be to preserve my job to support my family.Coydog wrote:Now, back to you handing over your personal cell phone to your employer ...
Having worked in industry that are highly regulated, most have a BYOD or acceptable use policy regarding use of mobile devices. My current employer has the ability, to some extent, to monitor data on my phone. It's my understanding that recent Supreme Court rulings have been in favor of the employer obtaining/reading text messages when an employee is suspected of breaking workplace policies or procedures.
How 'Tom Brady Sux' ended up on Sun King beer cans
Dana Hunsinger Benbow, dana.benbow@indystar.com 11:40 a.m. EDT August 12, 2015
You can't make this up. Blame it on a guy who works the canning line, named Biscuit.
More than 20,000 cans of Sun King Brewery's Wee Mac Scottish Ale came off the line with a not-so-subtle, born-on-date jab.
"Tom Brady Sux."
The company, solidly an Indianapolis brewery whose beer is sold at the Colts' home (Lucas Oil Stadium), is taking no credit nor blame nor responsibility for the New England Patriots insult.
Instead, it's crediting -- or blaming -- a guy named Biscuit, who works Sun King's canning line.
"It was a prank by Biscuit," Sun King co-owner Clay Robinson said Tuesday morning.
The born-on-date saga started May 13, a day the brewery was canning Wee Mac and the same day the country was atwitter over DeflateGate.
The Wells Report had been released a week prior and Brady's 4-game suspension had been handed down by the NFL just two days before.
"It wasn't an idea we came up with at all," said Robinson, referring to Sun King the company. "Every day, we change the thing on the bottom of our cans. One of the guys running the canning lines had to come up with something. Biscuit is his name. So Biscuit put 'Tom Brady Sux.'"
When Robinson and other Sun King higher ups saw it?
"We were like, 'Oh, wow,'" Robinson said. "We were like, 'What the hell were you thinking?'"
Biscuit (who Robinson declined to reveal the true identity of) still works for Sun King, but he now is required to submit a list of the sayings he plans to stamp on the bottom of beer cans each week.
And, Robinson, concedes, "I actually thought it was funny. Now there are thousands of cans out there that say 'Tom Brady Sux.'"
Sun King is known for its quirky words next to its born-on dates. During the Indianapolis 500, for example, there will be sayings like "Turn left," or "Go fast."
Sometimes, there are movie quotes or one-line quips, such as "Drink and Repeat" and sometimes all the can says is "Yummy."
"It's really, really random," Robinson said.
Not so random, of course, this time.
The bad news, for people who want to get their hands on a "Tom Brady Sux" Wee Mac, is that its shelf life is nearing the end.
"I assume most were consumed and recycled without anyone noticing," Robinson said.
And for those people who do notice, Robinson believes Biscuit's prank may turn out to be one of the most positive -- albeit unintended -- marketing ploys.
"We are an Indianapolis-based brewery, we wanted to grow to become Indianapolis' beer," he said. "We are in Colts country."
The only way the ploy could get better?
Have Biscuit stamp the exact same words on Sun King cans Oct. 18, when Brady takes on the Colts at Lucas Oil in his first game back after the DeflateGate suspension.
Follow Dana Benbow on Twitter: @DanaBenbow.
So would you hand over your phone if all of those conditions were met or if any one was met?XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Yes, I'd hand over my personal cell phone to my employer if (1) I was conducting business using my personal phone, (2) I was accused of perpetuating fraud, etc. and my phone would clear my name, (3) it meant that if I didn't provide it I may lose my job and the ability to support my family. I might be inclined to engage a lawyer to assess the employers rights, but my primary goal would be to preserve my job to support my family.
Having worked in industry that are highly regulated, most have a BYOD or acceptable use policy regarding use of mobile devices. My current employer has the ability, to some extent, to monitor data on my phone. It's my understanding that recent Supreme Court rulings have been in favor of the employer obtaining/reading text messages when an employee is suspected of breaking workplace policies or procedures.
I'd hand it over if any one of those conditions were met. I don't have anything, and wouldn't have anything, that could cause me or my family harm. Most phones, especially phone's running Android, are highly susceptible to hacking. That's just me.Coydog wrote:So would you hand over your phone if all of those conditions were met or if any one was met?XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Yes, I'd hand over my personal cell phone to my employer if (1) I was conducting business using my personal phone, (2) I was accused of perpetuating fraud, etc. and my phone would clear my name, (3) it meant that if I didn't provide it I may lose my job and the ability to support my family. I might be inclined to engage a lawyer to assess the employers rights, but my primary goal would be to preserve my job to support my family.
Having worked in industry that are highly regulated, most have a BYOD or acceptable use policy regarding use of mobile devices. My current employer has the ability, to some extent, to monitor data on my phone. It's my understanding that recent Supreme Court rulings have been in favor of the employer obtaining/reading text messages when an employee is suspected of breaking workplace policies or procedures.
I assume you would not hand over your phone if it could potentially cause harm to your family even though it would clear your name. Yes?
Employers can search an employee’s personal cell without permission only if previously agreed to as a condition of employment. Even then, an employer could only do so at work. SCOTUS ruled the government needs a warrant - at least in theory.
Absolutely, I can always get another job. Plus, I'd never agree to work for an organization that made snooping around my personal phone a condition of employment.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
I'd hand it over if any one of those conditions were met. I don't have anything, and wouldn't have anything, that could cause me or my family harm. Most phones, especially phone's running Android, are highly susceptible to hacking. That's just me.
How about you? Would you be willing to lose your job to preserve your privacy?
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I'd hand it over if any one of those conditions were met. I don't have anything, and wouldn't have anything, that could cause me or my family harm. Most phones, especially phone's running Android, are highly susceptible to hacking. That's just me.Coydog wrote:So would you hand over your phone if all of those conditions were met or if any one was met?XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
Yes, I'd hand over my personal cell phone to my employer if (1) I was conducting business using my personal phone, (2) I was accused of perpetuating fraud, etc. and my phone would clear my name, (3) it meant that if I didn't provide it I may lose my job and the ability to support my family. I might be inclined to engage a lawyer to assess the employers rights, but my primary goal would be to preserve my job to support my family.
Having worked in industry that are highly regulated, most have a BYOD or acceptable use policy regarding use of mobile devices. My current employer has the ability, to some extent, to monitor data on my phone. It's my understanding that recent Supreme Court rulings have been in favor of the employer obtaining/reading text messages when an employee is suspected of breaking workplace policies or procedures.
I assume you would not hand over your phone if it could potentially cause harm to your family even though it would clear your name. Yes?
Employers can search an employee’s personal cell without permission only if previously agreed to as a condition of employment. Even then, an employer could only do so at work. SCOTUS ruled the government needs a warrant - at least in theory.
How about you? Would you be willing to lose your job to preserve your privacy?
I think if you read my posts you'll see I mentioned the SCOTUS case I was referring to was related to employer provided cellular devices.SnoBrdr wrote:You still have provided no evidence that the SCOTUS ever ruled on a case involving a cell phone and a employee/employer relationship.
A quick sea4ch of WestLaw shows no such decisions.
I think you are misquoting Riley vs California, kinda like the NFL has been doing in this so called investigation.
Riley dealt with a warrantless search by the POLICE of a individual's phone.
So like was mentioned, don't work for a heavy handed organization that will just trample all over your 4th amendment rights for their good and not your's.
If you read my posts you'd see that there is nothing on WestLaw about any such case.XtremeJibber2001 wrote:I think if you read my posts you'll see I mentioned the SCOTUS case I was referring to was related to employer provided cellular devices.SnoBrdr wrote:You still have provided no evidence that the SCOTUS ever ruled on a case involving a cell phone and a employee/employer relationship.
A quick sea4ch of WestLaw shows no such decisions.
I think you are misquoting Riley vs California, kinda like the NFL has been doing in this so called investigation.
Riley dealt with a warrantless search by the POLICE of a individual's phone.
So like was mentioned, don't work for a heavy handed organization that will just trample all over your 4th amendment rights for their good and not your's.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:https://www.privacyrights.org/workplace ... itoring#4b
Similarly, my employer can dig through anything they want on my work PC. I own my own smartphone. My employer has no legal right to access that. I also own a few other computers. My employer has no legal right to access those.In a June 2010 decision, City of Ontario v. Quon, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the search of a police officer's personal messages on a government-owned pager, saying it did not violate his constitutional rights.
