Slashdot Mirror
A New Meaning For Geotargeting At Monster.com
Duke submits a link to this New York Times story, according to which "it seems that Monster.com has taken the U.S. government's policy of sanctions against certain countries and run with it where no man has gone before. Monster 'has deleted resumes that list current addresses in those countries.' and more fun stuff. If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you." Update: 04/28 01:34 GMT by T : Note that the New York Times ran the story, but like many other newspaper stories, the real credit goes to the Associated Press.
it's their service, it's 100% free, and something tells me they covered there ass in the EULA. Is it nice? is it moral? probably not. But it is their company, and their service. Is this smart of them to do? Probably not, bad publicity could spell disaster for them.
If you don't agree with me, then discuss your view point, don't just mod me down cuz you disagree with me. FP.
YOU SUCK BALLS!
If we have sanctions against other countries, people from those countries shouldn't be able to make money from jobs or companies in the US anyhow. So we are just preventing them from violating the law.
Thank you and God bless America.
George W. Bush
President, United States of America
After all, if its not the American Way, its the highway.
This isn't quite as bad as the "Freedom Fries" bullshit, but its pretty bad.. Can't people deal with the world at large without placing labels on certain ethnic groups, nationalities, etc. Perhaps that's too much to ask.
Yay patriotism..
The biggest problem in many of the countries that the United States is currently sanctioning is that (relative) poverty has driven people to hate the United States. Terrorism is a funtion of that very hatred of our economic superiority. The only way to deal with a problem like this is to address the economic discrepancies between our nation and theirs and help to allow countries and people that have gotten left behind to join the global community. By preventing US companies from hiring these people, job sites can exacerbate that discrepancy and become part of the problem instead of a possible solution.
**When craziness is bliss, 'tis folly to be sane**
Instead of framing this story about monster.com and the righteousness of their policy, the editors have used this story as yet another "infringement" of your rights. Of course the editors have no clue that monster.com can do as they please, but somehow they think you have a right to do whatever you like, and monster.com are the bad guys.
this is why i like coming to slashdot... for a good laugh at the idiocy at this site.
If you can't even send so much as a marshmallow peep to these TERRORIST-RUN states, why the heck would you HIRE anybody from there? We should sever all ties with these corrupt regimes.
The corrupt regime or the people over whom it has dominion? They aren't the same thing.
An excerpt:
All this while Hussein et al were shitting on golden toilets. Did the sanctions hurt Saddam? Sure. But the damage done to the Iraqi people was orders of magnitude worse. Twelve years of sanctions, and what was accomplished? The task of removing Saddam through the use of military force was made easier, I suppose. But the primary reason for using sanctions in the first place is to avoid the use of military force. So, our sanctions against Iraq inconvenienced Saddam, killed a quarter-million children, and failed miserably at their stated purpose.
Way to go, Monster. That'll teach 'em.
Just give it a few more years -- he already started sliding down the slippery slope about a year ago when he began locking up US citizens without a trial.
Exactly how does protesting against the policy of detaining citizens without due process make one a "communist"?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
With ideas of "this isn't fair", "people are poor and starving over there", and if you go to any sort of liberal rallies you will see people using very expressive (sometimes overly exaggerated speech). Keep this in mind, this is a common technique to excite people and get them involved emotionally in your cause. And emotions have no place in logic.
HA HA sorry man I was totally with you up until this part of your post. I really don't think you can point the finger at libbies on this one.
How about when the president says "september 11" in every other sentence? How about whenever somebody says a certain law is unconstitutional, the other guy says "3000 lives lost ... tragic events of 9/11 ... post-9/11 world ... blah blah".
Seriously, when the guy across the table is talking about people who died in terrorist attacks, you'll look like a FOOL if you question his plan to install cameras in every bathroom around the country at a taxpayer cost of billions of dollars.
How many people die in a year from non-terrorism related accidents..let's have some perspective...whenever somebody invokes the "tragic events of 9/11" he should be removed from the table and replaced with someone who can make a reasoned argument.
They interviewed the guy who was pouring expensive French champagne down the toilet and they asked him why .. he said "because 3000 of my countrymen died on 9/11" .. that doesn't even make any SENSE... but you can't say anything because invoking the ghosts of those people who died instantly shuts up all critics.
Cop: "Why did you just run that red light?"
Me: "On that tragic day September 2001, the world changed."
Cop: *sniff* "Yeah, shit, what was I thinking .. go ahead man .. may God be with you."
Emotional manipulation is at the core of any politician's speech.
I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people? or for a company not to hire mexicans?
Just because you own something dosn't mean you should be able to do whatever the hell you want on it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
(Ok, slashdot is not the place to ask this.)
But don't the USA have laws against racism and discrimination that might apply?
I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people?
Sure, I don't have any problem with it. It's perfectly legitimate for organizations that practice discrimination along just about any lines they want to exist. There are a few very specific rules: government organizations and even private businesses when it comes to employment have some constraints on them. It's part of letting ideas flow freely. If people want to hang out with a bunch of other white supremacists and not let blacks join a club, I think they should certainly be entitled to do so. Trying to prohibit something like this becomes completely unenforceable, because race plays a role in all sorts of small organizations.
However, a business is more than entitled not to sell their product to anyone they want to, if they so choose.
or for a company not to hire mexicans?
As long as they're Mexican-Americans, legal citizens of the United States of America, I don't think it's legal to hire based on race, though it can be hard to prove.
Actually, I wish even this restriction was eliminated. Let natural selection take over. If IBM decides that it doesn't want to hire any Hispanics at all, and Apple does, and Miguel de Izaca works for Apple instead, it's IBM's loss.
When I see lawsuits like the infamous Hooters one (where a male was suing because he couldn't work as a waiter in a Hooters restauraunt), I get a little disgusted with the state of enforced PCness.
May we never see th
--the act has a provision to re-classify you as a terrorist (primarily from participation in a protest 'threat, intimidate, coerce',or membership in an organization they deem terroristic, etc, fairly broad, you donated 5 bucks to some group before, they get classified as a terrorist group, whoops, you lose), which means you are no longer a "citizen" with any born with rights. This classification is completely on their say-so, no hearing or anything is required, they (any nameless governmental employee) merely state such and such is true, they win, you lose. You can then be "detained" and held in secret,deported to some other country, prosecuted, and punished up to the death penalty. It's about as extreme of a dictatorial move as you can get. Anyone who is aware of your detention and reclassification into sub human non citizen status is forbidden by law to inform anyone else, violations of which can get you reclassified. See above.
The gestalt is they left it broad enough that they can apply it to virtually anyone if they choose to do so. That is patriot act 1. Patriot act 2,which is even more extreme, after being leaked and denied, has now been chopped up and parts of it inserted into various other bills to disguise it.
What has happened is in essence the entire critical parts of the constitution have been re written, and most born-with rights are now null and void. Originally the constitution was written to detail government restrictions. Even the so called bill of rights was just a further description of the limits of government, as the basic fundamental to the constitution was that individual persons and the states had the most power and soverignty. The constitution doesn't "grant" anyone any "rights". You are born-with ALL rights, then there's a small sections of restrictions delineated in some detail which primarily apply to "government". That is now completely reversed, as full a 180 as is possible.
We are not supposed to have a royal, neo-royal, VIP class of "citizens" who are above the law. This explicitly applies to governmental employees. Explicitly, that was the entire purpose of the original secession from england and royal rule, there was no other reason of note. We got rid of the overlord class. that was the deal. This treatment of governmental employees as VIPs with unlimited powers to just grant themselves more powers, even calling them "laws" is not supposed to occur, nor are they even remotely *allowed* to grant themselves powers that they clearly do not have.
Any governmental employee who engages in unconstitutional actions, whether knowing or unknowing, is doing so under the explicit notice under the constititution that at some point they may be held personally liable for some serious citizen reactions, ie, "you don't want to go there", with "you" being any said employee,either elected, appointed, volunteered, or hired on, any "branch" or "level" or "title", civil, military, or "paramilitary", in any "government" federal, state, county, incorporated township or territory or unincorporated territory.
What would happen if, say, a bank were to introduce "single-look-and-feel" personal banking functionality... and then couldn't implement it because of not only the countries on the list now, but the fact that Yanks like to add a place or two to the list every once in a while?
Well, the project could go forward, but not in the United States. Certain parts of the system would have to be served abroad. We're not just talking about functionality here though -- legally you can't even link to Iranian-hosted resources from a US web site without the possibility of incurring criminal charges not only against the person in charge, but against everyone involved in the project (Thanks mmr. Helms and Burton! You bastards).
This is not just theoretical. These are ongoing concerns with a number of companies; I used the example of a bank because that's what seemed most obvious to me.
I used to roll my eyes when people called for "regime change in Washington"... now I'm not so sure the idea is either silly or unnecessary. Looks like the US Gov't. is falling victim to the Internet -- a tool it created.
My sig is too lon