TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: Also, none of this is intended as any kind of attack against you. But the situation you describe is frightening.

First, there should be no such thing as a "quasi-government agency", you're either from the government (with the powers and restriction associated with government actions), or you're not. The "quasi-govt." part is just a method to use public money and governmental power, while walking around the governmental limits and oversights. Then to operate in secret makes it even worse.

Yes, and yes --these proxies are created to avoid all kinds of limitations. You would like the other aspects of this even less, for instance: you're assumed guilty and have to prove you're in compliance rather than the regulators having to prove you're not in compliance; and they won't tell you what the rules mean or what you have to do to be in compliance --that's all up to you to determine, but if you interpret the requirements incorrectly you're subject to being fined. So far, while the compliance regime is extraordinarily burdensome and pointless, actual enforcement isn't unreasonable. And you'll like this --we were told early on that complaining about the requirements could lead to punishment (in other words, enforcement might become unreasonable).

seamusTX wrote:A CAD is a central appraisal district. State laws allow one or more counties to use a CAD to replace the tax assessor's function. Some CAD offices are 30.06 posted, and they insist that their facilities are not public property.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:First, there should be no such thing as a "quasi-government agency", you're either from the government (with the powers and restriction associated with government actions), or you're not.

Welcome to the future. This kind of thing has been proliferating for decades. Privatized prisons probably are most obvious example. Also there are privately operated alternative schools, which are the functional equivalent of what used to be called juvie hall.

In the CHL world, we have seen CADs trying (successfully) to call themselves private organizations.

- Jim

VMI77 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:
WOW! So a government agency (regulator) requires access to your personal emails sent/received on your personal computer? And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

It's a little more complicated than that. For one thing, strictly speaking, it's only a quasi-government agency. While the rules are ultimately dictated by FERC via NERC (a quasi-governmental agency), they're enforced by proxies. For another, this is kind of information I understand they have demanded -- because the process basically happens in secret I don't know if anyone has given them all such data or if they've been challenged and then backed off. As a practical matter, they probably can't get my email sent from or downloaded to my home computer, but as I understand it, they have requested personal internet based email like Hotmail, Yahoo mail, and Gmail accessed from an office computer. Again, it gets a little more complicated when some people have personal computers and devices they may also use for business purposes. I'd be more forthcoming but frankly I'm prohibited from talking about some of this.

I saw Seamus's comments after I wrote the reply above --I'd echo those aspects of the situation as well. So far anyway, there is no criminal liability, and there is a presumption that those affected have "consented" to the process. There are good reasons why I consider the supposed "consent" aspect more or less a sham, but it's complicated and I won't go into it here.

seamusTX wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

The fourth amendment does not define reasonable.

Regulatory issues generally are considered to be voluntary. IOW, if a company wants to provide insurance, telephone or electric service, medical care, etc., they consent to state regulation.

On a personal level, this is why you are subjected to search and seizure when flying. You don't have to fly. You are perfectly free to paddle your kayak to Hawaii.

Also, several amendments mention due process, which is not strictly defined. It means defined legal procedures must be followed, and official cannot act on whim. (This was a big issue in the revolutionary period. It is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.")

- Jim

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

VMI77 wrote:
I don't even work for the government, but like Jumping Frog, I'm subject to having ALL my emails reviewed, not just those related to company business, and the URL's of all websites visited. This is not a policy of the company I work for, this is a requirement of the agency that regulates the utility industry --it claims the power to have every email sent or received by anyone at any company under their purview, including internal emails and emails containing proprietary and confidential information that has nothing to do with anything they're responsible for regulating --and they don't get warrants either. In fact, they demand information the FBI couldn't get without a warrant. And I'm not just talking about work email either --they want ALL email, even email I send from home on my own computer --their rationale being that we could be skirting regulations by sending emails over personal accounts.

WOW! So a government agency (regulator) requires access to your personal emails sent/received on your personal computer? And how is that not a 4th amendment violation?

I would simply lie and not divulge that I have a personal email account...... Or.... I would set up a hotmail account that I never use and give them that address. Then I would forward all copies of SPAM that I receive to them, with the explanation that I am trying to comply with the law.

VMI77 wrote:
I don't even work for the government, but like Jumping Frog, I'm subject to having ALL my emails reviewed, not just those related to company business, and the URL's of all websites visited. This is not a policy of the company I work for, this is a requirement of the agency that regulates the utility industry --it claims the power to have every email sent or received by anyone at any company under their purview, including internal emails and emails containing proprietary and confidential information that has nothing to do with anything they're responsible for regulating --and they don't get warrants either. In fact, they demand information the FBI couldn't get without a warrant. And I'm not just talking about work email either --they want ALL email, even email I send from home on my own computer --their rationale being that we could be skirting regulations by sending emails over personal accounts.

tbrown wrote:What goes around comes around. viewtopic.php?f=15&t=48147" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;