For employee monitoring, you don't require face recognition... presumably, the company knows who its own employees are. The purpose of the monitoring is not to catch people they don't know, it would be to be able to ensure that people that they *DO* know are doing their jobs properly.

One would think that if one were liable to want to use such info for criminal purposes, that one would tend to be reasonably expeditious about it, since the more time elapses while you are trying to use that information, the greater the chance that you will be discovered. The reality is, however, that there's a whole heaping mountain of red tape that even someone who has genuinely lost their wallet will have to go through just to prove their identity in today's society, and if you lose your wallet within about one year or so of having moved, and nobody has your current address on record yet, you can wind up completely screwed for months. I can't imagine that in practice, it would generally be possible for someone else to do anything useful with such minimal info.

It doesn't have to necessarily be hidden, employees and for that matter anyone who bothers to look directly at it may be able to know exactly where it is, but the camera can still be discreetly placed, so that in general you will only ever notice it if you bother to consciously think about it or its location in the first place. The ideal location for such purposes is typically in a corner, and mounted either on or else very near to the ceiling. In practice, it just becomes part of the background environment of where you work and you don't even generally notice it unless, as I said, you spend any time actively thinking about it.

... is if the camera is placed in an obtrusive location.

You can know you are being monitored, but still have to explicitly go out of your way to find the camera... and if that's what's really distracting them from doing their job, then that's a conscious choice on their part to stop doing their job in the first place, and look for the camera (and if they already know exactly where it is, then it's a still a deliberate choice to think about the camera's location instead of concentrating on their job). Either way, the camera or its location are not to blame for the distraction.

Lots of people work at jobs where they are continuously monitored via cctv, and in general being monitored by a camera that is out of the way of where one needs to work does not really interfere with one's productivity or effectiveness at all. The union's president is being a whiner.

Perhaps... but there's no scientific credulity to such a notion... and as this whole matter is more than just somewhat linked to science, your post in that context comes off as a sounding like you are either a lunatic or a troll or both.

How can others "take advantage of the loss" when they wouldn't be polinated either?

Can't that be said for everything?

Bees.

A confidentiality agreement trumps that notion. If the guy signed an NDA and then violated the NDA within its duration, he can be sued by TRT. The court can also grant an injunction against Facebook, even though they were not involved in the NDA, from utilizing that information... and Facebook can rightfully sue the person they got it from as well.

Of course, that's all assuming that the guy really did violate a confidentiality agreement. For all we know, TRT's claims may be entirely specious.

IANAL, but I've worked for companies that have confidentiality agreements, and they can and do take breaking them very seriously.

it would surely look on the Internet for how humanity would treat a self-aware AI.

How does the Internet know how humanity would treat a self-aware AI when it hasn't happened yet? Or are you thinking that an AI would interpret works of science fiction as factual?

Y can't be sued for anything if they do not know that it was originally confidential, but they *CAN* be sued for using said information after they have learned that it was misappropriated, which they could learn very shortly afterwards. Sort of like how you can't be prosecuted for buying stolen merchandise from someone else if you didn't realize that it was stolen, but you aren't allowed to keep what you bought once its origin has come to light. You are, however, allowed to sue the person you bought it from. In the case of a broken confidentiality agreement or NDA, it's my understanding that if the information has only been transferred to one party, then the court grants an injunction against the party from utilizing that information, and that party can claim legitimate damages from the party that they acquired it from. The situation you describe is only applicable in a circumstance where the confidential information was revealed to the general public, and the "genie is out of the bottle", as it were.

Of course, all of this is applicable to the story were are discussing only if the guy who sold the Rift to Facebook was not actually entitled to do so.

Sure... Quote only part of my post out of context, and state that you disagree with it as if it stood alone, all the while completely omitting the part where I said it would only matter if the site were located in the USA in the first place.

Obviously if the site is not hosted in the USA then there is no issue that the USA could have with the site... although the uploader of such content, *if located in the USA*, could still be held accountable for said export if they were able to identify them.

Facebook buying it means absolutely dick all if the guy really did misappropriate another company's IP. Facebook would fully be entitled to absolutely all of their money back and then some. Backers of the Rift on kickstarter would unfortunately probably be out of luck.

If this guy really used Total Recall's confidential IP, which I'm not saying necessarily happened, but it seems like it may be possible, then Facebook's acquisition would be void... and they could sue the person they bought it from for no less than every single cent that they spent buying it out, probably with interest, and punative damages thrown in for good measure.

This company is working within what I understand is the legally permissable 5-year limitation on NDA's in the high technology industry (albeit only just barely), so if OR is really based on misappropriated IP from that company, then Facebook is no more authorized to use the tech without Total Recall's permission than this guy was authorized to sell it.

... then Facebook is not really permitted to freely use that technology either, and they would have a case against the person they bought it from as well. Certainly they would at least be entitled to any monies they had already given the founder for rights to Occulus Rift, and punative damages could even be applicable.

Total Recall could, of course, license the tech to Facebook, and probably make a tidy profit while doing so.

Houston