STARWOOD's disturbing serious privacy/stalking issue

[ginkoka]

i hesitate to post a reply as i was only highlighting a serious issue, pertinent to users here.

http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.../Stalking.aspx

maybe you would change your opinion after reading that. I could post a list of cases for which arrests were made based on using information from public records, ie public available information. But seriously, based on your pattern of usage on this board, i don't think its worth my time.

I do not encourage any illegality nor of any planning of any such activity and as seen by opinions posted, many of your peers have indicated they are not comfortable with the kind of tracking/monitoring of their online activity mentioned and making linkages based on that.

It would appear you disagree.

Since you're starting to make personal attacks rather than judge my posts on this thread on their factual merits, I won't hesitate to say that anyone with half a brain reading the definitions of stalking and cyber stalking on the link you posted can see what Starwood and recruiters and personal investigators and repossession firms are doing is not the same as stalking, cyber or otherwise.

[ginkoka]

The same person using the other half of his brain to do a simple google search will easily find law firms advising that social media evidence can and have been used in court.

http://www.zacklodmer.com/blog/tag/s...ce-admissible/

http://www.cowanlawfirm.com/articles...edia-evidence/

http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2011-06/132.htm

I quote from the last website (SG Law Gazette, but the cases look non-SG):
In TekSystems, Inc. v Hammernik et al,1 an IT services firm sued three former employees' and their new employer for violating non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements on the evidence found in the employees' LinkedIn accounts used to make the wrongful contacts.

In Purvis v Commissioner of Social Security,2 the Commission of Social Security denied the plaintiff’s application for supplemental social security (disability) income on account of an asthma condition. An administrative law Judge supported the Commission’s denial by finding that Purvis’s symptoms were not credible after the Judge herself discovered Facebook photographs of the plaintiff smoking.

Activity on social media sites can even be used as an alibi, as in the case of Rodney Bradford,3 the Brooklyn teenager whose post on Facebook about late-night pancake cravings saved him from being charged for robbery.

[9V-JKL]

Keep it clean guys. Make it an excellent debate. This is educational stuff beneficial to many here.

[RHG]

Since you're starting to make personal attacks rather than judge my posts on this thread on their factual merits, I won't hesitate to say that anyone with half a brain reading the definitions of stalking and cyber stalking on the link you posted can see what Starwood and recruiters and personal investigators and repossession firms are doing is not the same as stalking, cyber or otherwise.

Hmmm.... i think its more a matter a differing opinion cannot be accepted by an individual.

Nothing you have posted indicate that social media is not admissable in court.I never said its not court inadmissable. What i have stated, if its not clear to you, is that it is often used as evidence to show actus reus element of stalking. I have seen court subpoenas issued on facebook.

What you are talking about is the justification of how such actions may not amount to stalking and unfortunately law enforcement agencies do not always see it that way. Courts however are a different thing.

You may be a good civil lawyer but this is criminal law. Further, different jurisdictions have differing definitions and prosecution directions.

what starwood has done is actually defined under us law as prosecutable conduct. As to whether it is before the courts, nobody can ever give a guarantee. The examples you cite of HR firms finding out info is only legally compliant if the information is obtained from third parties.

Any good legal practitioner is usually reluctant to give out public advise so i say this with a disclaimer.

If you feel you have a legal issue, please consult a lawyer and not try to obtain online legal advise.

This thread is not meant to be a public legal advise forum. merely highlighting an issue that is most relevant and useful to various travel users.

As the thread has outlived its usefulness, maybe its time to close it.

[MAN Flyer]

As the thread has outlived its usefulness, maybe its time to close it.

There is no need to close it, as long as people stay civil with each other, and so far that is just about still the case. As long as it stays that way the debate can continue.

[ginkoka]

OK final post here since we obviously have entrenched positions.

My stand was first and foremost that although I think Starwood's program is distasteful, it's not illegal or immoral. I was not the one who equated simple 3-minute verifications of employment status using public websites with stalking (a Very Serious Crime in California) or trotted out legal definitions of criminal stalking using a law firm's website.

My purpose in citing cases of admissibility in court was to show that such checks using social media are not illegal or criminal. If they were, the findings from such checks would not be admissible in court.

[ginkoka]

You may be a good civil lawyer but this is criminal law.

OMG personal attack! I'm not a lawyer.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[jetlounge]

I recall coming across a trip report by a SQTalker at a W property which he mentioned that his display picture on Facebook was printed out, then nicely framed up to be presented together with the welcome letter on check-in. Can't say for sure what I feel about this!

[B727]

Well, they can look up Mary Elizabeth Jennifer Rachel Abergavenny Yiddell all they want!

And they're free to inquire after my pet anytime