HTFN
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2009
- 12,681
- 11,750
If this doesn't register, nothing will.Under most privacy and data protection laws, consent is considered to be valid only if it is timely, informed, specific, and freely given. That last one is why consent is typically not (or typically shouldn’t be) used in employer-employee relationships, because of the innate imbalance of power between the parties (E.g. “consenting” to share one’s personal data with their employer doesn’t mean much when the consequence of withholding consent is termination or some other punishment). Collecting/reviewing personal data in such a circumstance is literally unlawful under applicable privacy and data protection laws. Ohio doesn’t (yet) have a general privacy law (and the US lacks same at the federal level) but they do have a few well established privacy torts that could expose the BlueJackets to potential financial and reputational risk. The affected players would seem to be well within their rights to pursue damages under these torts. This is setting aside any contractual terms or documented league/club policies or practices concerning the collection and processing of personal data.
Long story short, there appears to be plenty of financial and reputational risk associated with Babcock’s actions as-is, and given his well documented history, it should be no surprise that he is no longer with the team.
For consent to be truly freely given, you can't remotely fear rebuke. When your employer asks for something that requires consent it twists what feels reasonable because they can cite anything else to reprimand you while directly punishing you for showing an understanding of your rights and/or backbone.
This is way more like a parent saying "let me see your photos and you may or may not be grounded depending on how I feel about them" than "I just want to learn more about you and your family" for at least a few of them.