state california enacted a security law (internet privacy infromation law) is good or bad ??
548997
Yes, it prevents other people and companies from finding out your personal information to prevent identify theft.
234947
It depends on the state.  If you believe someone is a sex offender, I know in CA we can look it up by going to Megan's Law and type in the area we are looking for.
560211
Not true.  Those laws are controversial and apply only to specific localities.  Step outside that locality and you will be arrested.  In fact, the feds freely ignore those local and even state laws and arrest people and successfully convict them.  California is the only state to pass a law like this on the state level and the feds freely ignore it and arrest people.  Actually, they show great restraint in this.  They only arrest the 90% of people who fraudulently claim they are sick in an attempt to smoke pot recreationally.  They ignore the ones who are actually sick.
1125587
No, it is not a state law. It is, however, a common company policy. Since CA is a "work at will" state, your employment may be terminated for any reason.
520050
Assuming you mean monitoring employee's e-mail originating from company computers, I would not favor the law.  Employers lose millions of hours of productivity to online gaming and other personal uses of the internet such as personal e-mail, all on the employer's bill.  Employee use of internet resources should be monitored and those that abuse the system for hours each day should be docked pay for every hour they waste.
740890
It's not in there.\n\nThe Supremes moved it from the smoke and mirrors of the amendment regarding 'right-to-privacy' to another smoke-and-mirror amendment, - I think the 14th?
209825
In California:\nPenal Code §646.9\na) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.\nb) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a\ntemporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.\n\nHarass = to engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.\n\nCourse of conduct = two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.\n\nCredible threat = a verbal or written threat, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family.  It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat.
37069
maybe you are misreading the 4th ammendment..\n\nit applies to personal property.. not cyberspace.\n\n>>if you want to be techincal about it.. who owns the communication satillites that you access the web from?\n>> i would relax if i were you.. if you are not writing emails to terroists then you have nothing to fear but fear itself.. \n\n>>another situation where 4th ammendment doesnt apply.. searching of vehicles.. many police jurisdictions do not require your consent to search your vehicle.. why?.. because you are on a publicly owned road or highway.. \n\nyou didnt waste 2 points.. its a legitamate question.. and i hope my answer helps..
113843
well it's illeagil.but if you wanna break the law.\nlimewire.com
837227
Do not uphold the housing restrictions. It will create massive chaos and only make California communities less safe.\n\nJessica's Law is a political vehicle for Sharon and George Runner, not a thoughtfully written initiative. There are reasons why the California Assembly and Senate repeatedly declined to adopt laws with housing restrictions - because there is no proof that they have anything to do with public safety.\n\nThey're feel good laws designed to lull the public into a false sense of security. That's because the majority of child sex abuse is committed by someone the child already knows - not a stranger. \n\nAnyway, if you're asking this for JG's requrest, I already did it. If not, please consider what I have said. \n\nI am not a sex offender, although I know one. This law is a turkey and the housing restriction is totally unconstitutionaMF\n\nOn Wednesday, Nov. 15th, the attorney general filed a brief stating that the housing restrictions won't be retroactive. Maybe now that can be used as a precedent in other states that have housing restrictions. All the experts say housing restrictions actually make society less safe, not more. These restrictions are just designed to punish, not keep children safe.
85552
Recently, an anti-stalking bill was passed by Congress that  akes it a federal crime to "annoy" someone over the Internet, specifically, to anonymously "annoy, abuse, threaten or harass" another person over the Internet.\n \nThis article has more info, and some case examples:\nhttp://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0219cyberstalking0210.html
339690
It all depends on the situation, and I can respect your decision not to reveal it to the Internet. Nobody will be able to tell you anything with what you are saying. Kind of a catch 22 isn't it. I am tied in with the courts where I live, and I wouldn't give you any advise because that is your choice to make, but I might be able to give you some comparisons, if you will tell me what is going on. So you can Email me if you want to, my Email is on my page.
59480
Generally, the States may regulate any activity that affects health, safety, or aesthetics related to its citizens or property.  There are varying standards of review for decisions the States may make that touch their citizen's rights, but many aspects of privacy are considered "fundamental" rights (meaning that they are ordained by the U.S. Constitution).  Therefore, State regulation of activities in this category are scrutinized strictly (meaning that the State must demonstrate that its law or regulation is necessary to achieiving a compelling State interest--a nearly impossible task).  Most laws are stricken down under strict scrutiny.
215562
There is a law of privacy, ISP will not provide any users detail. You can sue your ISP if they did so.
706064
Illegal search and seizure      \nExploitation of photo's from within ones expected domain of privacy as in ones home without permission \nRest rooms and hotel rms where one would not anticipate intrusion
557574
If you're asking about a California *Penal* Code section, there is no such section.\n\nIf you're asking about a California *Evidence* Code section, the answer is above mine.
310374
It depends on what you are looking for.  If you are looking to see if they are a sex offender in california they have Megan's law website that discloses the sex offenders information on a website including pictures, where they live and what crime they have committed.\n\nIf you are looking for more of the Criminal side of it, most states have public court houses that will disclose and provide limited amounts of information about the person you are looking for and what they have done.  But that is more of a state by state and what they can and cannot report kind of thing.