Woman Allegedly Fired for Deleting App That Let Her Boss Track Her Movements 24/7

[JohnLocke]

technology in the future might get very scary. The google glasses for one is going to be a interesting tool that will help you stalk others and just imagine they invent x-ray glasses

For what reason would the general public need to look at other people's bones?

[Tre Mac]

Boss just sounds like a peeping creep. After seeing my coworker spend his entire lunch break peeping on other peoples pics on facebook or w/e i asked wtf is wrong with people? What happen to the good old days of just peeping from trees and bushes? This generation is so lazy.

[Chalky]

There is no mention of who actually owns the phone. If it is her personal phone then she has a legitimate complaint. If it is a company issued phone then she should not be removing apps. It's only an invasion of privacy if they are forcing her to use her own phone with that tracing app, otherwise she should leave the phone at work when off, or if she works remotely she should leave it at home or turn it off when not working.

I would never work for a company that does this. Either they trust me or they don't. I don't need a babysitter. It's becoming more and more commonplace, even in Canada with US multinationals corps like Sherwin Williams Paint.

[Down by the River]

To me, it is pretty clear that the phone was owned by her work. If it was her personal phone, that would be the very first thing her lawyers would tell her to make clear.

EDIT: I read the suit and it does give the impression that it was a company phone, but the company also required the complainant to have the phone on 24/7 to answer calls from clients. As such, it would be necessary to keep the phone with her at all times, thus allowing her company to track her movements outside of work.

[Qwags]

I didn't even know this was an app, did people really not see privacy as being an issue?

[-DLC-]

If a company I work for wants something special like that from me, then they had better provide a work phone.

Exactly what I thought....her phone, no way.

If they pay for the phone and all associated costs, sure. A stipulation to allow the tracking of the phone's whereabouts/activities should be during work/paid hours ONLY. But I would think an option to shut off the phone and shut down the tracking would be made available as part of that or it's an absolute violation of privacy. AND a huge security risk...what if some creepy manager decides to stalk someone by way of this? So much could come into play and it's up to us to protect our personal privacy. When my workday ends, so does any business I have with my company until my workday resumes. They have absolutely no business knowing where I am or what I'm doing at that point. As a woman, it's especially concerning (and creepy) to think of someone tracking my whereabouts/activity. No way, absolutely not.

[Chalky]

To me, it is pretty clear that the phone was owned by her work. If it was her personal phone, that would be the very first thing her lawyers would tell her to make clear.

EDIT: I read the suit and it does give the impression that it was a company phone, but the company also required the complainant to have the phone on 24/7 to answer calls from clients. As such, it would be necessary to keep the phone with her at all times, thus allowing her company to track her movements outside of work.

This is exactly the culture of mega corps that we need to get away from. These multinational soulless corporations have no respect for their employees work/life balance. That is an unreasonable expectation and I have heard about other companies making similar demands.

[Mainly Mattias]

Makes me wonder what kind of permissions the app required. It must have been all encompassing.. ie it wouldn't allow you to turn off the gps/keep it off.

[Ghostsof1915]

For what reason would the general public need to look at other people's bones?

I can see it now.

Dude, did you know you're walking around with a fractured rib? You should really see a doctor about that!

[canucks.brad]

it looks like she was using her personal phone for work related activities. if this is the case, I have no problem with this. the amount of sensitive information flowing through the phone imo justifies this.

i wonder if the company was also paying the cellphone bill.

most companies either:

1. provide a corporate phone

2. pay % of personal phone but require certain applications to be installed/level of security.

given the fact that she worked with classified personal financial information, i have no problem with this.

edit: in another article online it said the phone was issued to her by the company. which case I'm siding with the company here.

**my position on this will change if more information is released.

[Dral]

LoL - yeah if its a company phone, then she's probably not gonna have a strong case for wrongful termination... she should have sued for harassment