EDIT: Going through my wife's underwear drawer is not the same as having to provide payroll data to enforce labor law.
EDIT 2: If you're a government contractor, you have certain labor rights obligations, by law. If you violate those, the US government has the authority to pursue you.
"The department in a complaint filed with an administrative judge in Washington said the company was prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination given the hundreds of millions of dollars it receives as a contractor with the federal government."
"The U.S. Labor Department has sued Oracle America Inc, alleging that the technology company systematically paid its white, male employees more than other workers and unlawfully favored Asian applicants in its recruiting and hiring efforts."
It's in the first two paragraphs! Does anyone read the article anymore?
And the article is light on the details, so we're left to our imaginations.
But, if Oracle was under no legal obligation to provide the information (and the article is not clear), why would they?
It doesn't matter. That wasn't the argument stated; What was proposed was "Why does it matter if you have nothing to hide."
> They do not (and should not) have the same rights.
Corporations are protected from illegal search and seizures just like people.
> Does anyone read the article anymore?
I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the previous poster.
It does matter. He's arguing that actual people should have a greater right to privacy than do corporations.
Granted, this is not a legal argument, but an ethical one.
Moreover, he might actually have some legal standing (INAL, etc) since there are laws that mandate corporate transparency whereas there are no direct equivalents for private persons.
That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.
EDIT:
> I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.
I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer.
I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
Keyword: Finances
And from what I understand, Oracle has turned all of those over. But you and others, are demanding unfettered access to every nook, cranny and file cabinet they possess.
You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life.
> Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law?
Said the person who hasn't read SCOTUS rulings on corporation's right to privacy, due process of law, etc.
> You sound like a disgruntled socialist that simply hates bigger and better people/companies succeeding in life.
I hate entitled companies who don't think they have to follow the rules. They deserve the boot on their neck.
wtf?? When you invade a person's privacy it's rarely jsut about the personbeing nude. Of course it is almost always about private possessions or data. So this reasoning is complete BS. The thing is that the owner is in one case a person, in the other case a corporation. Just because the corporation is owned by group of people rarely means the private data of the company is the private data of its owners.
Yes they should. Otherwise all the powerful organizations in the country are under the heel of the government.
This is a public company and federal contractor. That status has some expectation and if the article is to be believed, those expectations include "don't racially discriminate".
This isn't DoJ harassing some poor startup. This is "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?"
Hey, we're going to assume you are guilty. Can you prove otherwise?
Federal investigators asking to review documents and information that portain to areas that they provide regulation for is completely different than someone arbitrarily digging through a spouse's underwear drawer.
Of course it is. The context is/was (as stated by the previous poster), if you have nothing to hide, then why not be completely open?
Which is what my point is; You don't need to justify your reasoning for privacy. It is a constitutional right. No justification is needed.
You, as an individual in the United States have a Constitutional right to privacy through the Fourth Amendment.
Governed businesses operating in the United States have no such right.
Would you mind if a snoop through your wife's underwear drawer? You have nothing to hide. Right?
Why do you close your window blinds at night? You have nothing to hide. Right?
Would you mind if a place a GPS tracker on your vehicle for data collection purposes? You have nothing to hide. Right?