I.e., the poor who drive older, used cars would be taxed more than the rich who can afford a new car every year.

This. I knew someone who was involved with this idea a few years ago, in Oregon, and I could not convince her that to tax someone based on which roads were used at which times a complete log of where the car was and when would have to be kept so the tax could be computed correctly. And so the taxpayer could dispute the tax. You can't point to a GPS log of position and claim "I was driving on my own property which abuts I5, not on I5 at peak time" if there is no GPS log to point at.

And the propensity of government to keep all the data it gets was quite beyond her imagination. Before the idea was killed the last time, (apparently not dead enough) there was some acceptance of the idea that "gee, this would be great data for police to have if they're looking for an abducted child" (i.e., "Amber alerts".) I mean, the public seems accepting of Amber alerts going to their cellphones at all times of the day and no matter where they are. Think of the Children(TM)! From that use, it is just a short step to "any criminal", and then to "any terrorist" (if the latter doesn't precede the former.)

To the later poster who asks about toll roads: Oregon has no toll roads that I know of, and if it did it is usually easy to select a different route if you want to avoid them. Cameras that record your passing are stationary and do not record every place you go and when.

Given the arguments over GPS trackers used by police, and how the argument that it's really no different than a full-time tail was shouted down, I'm amazed that anyone on /. could claim that a full-time government mandated GPS tracker on every car is no different than "toll roads" or "fixed cameras". Keep in mind, those "tax" trackers are no different than the temporary installations that monitor your car on private property and 24/7.

I can understand the reason why someone can ask about themselves, but I don't understand why a third-party request like this hasn't caused more of a reaction. "OMG 19 pages" isn't what I mean.

I mean "the government is collecting info we don't think they should and THEN handing it out to anyone who asks for it." Why should a FOIA request about someone completely unrelated to you be approved? If the government shouldn't collect it, why should they hand it out? (Yeah, I know, He's Dead Jim, but his family isn't.)

I agree. They are in the wrong. My point is that she agreed to work for the pay she was getting (so has no complaint about being on call 24/7 and the company isn't in the wrong for expecting it.) Her mistake was installing the app on her phone before reading the information about the app. When I google "Xora app" today, the first result is for Xora.com which has various links shown, one for "Employee Location Tracking." When you click that link, it takes you to a page that tells you:

GPS Get Visibility with GPS Location Services. See the location of every mobile worker on a Google Map.

Kind of hard to see where every worker is on a Google Map without it tracking where you are, I'd say. Basic info about an app that someone wants you to install on your phone. It's not hidden info like the fact that the cell company tracks the phone already, it's kinda right out there.

I didn't say she did. You quoted but did not read what I wrote. I said she agreed to them all. I didn't say they all happened at the same time or before she was hired.

She admitted she had no problem being tracked during work.

It's much more direct than that. We know she agreed to install the app because ... she installed the app on her phone.

It doesn't become true the more times you repeat it.

The official court document linked to in the summary says it was her phone.

She didn't install the Xora app on her phone until two months after she started working for the company. That's not "pre-installed."

The version of the story in the court filing says the app was installed on employee phones and she was told she had to keep her phone on 24/7 etc. That's the official legal version of the story; what ars Technica comes up with is modern journalism.

She was compensated, at a rate she agreed to. Note that her complaint is not that she was on call 24/7. Agreeing to the requirement meant she thought it was adequate compensation. You MIGHT have an argument were she unemployed and this was the only job offer and it was take it or starve, but she was being poached from another company. She was lured from another job by the money.

I don't think you can call $7200/mo an inappropriate wage or "abuse", especially for white-collar work. Even were she working a constant 20 hours outside normal hours, that's an average of $28/hr. She's complaining about neither the number of work hours nor the rate of pay.

And SHE had TWO jobs. Apparently she's causing someone else to starve to death, according to your hyperbole.

From the complaint:

In April 2014, Intermex asked Plaintiff and other employees to download an application ("app") called Xora to their smart phones. ... ever since she had installed the app on her phone. ... she was required to keep her phone's power on ...

Do we believe arsTechnica or the actual court document?

Does criminal law define "majority" some way other than "more votes for one side than the other", because that's what it means in standard English.

That's in the Arstechnica article. The actual filing for the lawsuit says the phones were the employee's. Words like "they were required to install an app on their phones."

Tracking app was April. 24/7 was when she was hired.

I didn't say it was. Read what I actually wrote and not what you want to rant about. The comment I replied to was talking about being on call 24/7, and I thought I made it pretty clear that out of all the things to complain about in this scenario, that's about the least objectionable part. Period.

The students did not agree to that as a condition of employment. That makes it different enough not to be a precedent.

A "holodeck" is when you take a deck of cards and mix in a large number of blank index cards. Then pull a few "cards" at random, mix them up with more blank index cards. Do that a few times until there may only be one of the original cards in the deck and you have a "holodeck". Oh, wait, that would be a "homeodeck". I always gets those two confused. Nevermind.

$7200/month is pretty good wages, and she knew the 24/7 on call requirement before she took the job. She was, apparently, also working for another company doing the same kind of job. Of all the things to object to, this is about the least objectionable.

The first claims in her case are shaky because she agreed to them all. Use your personal phone for work, check. Have it with you 24/7, check. Install the app so you can be tracked, check. She's pretty much got them by the shorts when it comes to them telling her other employer she was disloyal, though.

Of course, it's hard to understand why any company would let you work for three months for a competitor while they're paying you to work for them.