Wireless City on Macleod Trail **UPDATE** NO LONGER STAFFED BY CREEPS

[SteveToms]

DESS shouldn't you be doing 100 in the left lane on the Deerfoot going to some anti bear/dog meeting?

[Wookie]

He should have looked her up on facebook

[flip]

Originally Posted by DESS

I seriously can't believe, yet again, not one of you guys will back me up. If this thread started like this, I wonder what the responses would have been:

I actually find a text creepier than a call. If he would've called there is some personality involved and even if she said no he could make a case that he's not a creep (assuming he wasn't a creep).

This case clearly shows he is creepy. At least on the phone you can properly introduce yourself and judge the other person's voice for honesty, creepiness, whatever. Also repeated texts to someone who doesn't want them is pushing it. One phone call would've sufficed, but repeated texting is wrong.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Wookie

He should have looked her up on facebook

And therein lies my point. You CAN find people anywhere, for anything. If you know even a MINUTE fundamental of someones personal information (first name, city of residence, what they look like) you can track them down on Facebook. Welcome to the present.

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

DESS he crossed a line and behaved in appropriately. For that his employer needs to made aware and the discipline is at the employer's discretion.

Absolutely right!

[Locke]

There is a very fine line between harmless flirting and harassment.

He took personal information which was entrusted to his company for its professional use and used it for his personal gain.

Theres a problem in there somewhere and I think most people can see it.

Yeah, whats one text message that says: "Hey baby, wanna shake those fun bags while I hide my hose?"

But if she wanted to engage this guy in a stimulating game of hide and go seek she'd have given him her number for his personal use rather than his company for their professional use.

[JustAnotherGuy]

Originally Posted by DESS

I'm too lazy to look, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of you guys acting all high and mighty about this privacy BS are the same guys that brag about speeding on Deerfoot. Speeding on Deerfoot can get people killed, hitting on a girl is harmless (again, I'm saying that while assuming the texts stopped after she asked them to).

The intent of these privacy laws surely aren't to stop harmless flirting. And yes, a couple of texts to a girl to tell her you like her is harmless. She should be flattered, not freaked.

The point is she dropped her phone of at the business to have some work done it. Gave her private information for that business transaction. Then he used that information for his own personal use. He crossed the line from the business into personal.

To me that line has to be respected our there will be chaos. I am serious.

If that guy had some interested in her he should have been a man a talked to her directly at the end of the business transaction. The fact that he was not man enough to do that adds to the creep factor.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I agree. There's too much legal action in this world as it is. Getting the privacy commissioner on this because of a sheepish attempt to get a date is where things are going too far. Where do you draw the line? How about at over-reacting and potentially ruining a guy's life because a girl got creeped out by a few text messages. I really don't think people realize that these sorts of things can ruin someone's life. Think he's a creep? stop and ask yourself something. "How many times has a girl ever thought I was a creep, but didn't tell me so I never knew". There are a ton of girls out there who get creeped out at fairly innocent things. It would be right for that girls' brother to step in and scold the guy. It would be wrong to get the guy labeled a potential sex offender for the rest of his natural life because he may have been too nervous to ask her out.


People on the internet really disturb me sometimes. They just don't think.

This won't ruin his life. It is a fine, not a jail sentence he would be facing. He wouldn't be on any 'private data accessors' list, he wouldn't have to notify the neighbours when he moved into a new place.

If his employer did not educate him so that he understood what was legal for him to do with private information, then he probably even has some basis for going after his employer for his fine amount.

[tete]

Okay, I'm back to back up my statements. While yes, a phone number IS considered public information IF it comes from a publicly available source (like the phone book) the way he acquired said phone number was NOT cool. Here's a FAQ from the PIPA Website that although is talking about employer/employee, it can also be employee/customer:

1. Can I disclose an employee’s home phone number without consent because it is listed in the telephone book?

No. A home telephone number is the personal information of the employee. Under section 7(a) of the PIPA Regulation, personal information is publicly available if it is contained in a telephone directory (additional conditions apply). The provision in section 20(j) to disclose publicly available information without consent applies only when an organization is collecting, using, or disclosing information directly from the telephone directory. It does not apply to disclosing telephone numbers from the organization’s records.

Sure, going to the Privacy Commissioner might be a bit far - but I strongly believe that something should be said to the manager. That was really unprofessional and a bit gross.

And Dess ---- I'm not a guy.

[SteveToms]

Originally Posted by tete

And Dess ---- I'm not a guy.

Quick DESS, ask for a photo

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Rathji

This won't ruin his life. It is a fine, not a jail sentence he would be facing. He wouldn't be on any 'private data accessors' list, he wouldn't have to notify the neighbours when he moved into a new place.

If his employer did not educate him so that he understood what was legal for him to do with private information, then he probably even has some basis for going after his employer for his fine amount.

Fine, I understand that, but why must things always be solved through legal action? That's where I draw my line. I grew up thinking that legal action was something to be used to pursue justice, not as a method of convenience or comfort. I do not question that he did wrong, I merely think the sentence cast is waaaaay waaaaay too harsh.

If she should get the privacy commissioner after the him, and he should go after the employer for the fine amount, can I sue her for the tax revenue being used to clog up the system, and the mental anguish I face when I hear that a REAL case might take years to go through the system while they deal with this? Taking this logic to it's logical end, EVERYONE involved has some reason to sue at least one other person for something. It may seem satisfying, but unless there are lasting effects, you eventually find that this route is not only excessive, but solves nothing other than making lawyers rich, and everyone else worse off. Is this sort of behavior even worth the amount of time, effort, and aggravation for her to go through?


Really?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by tete

Sure, going to the Privacy Commissioner might be a bit far - but I strongly believe that something should be said to the manager. That was really unprofessional and a bit gross.

and that's as far as it should go, barring some other unfortunate situation.

[malcolmk14]

FROM PIPA:

17. An organization may use personal information about an individual without the consent of the individual but only if one or more of the following are applicable:

(a) a reasonable person would consider that the use of the information is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent of the individual cannot be obtained in a timely way or the individual would not reasonably be expected to withhold consent;

Maybe he REALLY thought he was doing her a favour by texting him and asking her out?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Fine, I understand that, but why must things always be solved through legal action? That's where I draw my line. I grew up thinking that legal action was something to be used to pursue justice, not as a method of convenience or comfort. I do not question that he did wrong, I merely think the sentence cast is waaaaay waaaaay too harsh.

They don't. As I said in my first post the manager should be contacted first to see if the situation can be resolved without legal action. If he refuses to, then you must contact PIPA because he is handling a lot of personal information and doesn't care what happens to it. That is a very scary situation and is the exact reason why PIPA needs to be there in the first place.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Fine, I understand that, but why must things always be solved through legal action? That's where I draw my line. I grew up thinking that legal action was something to be used to pursue justice, not as a method of convenience or comfort. I do not question that he did wrong, I merely think the sentence cast is waaaaay waaaaay too harsh.

If she should get the privacy commissioner after the him, and he should go after the employer for the fine amount, can I sue her for the tax revenue being used to clog up the system, and the mental anguish I face when I hear that a REAL case might take years to go through the system while they deal with this? Taking this logic to it's logical end, EVERYONE involved has some reason to sue at least one other person for something. It may seem satisfying, but unless there are lasting effects, you eventually find that this route is not only excessive, but solves nothing other than making lawyers rich, and everyone else worse off. Is this sort of behavior even worth the amount of time, effort, and aggravation for her to go through?


Really?

I don't think anyone suggested that step one was to resort to legal action, in fact the suggestions was to go to the management of the store first and see if they would cooperate. The legal action is simply the large bat wielding guy in the background during that conversation, if they don't play ball legal options get involved.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Instead of fibbing about having a boyfriend, she should just straight up tell they guy she isn't interested and to not contact her anymore.

If he continues, then your duty as big brother is to go down there and make him look like a pansy in front of everyone.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by DESS

You guys are freaking out way too hardcore on this.

Wow, the "lets exterminate everything" guy plays the overreaction card?

This place never fails to amaze.

[Porkchopp]

q1: How old is she?
q2: How old is he?
q3: DESS, do you work at a cell phone store?

Just make sure she keeps records of any and all contact he makes with her. If she's told him to stop and he won't take it to the police.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Instead of fibbing about having a boyfriend, she should just straight up tell they guy she isn't interested and to not contact her anymore.

This is definitely one problem with a lot of girls I know.

They have a really hard time just telling a guy to F off sometimes.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CGYTransplant

Ah, the good ol' "She was totally coming onto me" defence (Freeing Creeps and Rapists since, well, FOREVER!)...

Regardless of what "vibe" she was giving off, unless she explicitly says "Hey Cellphone guy, I would like to go out with you sometime, please text me", it's wrong for him to text her. Period. So, no, ONE text isn't fine, unless she asked him to text her. She didn't provide her phone number to make a personal connection, she provided it as part of a business transaction.

The problem with your post here is that you're not taking human nature into account.
It is the mans duty to approach/open the woman he is interested in. Women rarely, if ever initiate dates etc.