Legal status of units of electric measure in the U.S From 1894 until 2006, the United States Code had a section that defined the units of electrical measure (i.e. the volt, the ampere, etc.; see the Appendix for details). These sections were repealed in 2007, and it seems they haven't been replaced by any other law or regulation. However, the act that repealed them said it did so on the basis of those sections being 'redundant and obsolete authority'. My question in a nutshell Suppose the year is 2002, and a utility company decides to change all its documents, contracts, etc. so that everything is expressed in e.g. statvolts and statamps. In 2002, 15 U.S.C. 223 and 224 might have been interpreted as saying that this company can't do that, and that a judge might order it to start using volts and amps. (See also this related question.) What about now? If the company tries to do business in statvolts and statamps now, is there any general federal regulation about units of electrical measure, presumably set by the Department of Commerce, that the company would be violating? Or are there now only activity-specific regulations? For example, it could be that while there is no general law about electric units like there existed until 2007, there is still a mass of regulations about e.g how a power plant is supposed to conduct this or that aspect of its business, and perhaps in those regulations there are many statements such as the contract should specify the output potential (in volts or kilovolts)…, etc. Is that what the legal status of the volt and the ampere is like—there is no longer one place that sets them as legal units once and for all, but rather they are simply matter-of-factly used in all particular regulations. One might say this would make them de facto legal units. So here is yet another way to summarize my question: post 2007, are the volt, the ampere etc. still formally—in some federal law or regulation—declared to be legal units in general, or are they now simply de facto legal units, because they are the units that federal laws and regulations in fact use? Discussion The U.S. and metric units in general The volt, the ampere, etc. are part of the SI system if units, and U.S. laws and regulations do have sections that deal with that system. But, as we will see, the mandate to actually use the SI units in general is rather weak. In 15 U.S.C.Ch. 6—Weights and measures and standard time there is the following: §204. Metric system authorized It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system. §205. Metric system defined The metric system of measurement shall be defined as the International System of Units as established in 1960, and subsequently maintained, by the General Conference of Weights and Measures, and as interpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary of Commerce. Note that 15 U.S.C. 204—which has been on the books since 1866— only says that there can be no legal trouble arising from using the metric units; it doesn't require their use. The most that the federal reulations require (15 CFR 1170.3) is that each Federal agency, by a date certain and to the extent economically feasible by the end of the fiscal year 1992, use the metric system of measurement in its procurements, grants, and other business-related activities, except to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms, such as when foreign competitors are producting competing products in non-metric units. Obviously, it is fairly easy to conclude in most particular cases that such use would be 'impractical'. As a result, despite these regulations, the U.S. Government (not to mention U.S. society at large, which does not fall under the scope of this particular regulation) continues to use the U.S. customary units in a majority of areas of activity. All this to say, U.S. regulations as they concern the SI system of units in general are a very weak foundation on which to base any sort of mandate for the use of SI units of electric measure in everyday activity. Now, there used to be federal law that specifically addressed the units of electric measure: 15 U.S.C. 223 and 224 (see below). However, those sections were reapealed in 2007. So my question is about whether there is now, following the 2007 repeal of 15 U.S.C. 223 and 224, any fedear law or regulation that explicitly singles out the volt, the ampere, etc. as legal units of electric measure. My best guess as far as what is the current legal status of the volt etc. On the one hand, I would say that the units of electrical measure are currently whatever the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, the relevant agency of the Department of Commerce) says they are. This would be kind of like how the yard and the pound are what NIST says they are; see e.g here (p.&nbsp;5348) and here ("Deprecation of the United States (U.S.) Survey Foot"). Note that these are notices from the Federal Register. Therefore, if NIST had made any regulations about the volt and the ampere being in general the legal units of electric measure, I would also think that NIST would have published it in the Federal Register. However, so far, I haven't found anything. On the the other hand, even if NIST hasn't laid down any such regulation, it probably doesn't matter in practice (which might be why it hasn't). The thing is, unlike with the units of e.g. length and mass, there is no realistic alternative to using the SI units of electric meausre: the volt, the ampere, and the rest of it. There are no 'U.S. cutomary units of electricity', unless they are exactly the SI units. Only in specialized applications does anyone use the older Gaussian units, and even then only some of them. (For example, to measure magnetic induction, much of industry still uses the gauss rather than tesla, which is the appropriate SI unit. I don't think anyone actually uses the Gaussian units for potential and current, the statvolt and statampere.) In short, to my knowledge, everyone in practice uses the volt, the ampere, and the ohm (including their versions with the metric prefixes, of course: the kilovolt, the milliamp, etc.). Another consideration is that the standard electric units (the volt, the ampere, the ohm, etc.) are, by now, embedded in a mass of other regulation, concerning anything from fire safety (e.g. what kind of fuses and cables are required; here the voluntary National Electrical Code seems relevant) to lab certifications and electrical power-plant approval processes. My questions: Are my guesses correct? In particular, is it really true that, since 2007, there is no single place in U.S. laws and regulations (including e.g. notices in the Federal Register) that says that e.g. electric current is supposed to be measured in amps? More generally, what is the current legal situation with units of electric measure (the volt, the ampere, the ohm, etc.) in the United States? Also, what exactly did the lawmakers mean by 'repeal of redundant and obsolete authority' in the case of 15 U.S.C. 223 and 224? Another way to phrase my question Suppose the year is 2002, and a utility company decides to change all its documents, contracts, etc. so that everything is expressed in e.g. statvolts and statamps. In 2002, 15 U.S.C. 223 and 224 might have been interpreted as saying that this company can't do that,, and that a judge might order it to start using volts and amps. What about now? If the company tries to do business in statvolts and statamps now, is there any federal regulation, presumably set by the Department of Commerce, that the company would be violating? (Also, can one find out for sure if there is any such regulation?) Appendix: previous US laws On July 12, 1894, the US enacted An Act To define and establish the units of electrical measure (28 Stat. 101 and 102), which became 15 U.S.C. 221 and 222. The act stated that …from and after the passage of this Act the legal units of electrical measure in the United United States shall be as follows: First. The unit of resistance shall be what is known as the international ohm, which is substantially equal to one thousand million units of resistance of the centimeter-gram-second system of electro-magnetic units, and is represented by the resistance offered to an unvarying electric current by a column of mercury at the temperature of melting ice fourteen and four thousand five hundred and twenty-one ten-thousandths grams in mass, of a constant cross-sectional area, and of the length of one hundred and six and three-tenths centimeters. Second. The unit of current shall be what is known as the international ampere, which is one-tenth of the unit of current of the centimeter-gram-second system… and so on. The act proceded to define several additional units: electrical potential (the international volt), charge (international coulomb), capacitance (international farad), work (joule), power (watt), and inductance (henry). The prefix 'international' (as in, 'the international ohm') has to do with some complications that the definitions of units had to deal with at the time. These complications are not important for the present purposes, but can be read about here. The previous act was repealed when, on July 21, 1950, the US enacted An act to redefine the units and establish the standards of electrical and photometric measurements (64 Stat. 370), which became 15 U.S.C. 223 and 224. The Act stated that …from and after the date this Act is approved, the legal units of electrical and photometric measurement in the United States of America shall be those defined and established as provided in the following sections. SEC. 2. The unit of electrical resistance shall be the ohm, which is equal to one thousand million units of resistance of the centimeter-gram-second system of electromagnetic units. SEC. 3. The unit of electric current shall be the ampere … And so on. That became 15 U.S.C. 223, while the following became 15 U.S.C. 224: It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Commerce to establish the values of the primary electric and photometric units in absolute measure, and the legal values for these units shall be those represented by or derived from, national reference standards maintained by the Department of Commerce. Here 'maintained by the Department of Commerce' in effect means 'maintained by the National Bureau of Standards', which was later renamed to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and which is an agency of the Department of Commerce. This Act was amended in 1963 to replace 'candle' by 'candela' (Pub. L. 88–165, Nov. 4, 1963, 77 Stat. 299). Sections 223 and 224 were part of U.S.C. until 2006 (see here and here). However, in 2007, they were repealed by the America COMPETES act, which became Pub. L. 110–69, title III, §3013(c)(2), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 598 and which says the following: SEC. 3570. METRIC SYSTEM DEFINED. The metric system of measurement shall be defined as the International System of Units as established in 1960, and subsequently maintained, by the General Conference of Weights and Measures, and as interpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary of Commerce. (2) REPEAL OF REDUNDANT AND OBSOLETE AUTHORITY.— The Act of July 21, 1950, entitled, ‘‘An Act To redefine the units and establish the standards of electrical and photometric measurements.’’ (15 U.S.C. 223 and 224) is hereby repealed. As a result, the relevant part of U.S.C. looks like this: SUBCHAPTER V—STANDARDS OF ELECTRICITY §§ 221, 222. Repealed. July 21, 1950, ch. 484, § 13,64 Stat. 370 Sections, act July 12, 1894, ch. 131, §§ 1, 2, 28 Stat. 101,102, related to units of electrical measure. §§ 223, 224. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–69, title III,§ 3013(c)(2), Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 598 Section 223, acts July 21, 1950, ch. 484, §§ 1–11, 64 Stat.369; Pub. L. 88–165, Nov. 4, 1963, 77 Stat. 299, related to units of electrical measure. Section 224, act July 21, 1950, ch. 484, § 12, 64 Stat. 370,related to establishment of values of primary electricand photometric units in absolute measure and legalvalues for those units.
Is that really so, though? Is there, since 2007, no single place in U.S. regulations (including e.g. the Federal Register) that says that e.g. electric current is supposed to be measured in amps? More generally, what is the current legal situation with units of electric measure (the volt, the ampere, the ohm, etc.) in the United States? These units are authorized for use by 15 USC 204, quoted in the question. The statute further authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to interpret or modify the standard, but it does not require it. In the absence of any such interpretation or modification, the provisions of the standard are authorized as they are. Also, what exactly did the lawmakers mean by 'repeal of redundant and obsolete authority' in the case of 15 U.S.C. 223 and 224? They meant that there was no need for those sections, which specifically authorized the use of certain metric-system measures, in light of the general authorization to use the entire metric system.
The first part is a matter of jurisdiction. I do not believe that simply using a cell phone with an Illinois number will give the Illinois courts jurisdiction, if you're standing in Wisconsin and calling a person in Wisconsin. Also, when you state that the call is recorded for ___ purposes, does that have any bearing on the actual use (e.g. they state it is for quality assurance, but instead they use it for marketing, legal, etc) The use can make a difference. There's an exemption in Illinois law if a business records if: the monitoring is used for the purpose of service quality control of marketing or opinion research or telephone solicitation, the education or training of employees or contractors engaged in marketing or opinion research or telephone solicitation, or internal research related to marketing or opinion research or telephone solicitation If they do not use it for these purposes, presumably the exemption would not apply. In addition: No communication or conversation or any part, portion, or aspect of the communication or conversation made, acquired, or obtained, directly or indirectly, under this exemption (j), may be, directly or indirectly, furnished to any law enforcement officer, agency, or official for any purpose or used in any inquiry or investigation, or used, directly or indirectly, in any administrative, judicial, or other proceeding, or divulged to any third party.
We have no way of knowing when this happened, but it is probably a fact, recorded some time in the past. Utility companies very frequently obtain a right-of-way (easement) which gives them certain rights to your property. Typically, this happened a long time ago when a previous owner agreed. As for gas pipelines, that typically includes "don't plant trees" restrictions. The easement is usually recorded in the county office where deeds are filed. The legal basis is generally "because you agreed, or some previous owner agreed". You can get a copy of the easement to see if "no trees" is actually part of the agreement. If yes, no point in arguing, if not, you could hire a lawyer if they are demanding that they are threatening you. They are allowed to be concerned and to ask you to cut trees regardless, but if it's not required by the terms of the easement, you can say "No, I'd rather keep my tree".
The 4th Amendment applies to administrative inspections. Per Camara v. Municipal Court 387 U.S. 523 (1967), there are some exceptions for tightly regulated industries, but you don't seem to be describing such a situation. If you object to a warrantless inspection, the inspectors would need to get a warrant to do those parts of the inspection that require getting on the curtilage of your property. Curtilage is the part of your property that is so intimately connected with the home that it treated the same for 4th Amendment purposes. Per United States v. Dunn 480 U.S. 294 (1987), a fence doesn't mean everything inside the fence is curtilage (but for a small, city dwelling, the fence is probably going to be considered the curtilage boundary). Not having a fence doesn't mean nothing is curtilage. As you say, even if you object to the warrantless inspection, they can probably do a lot of the inspection from outside your curtilage and avoid infringing your 4th Amendment rights. The inspectors may choose to return with an inspection warrant. An example statute describing an inspection warrant is California Code 1822.50: An inspection warrant is an order, in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a judge of a court of record, directed to a state or local official, commanding him to conduct any inspection required or authorized by state or local law or regulation relating to building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor, or zoning.
the first two highlighted parts seem to contradict each other. No, in this case they do not. The first highlighted portion refers to works or items produced "for or under the direction of the Company", whereas the second highlight refers to your creations that satisfy conditions (a) and (b). Where contradictions actually exist, the doctrine of contra proferentem entitles you (the non-draftsman of the contract) to adopt the portion or reasonable interpretation that favors your legal position. Also wondering how valid those statements actually are They are valid and become enforceable as soon as you sign the contract or your subsequent conduct reflects your acceptance thereof. it's a matter of privacy. So the question is what I can do or what the reality is of the situation The reality is that you are asked to sign a contract that is abusive and ridiculous. One vulnerability from describing your inventions (presumably in Appendix A) is that the employer gets "irrevocable, worldwide, etc" rights on them as soon as you "use or disclose any [items listed in Appendix A] when acting within the scope of [your] employment". This means that if instead of reinventing the wheel you share or apply any portion of your prior creations so as to enhance your productivity, you knowingly and irreversibly grant to the employer perpetual rights to those items. Legal disputes regarding APIs can become extremely intricate. And, since judges usually have no decent background on IT, even those few judges with integrity are unlikely to grasp the key subtleties that would lead to a correct ruling. "not useful with or related to any Company Interest" is very vague. The company could be interested in literally anything these days. Clauses which are too vague or excessively wide-encompassing are supposedly stricken as unconscionable, unenforceable, etc. However, I personally would foreclose upfront the risk of judicial hassle and decline the abusive contract. Legal issues aside, keep in mind that you are offering your expertise (in terms of supply &amp; demand, you are on the supply side). This fact has a less derogatory connotation than "asking for a job". Accordingly, the relation between the parties should be more leveled.
Good timing: I just got a new OBD II scanner yesterday. Since this might hit a wider audience, I'll take a foundation-first approach. Your vehicle is comprised of things like brakes, ABS, fuel injection, gear box. Nowadays, these parts are operated by electronic controllers. The physical path by which the controllers receive and transmit electronic signals is called a bus. (It performs the same function as the internal bus in your computer, which connects the CPU, memory, etc.) CAN is simply a protocol for how information travels on the bus. So it does all the things you'd imagine a protocol does (boring things like dictating message formats be 64 bits and exciting things like determining priority). Protocols are defined by standards. Prior to widespread implementation of CAN, there were other standards (four, I believe) used by various manufacturers. CAN is widespread, but it's important to note that it's only standard on lighter vehicles. 40 CFR 86.005-17(h)(3) Beginning with the 2008 model year and beyond, ISO 15765-4.3:2001 “Road Vehicles-Diagnostics on Controller Area Network (CAN)—Part 4: Requirements for emission-related systems”, (December 14, 2001) shall be the only acceptable protocol used for standardized on-board to off-board communications for vehicles below 8500 pounds. The statute goes on to discuss other standards for heavier vehicles. What's unique about CAN? It's faster, but more importantly, it's a protocol that doesn't require a central computer. All the controllers get all the messages. It's kind of like having a bunch of people in a room yelling things out: everyone hears everything. And that's what you want in a car. However, the messages have to be interpreted by the controllers themselves, and that requires a separate &quot;higher-layer&quot; protocol. Electronic components need CAN to function, and if you have a car with electronic components, you need CAN in order to make it run. On the other hand, a vehicle can run without OBD--it's just a nice secondary feature to help diagnose system performance (and problems). It obtains access to component information like speed, RPM, fuel trim, etc. Likewise, that pesky &quot;check engine&quot; light gets activated by a diagnostic code. CAN is not mandatory for OBD. OBD is designed to use a number of different standards, and CAN is one of those (remember, light vehicles makes beginning with 2008 use CAN, but OBD is in use in other types of vehicles, too). At it's heart, OBD II is just another protocol: it specifies message format and the connector's pinout. In the best teaching document I've seen on the CAN vs. OBD subject, Michael Wen mentions you can often deduce which signaling protocol is in use by looking at the pins in the connector (remember, CAN should be standard for light vehicles after 2008, but you might see one of the other four formats in older vehicles). How do OBD and CAN work together? OBD sends messages over the CAN bus (that is, the vehicle bus with the CAN protocol). OBD basically queries components by sending specially formatted messages via the CAN bus. The components respond via the CAN bus. That information goes either to a warning light on the dashboard or to a diagnostic scanner attached to the connector.
IANAL, and as @GeorgeBailey suggests, you should ask one. That said, some aspects of your question are directly addressable with what we know. Does US law states anything about this? Yes. Federally this falls under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §2511. Workplace monitoring generally falls under either the "System Administrator Exception" or under Consent. In general, continuing past a banner constitutes consent. Does company policy enforcement with such a warning over ride the right to not be subject to surveillance? In general, yes. You don't need to use the companies network if you don't want to consent - and they don't need to hire you if you don't want to use their network. But it's their network, and their rules apply. There are some nuances, and courts have found that the wording of the notice has made a difference in some cases, but overall, if the systems are properly posted with banners, then the employer may capture communications. See the "Bannering and Consent" section of this article from cybertelecom.org, e.g.: Even if no clicking is required, a user who sees the banner before logging on to the network has received notice of the monitoring. By using the network in light of the notice, the user impliedly consents to monitoring pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c)-(d). Note that stored data is covered by different laws than communications. It's a nuance. Is it ethical to sniff all the data without giving any other warning than the logon banner? "Ethical" is a very different question than "Legal", and largely more subjective. Most employers require signed consent for monitoring as a condition of employment, and use banners thereafter. That is ethical by my definition, in that it meets or exceeds the requirements of the law, and does not mislead or use subterfuge. The tone of your question suggests you find it distasteful, and therefore probably it violates your personal code of ethics.
As user6726 notes in an answer, the page you link to derives from 26 USC 7701. However, it does not reproduce the text accurately. There, "United States person" is defined at section 7701(a)(30), and it notably lacks anything corresponding to "any other person that is not a foreign person." It's possible that that language is motivated by some court decision, but it's also possible that someone just added it for the sake of symmetry with the definition of "foreign person" without thinking about the logical paradox that it might create. Looking at section 7701, I don't see any explicit mention of US non-citizen nationals. It appears that such a person who does not live in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia falls under the definition of nonresident alien at 7701(b)(1)(B) even though such a person is explicitly not an alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act. I do not see any regulations correcting this oversight, but I suppose that in practice such people are indeed treated as US citizens. I don't know enough about the classification of nonhuman legal persons as foreign or domestic to have any ideas about whether there are similar ambiguities there.