2007.07.31
Comment on Tuesday's editorials
Workplace computers aren't personal
There is a compelling need to preserve computer data relating to the Tech massacre. Still, the attorney general could have done it in a less threatening way.
We've all done it. Dashed off a personal e-mail on company time. Stored sensitive personnel records on our office hard drive. Carried on an online exchange with a co-worker to navigate through delicate issues. We'd cringe if any of this data fell into unsympathetic hands, and whose hands could be more unsympathetic than those of lawyers?
Read more.
Say no to gerrymandering
Redistricting in Virginia needs a nonpartisan process; it doesn't matter which party makes the call.
When Democrats controlled the General Assembly, Republicans pushed for a nonpartisan redistricting commission. Now that they're in charge, Republicans are rebuffing a similar push by out-of-power Democrats.
Read more.
RSS feed 
I finally agree with the editorial staff about something. The faculty and staff at Tech should have known better than to conduct personal business on a workplace computer. Virtually every employer using computers today has a policy governing the use of company computers, a policy that almost without fail, states that there is no right to privacy in the workplace computer. Even if there is no policy, isn't this just common sense?
The only thing I disagree with is the soft soap applied at the end. "A gentler hand" doesn't always work with everyone. Explaining the rationale behind an order doesn't always work with people who, by the very nature of their work, are prone to debate every issue, question every postulate and 'what-if' everything to death.
Besides, this approach doesn't seem to have been all that heavy handed. Telling the university to take appropriate personnel action against those who would, without legal basis, willfully obstruct the investigation into the worst mass shooting in US history doesn't seem all that severe to me. Appropriate personnel action could be as little as a stern talking to by a supervisor. A truly heavy-handed approach would have been ordering them charged with obstruction of justice if they refused to cooperate.
Comment by C Ramsey — July 31, 2007 @ 9:48 am