tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918486240655638507.comments2010-02-05T18:20:48.664-06:00Mitchell Grayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04957305673209824504noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918486240655638507.post-57245787176547251992010-02-05T18:20:48.664-06:002010-02-05T18:20:48.664-06:00Great article dude. <br />ps. you missed the word &quot;limited&quot; before &quot;government&quot; in the Tannehill&#39;s quote. I know cause I use that quote often. :)Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04201087575994818431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918486240655638507.post-12908930701023790852008-06-29T19:25:00.000-05:002008-06-29T19:25:00.000-05:00They will have to do something because the courts feel the need to violate their property rights. I assume that the only way to ensure that they can protect their property will be to have multiple privacy disclaimers but even that probably wont help. The courts in California apparently care nothing about property rights and seem eager to violate them whenever they get the chance. This causes a number of problems for regular people as well. This case could set a precedent. Perhaps even our emails sent to friends are subject to the same kind of treatment as in this case. Not as if it really matters with the federal government snooping into everyones business. We are doomed.Mitchell Grayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04957305673209824504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918486240655638507.post-29860041276027099602008-06-20T21:43:00.000-05:002008-06-20T21:43:00.000-05:00Mitchell: The Quon case may give employers incentive to use multiple, repetitive privacy disclaimers. What do you think? --Ben <A HREF="http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/06/employee-imtexte-mailvoicecomputerinter.html" REL="nofollow">http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/06/employee-imtexte-mailvoicecomputerinter.html</A>Ben Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11543639411820745571noreply@blogger.com