Computer See ASUS PB278Q 27-Inch WQHD LED-lit Super-IPS Professional Graphics Monitor Details
List Price : $699.00 Price : $678.00
as of 2013-02-13 06:04 AM
Product Description
Delivering four times the pixel resolution of HD, the 27-Inch ASUS PB278Q PLS LED WQHD monitor has a 2560 by 1440 resolution that brings incredible definition to your games, videos, and everything else you do. It’s complemented with a host of user-centric features and a fully-adjustable design to make doing what you want easier than ever before.
- The PB278Q features a 16:9 aspect ratio and a LED-backlit 27-Inch WQHD display that provides 109 pixels per inch (PPI), resulting in high quality 2560 x 1440 visuals - equaling four times the resolution of standard 720p sets
- Made for Work and Play
- The PB278Q features a host of connectivity options that include HDMI 1.4, DisplayPort 1.2, and dual-link DVI for native WQHD, plus D-sub for full HD 1080p content transmission
More About ASUS PB278Q 27-Inch WQHD LED-lit Super-IPS Professional Graphics Monitor
Most employees just accept the reality that their employer can access any content that's on a company computer, such as employees personal emails and other personal information. But, is that the law? A increasing wide range of courts are recognizing that employees have some expectation of privacy along with other respect with their personal content on company computers. Some recent decisions have held that employers don't own and cannot access their employees personal emails not even when those emails were sent on a enterprise computer.
Marina Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. can be a workplace privacy case that was decided on June 26, 2009. Marina Stengart worked as an Executive Director of Nursing at Loving Care Agency, Inc. Loving Care provided Stengart with a company computer and an email address to accomplish her work duties. Loving Care had an electronic communications policy Which stated that emails, Web use and computer files are considered the companys property and aren't to be considered private or personal to any individual employee. The policy also stated that the business had the correct to review, audit, intercept, access, and disclose all matters around the companys media systems and services at any time, with other or with out notice.
Stengart utilised her organization computer to email her attorneys about filing a discrimination lawsuit against Loving Care. But, Stengart did not use her business email address. She emailed her attorneys with other her personal, password protected Yahoo email account even though utilizing her company computer. Stengart resigned in one her employment and sued Loving Care for discrimination. Loving Care then searched Stengarts business computer and, pursuant to its electronic communications policy, read the emails Stengart exchanged with her attorneys. Stengart angered by Loving Cares reading of her personal emails, asked the Court to decide if Loving Care had the correct under its electronic communications policy to read emails she sent to her attorneys via her personal email account on her company computer.
The Stengart Court rejected the notion that an employees personal emails grow to be organization property simply because the business owns the computer, claiming that a organization computer in this setting is small a lot more than a file cabinet: "Property rights seem to be no less offended when an employer examines documents stored on a computer as when an employer rifles by way of a folder containing an employees private papers or reaches in and examines the contents of an employees pockets; indeed, even though a legitimate organization purpose could support such a search, we can picture no valid precept of property law that would convert the employers interest in determining what exactly is in those locations using a right to own the contents of these employees folder of private papers or the contents of his pocket." The Court ruled against Loving Care, concluding that an employer cannot transform all private communications into organization property -- merely due to the fact the enterprise owned the computer employed to make the private communications or utilized to access such private Info during work hours.
Marina Stengart asked the Court if her employer had the correct to view her personal emails. Bonnie Van Alstyne took the workplace privacy notion a step further when she sued her former employer for accessing her personal emails. Bonnie Van Alstyne worked as a Vice President at Electronic Scriptorium Limited, a little data conversion company owned and operated by Edward Leonard. Van Alstyne had a enterprise email account, but she occasionally utilized her personal AOL email account to conduct business. Van Alstynes employment was terminated and she filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the company. through the discovery process, Van Alstyne learned that Edward Leonard accessed her personal email account both during and after her employment. Leonard produced 258 emails he had printed in one Van Alstynes personal email account.
Van Alstyne filed a separate lawsuit against Leonard, Bonnie Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium Limited, et al. Her lawsuit alleged that Leonard violated the Stored Communications Act when he accessed her personal email account and viewed her emails. The Stored Communications Act creates criminal and civil liability for a individual who intentionally accesses with no authorization a facility via And also this an electronic communication service is provided or intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility and obtains, alters, or prevents authorized use of a wire or electronic communication while It is in electronic storage in such system. In other words, the Stored Communication Act prohibits an individual from, among other things, intentionally accessing other peoples stored emails, voicemails, text messages, etc. with no permission. A jury located that Leonard violated the Stored Communications Act and awarded Van Alstyne $250,000 in compensatory and punitive damages and a lot more compared to $136,000 in attorneys fees and costs.
The law is changing. Courts appear to be recognizing that employees take a right to privacy in their personal emails even though those emails are sent on company computers and even when enterprise policy says otherwise. But, both Marina Stengarts and Bonnie Van Alstynes employers read their personal emails And also this gave their employers valuable defensive Info and severely prejudiced Stengart and Van Alstyne in their pending lawsuits. A lawsuit cannot unring that bell. And, Stengart and Van Alstyne were forced into lengthy, high-priced legal battles to enforce their privacy rights. It is encouraging that courts appear to be recognizing employee privacy rights and giving employees remedies when those rights seem to be violated. However, the ultimate course of action is to maintain your own email and your organization computer separate thereby eliminating any possibility that your employer will view your own personal emails.
ASUS PB278Q 27-Inch WQHD LED-lit Super-IPS Professional Graphics Monitor Reviews
ASUS PB278Q 27-Inch WQHD LED-lit Super-IPS Professional Graphics Monitor:Computer
