It is entirely dependent on the type of investigation and the laws of the municipality. Regarding trespass, often investigators will be employed by the facility they are investigating and onsite as part of their employment, while documenting conditions on camera. Increasingly, drone footage is used.
I think it is dangerous and harmful to make a blanket and public statement accusing a large number of orgs/individuals of illegal activity.
I would have expected that becoming an employee in order to record videos and publish them would be a violation of the employment contracts. Certainly in my industry (finance) employees are not allowed to record sensitive information and publish it (though they can whistle-blow to the regulator if they want). Is there some rule or principle that makes it legal to break confidentiality clauses in these cases, or do farms just not bother to include them in contracts?
Additionally, my impression was that it often was illegal to fly drones over private property without permission, especially if you are invading privacy.
Update: the Eight Circuit has just upheld a ban in Iowa on using deception to gain employment in order to cause economic harm to the employer. So my guess is these investigations are illegal now, at least in Iowa.
At least harder. One loophole for these kinds of laws is that the intent to deceive has to be there at the time the false employment statement was made. As a commenter on the linked post noted by analogy, loan fraud exists when you never intended to repay, not when you decided not to after getting the loan.
“Illegal” can be a tricky word when talking about private-party civil liability, because it can conjure up violation of criminal or at least public-regulatory law.
Also, I wouldn’t assume all low-wage workers even have an employment contract. Often, US employers really don’t want their employee handbooks characterized as an employment contract because that would give employees more rights.
Suing an individual activist or a tiny org in tort or contract law can easily backfire via the Streisand effect. Anyone with serious money may be savvy enough not to cross the line into conduct that would impose liability on them or their org. Generally can’t go after the media for republishing the info in the US; it isn’t defamatory.
It is entirely dependent on the type of investigation and the laws of the municipality. Regarding trespass, often investigators will be employed by the facility they are investigating and onsite as part of their employment, while documenting conditions on camera. Increasingly, drone footage is used.
I think it is dangerous and harmful to make a blanket and public statement accusing a large number of orgs/individuals of illegal activity.
I would have expected that becoming an employee in order to record videos and publish them would be a violation of the employment contracts. Certainly in my industry (finance) employees are not allowed to record sensitive information and publish it (though they can whistle-blow to the regulator if they want). Is there some rule or principle that makes it legal to break confidentiality clauses in these cases, or do farms just not bother to include them in contracts?
Additionally, my impression was that it often was illegal to fly drones over private property without permission, especially if you are invading privacy.
Update: the Eight Circuit has just upheld a ban in Iowa on using deception to gain employment in order to cause economic harm to the employer. So my guess is these investigations are illegal now, at least in Iowa.
At least harder. One loophole for these kinds of laws is that the intent to deceive has to be there at the time the false employment statement was made. As a commenter on the linked post noted by analogy, loan fraud exists when you never intended to repay, not when you decided not to after getting the loan.
“Illegal” can be a tricky word when talking about private-party civil liability, because it can conjure up violation of criminal or at least public-regulatory law.
Also, I wouldn’t assume all low-wage workers even have an employment contract. Often, US employers really don’t want their employee handbooks characterized as an employment contract because that would give employees more rights.
Suing an individual activist or a tiny org in tort or contract law can easily backfire via the Streisand effect. Anyone with serious money may be savvy enough not to cross the line into conduct that would impose liability on them or their org. Generally can’t go after the media for republishing the info in the US; it isn’t defamatory.