Re: paranoid

[Guest guest]

well i was walking my dog this morning and a few streets down a couple

neighbors drive by. they tell me i have picked up a private investigator. he

was videotaping me and when i turned the corner he pulled a u-turn and left.

they told me it was a green and brown van. he is just sitting down the

street. i have left and so has he. it is getting pretty scary. and of coarse

stupid me, i mowed the grass yesterday. kathy in il

[Guest guest]

yep they are on my tail now. i just went up to k-mart to get my prescription

and he made a u-turn. was right behind me. followed me into the parking lot.

but stayed off in the distance. when i came out he was 2 rows behind me. i

could see the camera in my rear view mirror. was right behind me and followed

me home and parked at the end of my street. he then made a u-turn and circled

around. tried to park on the other side of my house. but i think he saw me

watching him so he left again. kathy in il

[Guest guest]

hi samantha. i am pretty sure it is my insurance company that is doing this.

kathy in il

[Guest guest]

is there anything we can do about it? i was thinking of calling the police?

kathy in il

[Guest guest]

thanks for your help kathy in il

[Guest guest]

thanks lynn, that does make sense to me. the eeoc just put off my interview

for about 1/2 hour. he said he is just busy still doing another. kathy in il

i am totally stressed right now!!!

[Guest guest]

<< and of coarse

stupid me, i mowed the grass yesterday.>>

Geez, doesn't that just figure. And I know the price physically you paid

for mowing the lawn, but if he got it on videotape the only thing they see

is that you could do it, not understanding the pain afterward.

Weird sensation to know someone is watching you, I'll bet.

Hugs,

Carol in FL

Re: [ ] paranoid

well i was walking my dog this morning and a few streets down a couple

neighbors drive by. they tell me i have picked up a private investigator. he

was videotaping me and when i turned the corner he pulled a u-turn and left.

they told me it was a green and brown van. he is just sitting down the

street. i have left and so has he. it is getting pretty scary. and of coarse

stupid me, i mowed the grass yesterday. kathy in il

[Guest guest]

Hi There

I am wondering why they are doing this to you?? are you limited to going

to kmart also…and who are they doing this on behalf of??

I hope you do not mind my questions and will understand if you do not

reply..

I hope you will be okay…goodness I would be unnerved and shaking I

think….

Are you okay

Sincerely

Re: [ ] paranoid

yep they are on my tail now. i just went up to k-mart to get my

prescription

and he made a u-turn. was right behind me. followed me into the parking

lot.

but stayed off in the distance. when i came out he was 2 rows behind me.

i

could see the camera in my rear view mirror. was right behind me and

followed

me home and parked at the end of my street. he then made a u-turn and

circled

around. tried to park on the other side of my house. but i think he saw

me

watching him so he left again. kathy in il

[Guest guest]

well i ran into another wall. the eeoc doesn't think they can help me. their

part of the law is for those who are disabled and are able to do a job, but

having a hard time getting there. the van was parked right across from my

house for about 45 minutes. he has left as of 4pm and we have not seen him

since. i have a feeling they are trying to round this case up. i called my

foot dr to see if he sent my evaluation in and he was not there and the nurse

said she was not sure. (to me that means he has not) i will stop in there

tomorrow. (give my tail a little trip) to see and also switch compression

socks (again) kathy in il

[Guest guest]

thanks linda. i think i am going to have to give up. no one seems to want to

help me. except that one atty who wanted me to do all of the work. from what

i have heard about him now i don't think he would help me very much. i am

also running out of time now. i have 6 days left to sign my termination

agreement. kathy in il

[Guest guest]

Sorry to hear about the camera-toting goon who is bothering you, Kathy.

You and Me Mom can compare notes about this. What a sorry thing to have

in common.

I would call my lawyer about it.

Re: [ ] paranoid

> yep they are on my tail now. i just went up to k-mart to get my

prescription

> and he made a u-turn. was right behind me. followed me into the

parking lot.

> but stayed off in the distance. when i came out he was 2 rows behind

me. i

> could see the camera in my rear view mirror. was right behind me and

followed

> me home and parked at the end of my street. he then made a u-turn and

circled

> around. tried to park on the other side of my house. but i think he

saw me

> watching him so he left again. kathy in il

[Guest guest]

well at least i have ssd to try and survive on. kathy in il

[Guest guest]

Kathy,

This has been done to me. I have been followed so many times it is not even

funny. Please do not mow the lawn again. The only thing they ever got me for

was getting into my car. The doctors just laughed about that, I mean how

stupid. Like I couldn't get into a car. They have followed me to doctors,

hospitals, school, stores, you name it. One time I believe that even had a

woman observing a class that I was taking. Once I got sick and couldn't come

in, she left. They will go to any extremes to catch you doing something you

shouldn't be doing. Be careful.

Lynn (MeMom)

kringlemom@... wrote:

> well i was walking my dog this morning and a few streets down a couple

> neighbors drive by. they tell me i have picked up a private investigator. he

> was videotaping me and when i turned the corner he pulled a u-turn and left.

> they told me it was a green and brown van. he is just sitting down the

> street. i have left and so has he. it is getting pretty scary. and of coarse

> stupid me, i mowed the grass yesterday. kathy in il

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

go search under legal surveillance in your search engines and see what

rights you have or do not have..

get some legal processes from the internet…

however….i hope they don’t have your email address…I would be very

careful of what I send via the internet..

sam

Re: [ ] paranoid

is there anything we can do about it? i was thinking of calling the

police?

kathy in il

[Guest guest]

I am not sure what state this is from but you get the picture…start

researching gal and do be careful via the internet

Video surveillance.

Surveillance limited to video images, without sound acquisition, would

not be subject to either the federal or Colorado wiretap statutes if the

surveillance does not acquire the " contents " of any communications. The

term " contents " is defined to include " any information concerning the

substance, purport, or meaning " of a communication. If a hidden video

camera observed two employees speaking and then exchanging cash for

drugs, it might possibly be considered to have intercepted some of the

" contents " of the communication, although an argument could be made that

it only observed an act, and did not acquire the contents of what was

spoken. An " interception " would definitely occur if the video images

were actually used to acquire a communication through lipreading, or

perhaps if it were feasible to do so. If video surveillance is found to

have acquired the contents of communications, it would likely be

unlawful unless there were implied " consent " by virtue of an announced

policy of video surveillance in specified areas.

E-mail.

E-Mail and other electronic communications which do not include the

human voice constitute " electronic communications " under the federal and

Colorado wiretap statutes. The 1986 amendments to the federal law added

a new chapter which prohibits, with certain exceptions, accessing wire

or electronic communications that are in electronic storage. Because the

exceptions under this chapter differ from those in the chapter which

prohibits intercepting communications, and because the legal remedies

for a violation are not as broad, some commentators have questioned

whether accessing e-mail messages would constitute violations of both

chapters. A very recent court decision, not in the employment context,

addressed this issue. In Steve Games v. U.S. Secret Service, 36

F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994), the court noted that the definition of

" electronic communication " does not include the content of such

communications while in electronic storage. The court therefore ruled

that the chapter prohibiting interception of electronic communications

would only apply if the communication was acquired while it was in

transit. If e-mail messages are accessed while stored electronically,

that will not constitute an " interception " and the legality of that

action will be determined only under the 1986 chapter of the law

addressing access of electronically stored communications.

That chapter of the federal law contains a broad exception, which

provides that accessing stored electronic communications is not unlawful

if authorized by the person or entity providing the wire or electronic

communications service. This exception should allow employers free

access to e-mail messages stored on e-mail systems provided by the

employer, although there may be some question as to the lawfulness of

access to e-mail messages delivered to the workplace through an

independent service such as Prodigy or Compuserve. A cautious employer

will publish a policy informing employees that the company reserves the

right to access and monitor all e-mail messages stored on its computer

system, regardless of their origin or content, in order to be able to

establish implied consent to such access on the part of employees. In

addition, an employer who obtains the written acknowledgment or consent

of its employees to such a practice should have even greater protection.

If for some reason an employer wishes not only to access stored e-mail

messages, but also to intercept them while in transit, the interception

chapter provides an exception for a provider of a wire or electronic

communications service to intercept communications as necessary to the

rendition of the service or the protection of the rights or property of

the provider. If that exception is not broad enough to cover the desired

scope of e-mail interception, the employer should take all necessary

steps to publish its policy of intercepting messages while in transit

and thereby obtain implied consent of employees. The business extension

exclusion for voice communications over telephones, discussed above,

presumably would not apply if the interception is not accomplished

through use of " telephone equipment " used in the ordinary course of

business.

Although Colorado law prohibits reading or copying an " electronic

communication, " that term is defined the same as by federal law to be

the transfer of data by electronic or photooptical means, and does not

include electronic storage of such communications. Since the Colorado

statute has no counterpart to the federal chapter on accessing stored

electronic communications, presumably Colorado law does not prohibit

such access. Copying, reading, recording, or taking an electronic

communication while it is in transit would constitute wiretapping,

however, unless it is with the consent of one of the parties to the

communication, or necessary for the providing of the service or to

protect the provider against fraud.

In summary, it is safer for employers to access stored e-mail messages

than to intercept them while in transit. Access to stored internal

e-mail messages on a company's computer system should be lawful. For

extra protection, or if interception of e-mail messages in transit is

desired, employers should publish their policy of monitoring e-mail

messages.

Voice mail.

A voice mail message containing the human voice is a " wire

communication, " not an " electronic communication. " Under the chapter of

federal law governing access to electronically stored wire or electronic

communications, the legality of accessing electronically stored voice

mail messages would be the same as discussed above for e-mail. Unlike

the definition of " electronic communication, " however, the definition of

" wire communication " includes such communications while in electronic

storage. Therefore, the chapter of federal law that prohibits

" intercepting " wire communications would also appear to apply to

acquiring electronically stored voice mail messages, unless the business

extension exclusion discussed above in the section concerning phone

conversations applies. To avoid being held liable for an unlawful

" interception, " the cautious employer will publish a policy sufficient

to satisfy the requirements for valid implied consent. Under the

Colorado statute, voice mail messages would apparently be treated the

same as live telephone calls.

Computer files.

Computer files that do not contain the human voice cannot be " wire

communications. " Since the definition of " electronic communication " is

limited to " any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds,

data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a

wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric or photooptical system, "

computer files that are created and then stored on a computer would

generally not constitute " electronic communications, " since there is no

" transfer " or " transmission. " If that is the case, access to computer

files is not restricted by either the federal or the Colorado wiretap

statutes. To the extent that a computer file is a transferred

communication, for example, a computer file attached to an e-mail

message, the analysis above concerning access to or interception of

e-mail messages would apply.

Computer tracking systems.

Computerized systems that track, for example, the number of keystrokes

or errors by an employee, or the number and duration of customer service

phone calls handled, would not be subject to the federal or Colorado

wiretap statutes, since such systems do not acquire the content of any

communications.

III. CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW PRIVACY RIGHTS.

Constitutional rights to privacy.

While the United States Constitution contains no express privacy

provision, decisions of the United States Supreme Court beginning with

its opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678

(1965), have recognized the existence of an implied right of privacy.

Most of the protections for individual rights and liberties afforded by

the United States Constitution only apply to actions of local, state, or

federal governments, or a branch or arm of a local, state, or federal

government. Acts of such a government or governmental branch or agency

are referred to as " state action. " Generally speaking, in the absence of

" state action, " a cause of action cannot be maintained for deprivation

of rights under the U.S. or state constitutions. Private employers are

generally not arms of a local, state, or federal government and their

employment practices do not generally constitute " state action. "

Consequently private employers generally are not required to afford

employees' protections granted exclusively under the U.S. and state

constitutions (however, at least one state, California, has ruled that

private employers must comply with the state constitution's protection

of privacy rights).

Re: [ ] paranoid

hi samantha. i am pretty sure it is my insurance company that is doing

this.

kathy in il

[Guest guest]

No Kathy. One time they followed me but at one point it was harassment. My

sister called the police and they filled out a report. Legally they can do

this, they probably went to your police station and cleared it with them. You

can call and they will tell you, if they know about them being there or not.

The last time they watched me, my neighbor had called the police and they told

her, they knew about it. The company doing the investigating had stopped by to

let the police know what they were doing. I can tell you, every time I called

the police to report it, they would leave. So I think they have some kind of

scanners and they know when the police are coming. They left the day my sister

had the police come out. Just take it easy and do nothing outside. When they

are around here I just stay in as much as possible. I know how you feel and it

is terrible that they can do this. Hope you don't get to stressed out. Since

they are still out there maybe they did not see you cutting the lawn. Once

they get something they usually leave. They also leave around dinner time. I

was always happy when they would be out there and the weather would be bad.

Like snow or sleet, but I guess that is mean since the person in the van is

just doing there job. One time I was going to send them a pizza for lunch but

they left before my friend and I did it.

Lynn (MeMom)

kringlemom@... wrote:

> is there anything we can do about it? i was thinking of calling the police?

> kathy in il

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kathy: Sorry you are having this mess..I know in this

state it is legal....one of the men I used to work

with hurt his back at work pretty bad....he filed

workmens comp and was getting it...in the meantime he

was helping his wife deliver papers and they

videotaped him

in the car with her and when it went to court the

judge said if you can get up that early in the morning

and sit in a vehicle you can go back to work...so

please be careful...me....I would stand at my biggest

window and stick out my tongue with a sign that said

....TAKE A PICTURE OF THIS..Kathi in OK

--- kringlemom@... wrote:

> thanks lynn, that does make sense to me. the eeoc

> just put off my interview

> for about 1/2 hour. he said he is just busy still

> doing another. kathy in il

> i am totally stressed right now!!!

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Kathi,

I wouldn't worry too much. I think this is random procedure. Just to make

suce you are really legit. But, if I were you, I would be careful what I did

in public. Sometimes they follow you to see if you leave at the same time

every day or go to the same place like you might be working for cash or

getting unreported income.

I know of more than one incidence where an

amtrack employee was filmed changing a big busted blond's tire (which was a

setup), so he was taken off workmen's comp. And he needed to be taken off.

Insurance co. and welfare do this too.

Just don't be lifting and hauling stuff around outside. They could make a big

deal and cause you more heartache.

Judy in Indy

[Guest guest]

thanks, i am sure they are just trying to close the case. i'm sure they want

to settle this as much as i do. kathy in il

[Guest guest]

Dearest Kathy...I am so sorry for all the stress you are having. I am

going to light a candle right now & keep you in my prayers.

Much Love....

Tess

[Guest guest]

> thanks lynn, that does make sense to me. the eeoc just put off my

interview

> for about 1/2 hour. he said he is just busy still doing another.

kathy in il

> i am totally stressed right now!!!

Kathy, I have been reading your posts, I can understand them

investigating people with back injuries but RA. All they have to do

is read the doctors reports. Maybe they think they can bother you

enough you will give up on your claim, and then what. It makes me so

mad I can't even type. Hope this will end soon and you can get on

with life like you don't have enough to worry about.

in WA

[Guest guest]

> thanks lynn, that does make sense to me. the eeoc just put off my

interview

> for about 1/2 hour. he said he is just busy still doing another.

kathy in il

> i am totally stressed right now!!!

I am sorry it is possible you may have hurt your back, I have a

sister who had a back injury from work with witness', what she didn't

have to go through and didn't really come out that well. I also know

a person I suspect of facking a back injury (he does what he wants

like ride snowmobiles and 4-wheelers.) It is pretty hard to fake RA

and who would want to. I hope you understand my babbling. I just

hope they will leave you alone and you can get on with life, which is

hard sometimes with RA.

in WA

[Guest guest]

> thanks linda. i think i am going to have to give up. no one seems

to want to

> help me. except that one atty who wanted me to do all of the work.

from what

> i have heard about him now i don't think he would help me very

much. i am

> also running out of time now. i have 6 days left to sign my

termination

> agreement. kathy in il

I am really sorry Kathy I wish I knew something or someone who could

help. Take care. in WA

[Guest guest]

thanks paula, i have just been overwhelmed today by all of this. i am sick to

my stomach, acid reflux too, low grade fever, stiff neck, headache, my feet

are killing me but i was pacing my home like a caged animal. so i guess i

deserve that!!! kathy in il

[Guest guest]

thanks, my mom doesn't want me to sign the termination agreement. now i just

need to find an atty to represent me. still not sure i have found the right

kind. such a fine line. since it is not an accident, or work related i am

having a hard time. kathy in il