40Year Pack Fan Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 1 hour ago, incognito_man said: The right to? I dunno what you mean by that. They certainly could if they wanted to. The gamble being you might choose to sue them. This question is very very gray. But if you are asking if it's illegal for them to do so, it is not (by itself) illegal for them to. Certain types of information may violate some laws, but there's not a blanket determination. Than the question is, what would Gruden gain by suing?....He cannot deny his complicity in the texts he wrote....And all this would do is further drag his name and what's left of his reputation through the mud... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFP7 Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: Yeah, I admit I am a little shocked to read these posts where people seem to believe that anything they do on a work desktop/laptop could be considered private. It's simply not true. There is no gray area. there's definitely a gray area when we start talking about personal emails, even sent from a work computer. This is heavily state dependent though, with bluer states catering more to employees and redder states more towards employers. Employee privacy laws are extensive and as with most legislation, not easy to read at all. The gray remover tool for employers? An employee handbook that will have some text somewhere in it saying "if using a work computer we have the right to access anything and everything", or something like that. Course most people sign those things without reading them. All this aside, Gruden is pure scum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 If there’s anything to learn from all of this, it’s just don’t be a doooosh bag. And if you are a dooosh bag, just don’t send dooooshy emails. Of course, if you’re a dooosh bag, you’re prolly too stupid to follow these simple life tips and are incapable of hiding your doooshyness, so you deserve to be outed for being a dooosh bag. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 7 hours ago, Sasquatch said: If there’s anything to learn from all of this, it’s just don’t be a doooosh bag. And if you are a dooosh bag, just don’t send dooooshy emails. Of course, if you’re a dooosh bag, you’re prolly too stupid to follow these simple life tips and are incapable of hiding your doooshyness, so you deserve to be outed for being a dooosh bag. This! I f you put your thoughts/opinions in emails/texts that may harm or be questionable that's on you. Stupid is as stupid does, especially somebody that's older than 12 who knows better. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 It's funny how everyone is fixated on Gruden in this discussion when my original point to the post about the 600K emails was the NFL's RIGHT not to release the emails from the WFT investigation. You can call it the right not to self incriminate or to 'protect the shield', you can call it whatever you want but the public has no right to those emails since this is not a criminal investigation. It doesn't matter if they are protecting a whole host of other d-bags in the process of keeping those emails private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted October 21, 2021 Author Share Posted October 21, 2021 15 minutes ago, Old Guy said: It's funny how everyone is fixated on Gruden in this discussion when my original point to the post about the 600K emails was the NFL's RIGHT not to release the emails from the WFT investigation. You can call it the right not to self incriminate or to 'protect the shield', you can call it whatever you want but the public has no right to those emails since this is not a criminal investigation. It doesn't matter if they are protecting a whole host of other d-bags in the process of keeping those emails private. Fine. The above is your personal opinion - which is fine. Others have been pointing out (quite rightly) that an employer does have both access and (very often) the legal right to disseminate emails done on their equipment / system. These two points can exist in the same world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 20 minutes ago, Old Guy said: It's funny how everyone is fixated on Gruden in this discussion when my original point to the post about the 600K emails was the NFL's RIGHT not to release the emails from the WFT investigation. You can call it the right not to self incriminate or to 'protect the shield', you can call it whatever you want but the public has no right to those emails since this is not a criminal investigation. It doesn't matter if they are protecting a whole host of other d-bags in the process of keeping those emails private. Nobody is arguing they MUST release them (from a legal standpoint). And that's not at all what you said earlier, either, that I corrected for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Leader said: Fine. The above is your personal opinion - which is fine. Others have been pointing out (quite rightly) that an employer does have both access and (very often) the legal right to disseminate emails done on their equipment / system. These two points can exist in the same world. And the NFL has chosen not to disseminate those emails. That is their right too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 On 10/20/2021 at 10:09 AM, Leader said: ProFootballTalk - The NFL may never release any evidence regarding the Washington Football Team workplace misconduct investigation or the 650,000 emails supposedly sent to and from former WFT president Bruce Allen that fell beyond the scope of the investigation. But that doesn’t mean people will, or should, stop asking. Appearing on HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith reiterated his call for transparency regarding the 650,000 emails, and more. “To be precise, I’m calling on or we’re calling on and I think the country should call on the release of any information within the league’s possession that is evidence of racial animus, sexism, misogyny, bias, homophobia,” Smith told Gumbel. /// It's up to the Owners. It ain't happening. 21 hours ago, Old Guy said: People are allowed privacy, even bigots and racists. If you disagree that's fine, but how would you like everything in your personal life exposed? Even if you did nothing wrong, it's called "PERSONAL" for a reason. Enough is enough! By inviting this in you are giving up certain rights you never get back. It may not seem like much until you look back and have no rights whatsoever. 2 hours ago, incognito_man said: Nobody is arguing they MUST release them (from a legal standpoint). And that's not at all what you said earlier, either, that I corrected for you. Original post and my response. Never mentioned Jon Gruden, never mentioned personal email. You made that part up and went in a different discussion, which I engaged. The NFL will likely never release these emails and they do not have to release these emails. NO matter how much DeMaurice Smith hollers. Does that mean there is nefarious **** in those emails? Maybe, maybe not! Much like the investigation into the Patriots cheating, they've probably burned the evidence already if there is some really bad stuff they don't want out. Public curiously does not trump the NFL's right to keep this PRIVATE! Again, unless there is a criminal proceeding I'm unaware of. Have a nice day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Maybe the hang-up is your use of "privacy" and "rights" which seem suspect (still). If you agree that no one should have any expectation of privacy from their employer while using work equipment, we agree. If you agree that your employer can release personal information (in accordance with current law) publicly, we agree. But it still seems like you believe that employees have a blanket "right" to some degree of "privacy" while using work equipment, and that's just simply not true at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted October 21, 2021 Author Share Posted October 21, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Old Guy said: And the NFL has chosen not to disseminate those emails. That is their right too. I've lost track of the point(s) you're making about this. No one has said they didnt have that right. It would probably be a public relations nightmare, so they've decided not to go there. Btw.....a clarification.... This is not a *league* decision. Goodell doesnt pull this trigger (or not.) It's up to the Owners - I suppose based on some majority vote - and for points raise just above - I'm sure they dont want to open that Pandora's Box. Edited October 21, 2021 by Leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 10 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Maybe the hang-up is your use of "privacy" and "rights" which seem suspect (still). If you agree that no one should have any expectation of privacy from their employer while using work equipment, we agree. If you agree that your employer can release personal information (in accordance with current law) publicly, we agree. But it still seems like you believe that employees have a blanket "right" to some degree of "privacy" while using work equipment, and that's just simply not true at all. That depends on the state you live in. I'm not interested in rehashing the rest of it. It's not worth it. I think you are a decent person from what I know and do not want to engage in an argument with you. We can agree to disagree on some of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 12 minutes ago, Old Guy said: That depends on the state you live in. I'm not interested in rehashing the rest of it. It's not worth it. I think you are a decent person from what I know and do not want to engage in an argument with you. We can agree to disagree on some of this. The key word is "blanket". I 100% acknowledge there are varying laws by state and that's been my point from the beginning. You seem to believe that EVERYONE has some expectation of privacy, and that's just not true. And this is just for PERSONAL business, which doesn't even apply to the situation at hand since they were using WORK accounts (which universally have no expectation of privacy, regardless of state). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 More than anything, just wanted to point out that if anyone thinks that their employer ISN'T or SHOULDN'T be monitoring any activity they do on their enployers' equipment needs to reconsider the reality of the situation. Long-story short: do whatever you want on your own computer, but ANYTHING you do on your employers' equipment may be very well monitored/recorded and they may someday release it publicly without legal ramifications. In almost all cases they'd have no reason to do that. But it's always an option for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 Per the Packers insta page Mercilus has been signed by the Pack:) Well done Gute. I have the link on my phone if you want to see the link go to the Packers insta page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.