I think you are either quoting the wrong person or you have completely misunderstood my whole point, which is:
What law prohibits this?
I’m not saying what you say is impossible. For example, Federal employees are protected by the Privacy Act for many things. I’m just not aware of a general prohibition, and I am curious.
The ol’ “just because I have none of my facts right doesn’t mean I’m wrong” apology. Gets me every time.
Enforcing the border is now racist? :rolleyes:
Didn’t you receive that memo? Everything is now racist.
AB450 does more than penalize voluntary access to records. It also penalizes voluntary access to any non public areas of a business - including things like a knock and talk. It eliminates the ability for a person to consent even if they want to. it’s pretty surprising to me that this is seen as a good thing.
Uh, your opinion here is just showing ignorance.
Arpaio was found to be in contempt of court for ignoring court orders to stop his illegal race profiling. That involved born Americans too, besides legal residents. That is the trash that Trump pardoned.
You bet it was racist, and as I suspected, a lot of ignorance is involved when I see many supporting a party that is pandering to real racists, a party that has gone beyond what is supposed to be the rule of law.
Yeahrite. His deputies pulled over huge quantities of white people asking for their papers. Sure.
Did you think I was apologizing? Think again.
Does anyone truly believe that immigration would be such a hot topic if the persons in question were coming from our northern border rather than the southern one?
Oops, that was a typo.
I meant to write:
“The ol’ “just because I have none of my facts right doesn’t mean I’m wrong” NON-apology. Gets me every time.”
Thanks for flagging so I can correct the record!
I’ve been thinking of an example that would be useful to isolate the AB450 issue from that of immigration. Airport security and knock and talks is the first I could come up with. It has some similar characteristics -
controlled by the feds, some aspects of voluntary compliance, etc.
Remember when the body scanners at airport security lines started being implemented vs the traditional metal detectors? People could opt out if they wanted, though the metal detector line was slightly slower. The body scans seems to be more revealing in terms of personal privacy, but people could choose to use them and they would save just a bit of time. So what if a state passed a law that said, in the interest of protecting privacy, in this state no one is allowed to elect the body scanners and if they do, they are subject to a civil fine.
Or if the FBI is looking for a suspect and in canvasing they knock on people’s doors to conduct interviews, evidence gathering, etc. But instead, the state makes it a civil violation to talk to the FBI unless they have a warrant.
Now, I’m not a fan of the body scanners myself, but hey if the next guy is, I’m not going to stop him. I’m not a fan of talking to law enforcement if they come to the door either, but I’m not going to stop my neighbor if that’s what they want to do. Except that’s what CA is doing. It’s stopping the person that wants to use the scanners. It’s stopping the person that wants to voluntarily aid federal officers, in their own business.
What I saw was that you admitted you were wrong, but then tried to throw up some kind of smokescreen to imply that it didn’t matter because your passion is aimed in the correct direction, politically. While that is not an uncommon position to take around here, it’s not a good way to fight ignorance.
Not the same thing at all, Bone. In your examples, the person doing the volunteering is only exposing her own privacy. When an owner volunteers access to a federal agent, she is exposing the privacy of everyone in the building, and they had no opportunity to volunteer or not!
mc
Hah you’d make a good Republican.
“I didn’t say what I said. I said this instead.”
First, it’s the correct direction, ethically. But then you’d never admit that because you’re too busy defending the political actions of your chosen side over the ethics involved.
And second, since it hasn’t been tested in court, you (or Ravenman, who appears to have his own axe to grind) don’t even begin to know which argument is correct. I guarantee you the Tenth will/would be used if that does happen.
So spare me your attempted ‘gotchas,’ both of you.
Consenting to allow an ICE officer to a non-public place in the business doesn’t expose the privacy of anyone in the building necessarily. Access alone is prohibited, like having a conversation in a closed door office.
Jesus, Johnny, you don’t know a basic issue relating to the Supremacy Clause. Give it up.
Is there some greater expectation of privacy in the workplace in California than the rest of the country? In my state, I don’t think I’d have much of a leg to stand on if my employer wanted to search my office, my computer, my email inbox, etc. They say “there’s no expectation of privacy” when dealing with company equipment and property. AFAICT, about the only thing they can’t do is put a camera in the bathroom, but IANAL.