Slashdot Mirror


Eric Schmidt: Teens' Mistakes Will Never Go Away

An anonymous reader writes "Speaking at the Hay Festival in the U.K. this weekend, Google's Eric Schmidt spoke about the permanence of your online presence, and how that will affect kids growing up in an online world. 'We have never had a generation with a full photographic, digital record of what they did. We have a point at which we [Google] forget information we know about you because it is the right thing to do.' He makes the point that a lot of respectable, upstanding adults today had dubious incidents as kids and teenagers. They were able to grow up and move past those events, and society eventually forgot — but today, every notable misdeed is just a Google search away. CNET's coverage points out that 'mistakes' can often be events that put somebody's life on track. 'A word or an act can seem like a mistake when it happens — and even shortly afterward. In years to come, though, you might look back on it and see that, though it created friction and even hurt at the time, it served a higher and more character-forming purpose in the long run.' Of course, it's also true that some mistakes a simply indicators that somebody's a schmuck." Schmidt also made an interesting comment in an interview with The Telegraph while he was in the U.K. He said, "You have to fight for your privacy, or you will lose it." This is quite different from his infamous 2009 remark: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

63 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. What's worse by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is many of them don't realize the long term ramifications of what they are making readily available online. They think that simply because they limit access to a few friends or don't tag the pictures with their names they are keeping things private. Coupled with a belief "people won't or don't care" makes them somewhat oblivious to the privacy issues. Unfortunately, when they don't get / lose a job because of something that was found online they will realize the importance; but it will be too late. Granted, people make mistakes and shouldn't bear the burden of them forever; but if given the choice between candidate A, where you can find those mistakes on line, and B, where you can't, B will generally win.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:What's worse by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In typical kid fashion, they think "that will never happen to me!", and in typical kid fashion, they're completely wrong.

      Memo to youth of today: You hate it when your parents or your siblings or your teachers never seem to forget all the dumb things you'e done, and how they keep getting brought up and used as leverage against you? Well, guess what: The internets never forget anything you've posted on it, or that someone else posted about you, and as the OP says, your future employers, your future schools, your government, maybe even that girl or boy you're interested in? They'll be able to access all of it, in it's terrible glory, and you will never be able to escape it. So think twice about what you're doing online.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:What's worse by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can live with that, but I hate it when the internet tells me to clean my room and take out the garbage.

      Also this.

    3. Re:What's worse by danlip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, when they don't get / lose a job because of something that was found online they will realize the importance

      It's highly unlikely the employer will tell them why they didn't get the job, so they probably won't realize.

    4. Re:What's worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The mistake we old folks make is assuming that we'll be the one's evaluating their candidacy. Their peers will be. Culture will shift and what is acceptable will change. Every generation's parents thinks their kids are doing something that will ruin their future chances in life. It's rarely the case.

      We just think that photos of their teen/college years are too far and too unforgivable, but like generations before us, we're wrong. They'll be fine.

    5. Re:What's worse by drolli · · Score: 2

      Memo to everybody:

      Today, googleling sombody who i get in contact with is standard. Be it just for finding his master/phd thesis or publications. I would never google to figure out somebodies personal views on somthing. But (really happened) if i google to find something about his academic/profressional life and the only thing which turns up is that he was active in the student church or students christian mission, then i cant help but being biased, for several reasons:

      a) i take that as an inciator which precedence his private life takes over his academic aspirations.

      b) it may appear that it contradicts a materialistic local objective world view i will find him unfit for certain aspects. In my world a single entry in an online forum identiofying him as a young earth creationist will eliminate him from the list of candicates for some tasks. Way way worse than having a picture in BDSM fashion or a drunken picture, or a blog entry about cow-tipping.

      c) There is the possibility to extract real and valid infromation from this. If you exhibit a pessimistic view towards you current employer, then it is a bad sign.

      Sorry. I really wish google had a button to "display only results likely to be relevant for professional life" but they dont have.

    6. Re:What's worse by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow. I'm not only non-social, a non-team-player, but also a serial killer.

      Cool, I guess.

      Better that than stupid.

    7. Re:What's worse by theskipper · · Score: 4, Informative

      Case in point, Emma Way and her infamous cyclist tweet:
      http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/i-knocked-a-cyclist-off-his-bike-i-have-right-of-way-he-doesnt-even-pay-road-tax/

      What's interesting is that she won't take responsibility for what she did (based on a video interview with her lawyer present) and goes so far as to blame her victim which is creating even more notoriety. It's the Streisand effect which makes things worse down the road. If she simply admitted that she was wrong, future employers might consider a little sympathy. Instead all that resides in the websphere is an increasingly bad portrait of this woman. Which appears deserved in this case.

    8. Re:What's worse by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Funny

      also a serial killer

      That's so 90's. These days if you're not a terrorist you're nobody.

    9. Re:What's worse by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I think the opposite, it just shows its time for America to grow the fuck up and stop being a country of hypocrite prissy pants. There isn't a single person reading this that hasn't done something face palming stupid at one time in their life and in many countries in Europe and Asia if they didn't make that a habit it would get written off as "Oh well he was just (insert sowing oats, dumb kid, etc)" and that would be that.

      Its always been America that is such a damned prude that you can't show a tit without a knife buried in it, we've always been waaaay too fucking right wing, bible thumping, and puritanical for our own good and its time to wake the fuck up, accept that shit happens, and move into the 21st century with the rest of the planet. These new startups coming along are not gonna be made by Polly Prissypants, they are gonna give a shit about whether you can perform, not WTF you did on Spring break 3 years ago and they'll be happy to take those performers you're passing on and kick you ass with them, so grow the fuck up already. Its a new world out there, stop acting like its the God damned 1950s for fucks sake.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:What's worse by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2

      ...or sends me to military school with the goddamn Finklestein shit kid.

    11. Re:What's worse by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you appear to be gay, than will increase your chances of being hired by me (gays don't have as many family distractions and can work longer hours).

      So are you also more likely to hire men, because they won't be getting pregnant and needing time to have babies and care for them? Do you pass on older people due to similar lifestyle justifications?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    12. Re:What's worse by lxs · · Score: 2

      Hi Eric. Welcome to Slashdot.

    13. Re:What's worse by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's most unfortunate is that his post will be found by employment attorneys for years to come.

      FWIW, the greatest programmers I've known are also accomplished musicians. Nerds work poorly in teams.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:What's worse by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2

      If she simply admitted that she was wrong, future employers might consider a little sympathy

      ^ This. Reminds me quite a lot of dongle-gate woman for the same inability to comprehend the actual problem.

      Also relevant to this "internet-never-forgets" topic is the fact that before it was deleted, Emma Way's twitter history showed a posting with a photo of her car speedometer at 95mph... oh look, here's a copy: Emma Way doing 95mph

    15. Re:What's worse by macbeth66 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They better not count on that. The Twenty-somethings in my organization a lot more judgmental of 'youthful' indiscretion than my peers.

    16. Re:What's worse by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the don't realise is exactly what is happening. A one time mistake when published is interpreted externally not as a one time mistake but as a pattern of behaviour that happened to be exposed one time. This is what causes the real long term harm. We all have made judgemental mistakes, made embarrassing decisions, what the internet does with those for today's youth and of course for foolish adults, is to turn one offs into who you are. The internet tends to define people by their published mistakes.

      Privacy folks, fight for it, or every single mistake you make will define publicly who you are. Now is that fair or unfair, neither, from a distance it is the easiest, safest way to view it. Either you are foolish enough to continually repeat that behaviour or you are foolish enough to allow it to get published, either way, you are foolish and a risk.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:What's worse by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

      I don't even have a facebook account - what does that make me?

      I used to post regularly on Usenet - though using a pseudonym, similarly I have a LiveJournal account also under a pseudonym. Plenty of people who know me in RL know those nicks, but it's less likely that someone doing a professional check would come across them.

      My only online presence in my real name is on LinkedIn, and I keep that to professional contacts only.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    18. Re:What's worse by antdude · · Score: 2

      Lxs, please clean your room and take out the garbage!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    19. Re:What's worse by Khyber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " It is filled with pictures of you performing with your jazz band, that is a good indication that programming isn't your real passion."

      Well, aren't you the moron?

      Musicians make for natural programmers. I do both, plus I figure out things your obviously limited mind can't even comprehend - like the ability to bypass photosynthesis by directly giving energy to the plants past-chlorophyll.

      Whomever thought it would be a good idea to make your dumb ass the boss should be fired, and if you're the boss, well, fire yourself and go back to working for someone with more brains - you're not going to be very useful in the future economy in your current state of mind.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    20. Re:What's worse by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's most fortunate is that his post will be found by employment attorneys for years to come.

      TFTFY. B^)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    21. Re:What's worse by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're hoping to hire someone, there are few options. They were either fired (not a good sign) never have been employed before (not a good sign), they are moving for personal reasons (neutral, but perhaps bad since they might do it again), or they are looking for work because that have a pessimnistic view of their current employment.

      So, either you resign yourself to the fact that you would never hire anyone willing to come work for you or just try to not be the sort of employer people tend to get pessimistic about.

  2. Generational gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kids of today will simply grow up to hold the attitude that literally everyone has made mistakes in their past, especially so while young, and most things a person did won't be held against them.

    It will really be our generation that has the hardest time with this.
    Both in expecting out of others what you are unable and unwilling to do yourself, as well as "losing out" due to the consequences of doing so.

    Once that kid grows up and looks for a job, it will be those of us who are older who will still hold childhood mistakes against them and miss out of any and all benefits they would bring to the company.
    At the same time that grown kid will not have similar issues applying for work with their peers, so those companies will gain and move ahead.

    1. Re:Generational gap by sydneyfong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And those campaign managers will eventually be out of a job when the public gets desensitized and starts giving out "meh" responses.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    2. Re:Generational gap by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given that the last two U.S. presidents are known to have used cocaine, and the last three to have smoked marijuana, I think that happened a while ago.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    3. Re:Generational gap by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Then maybe politics will finally be about the message instead of the messenger.
      I'm not counting on it, though.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Generational gap by abarrow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed. In some ways you can see this happening today - what if 30 years ago a presidential candidate admitted pot smoking? What if a presidential candidate today claimed NEVER to have done it? Would you believe them?

      Same is true here. The enlightened employers will get the energetic, creative young people who were willing to get out there and enjoy their lives, not the ones who wear tin-foil hats and button up their sweaters before going out for the day.

    5. Re:Generational gap by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      Kids really should be taught the importance that reputation plays on their lot in life.

      It is not difficult to see that many people seem to be shallow imbeciles. But whether or not your 'mistakes' (and what qualifies as a mistake varies from employer to employer) were posted to Facebook, chances are you've done things that certain employers may find objectionable.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:Generational gap by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Kids of today will simply grow up to hold the attitude that literally everyone has made mistakes in their past, especially so while young, and most things a person did won't be held against them.

      Devoutly to be wished, but it seems optimistic. More likely in the future success may depend on how well you can get your online "records" erased (good potential business opportunity?). I doubt high level politicos will have much trouble with this, since they're already subject to so much scrutiny (is it true that Barry Obama refused to share the last cupcake with you, and how has this traumatized you since the third grade?). It's other people. If their ages can be correctly identified it'll be easy to get the info on anyone under 18 erased (think of the children). The biggest problem will probably be what people do in their late teens and early twenties.

    7. Re:Generational gap by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nonsense. Kids who do *not* make online mistakes are smarter and more mature than their peers. So companies who prefer to hire kids like that will have the cream of the crop, so to speak. They'll move ahead, whereas the companies that don't discriminate will just be average.

    8. Re:Generational gap by oztiks · · Score: 2

      Yeah, phewy to that! It's a nice concept and I hope that some will follow your sentiment but highly unlikely.

      The world today is presently filled with all manner of creeds, healthy and unhealthy. To assume that your ideal will be common place and era in a new level of social acceptance, though positive and possible, it's a shot in the dark to say the least.

      The only way I see it not being so far fetched is if our social constructs were to change. I.E our political design being a big one. Watched the Daily Show much?

      We live in a society where today I saw a 13 year old girl dragged on TV to publicly apologise for calling a dark skinned football player an ape from a grandstand during a nationally televised football match. Now setting the whole racism aspect of this aside tell me how, as a society, we are growing away from this? Because when I was a kid growing up, going to the football and listening to the comic relief of the crowd hurling abuse at the players was the highlight of the whole evening.

      We are entering a society where everything is everyone else's fault. You can be sued for stupid reasons and be thrown in front of a TV camera for doing something minor (yes even with the racism aspect included it's minor what she did, decapitating soldiers, not so much).

      Take your words, flip them on it's head, Now that's real future I believe.

    9. Re:Generational gap by sribe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kids of today will simply grow up to hold the attitude that literally everyone has made mistakes in their past, especially so while young, and most things a person did won't be held against them.

      Maybe, even better, they will grow up to adults who realize that mild experimentation with alcohol and sex is normal, not even a "mistake". (Yes, teens will still make real mistakes, things they regret. But much of what these discussions refer to as "mistakes" are only "mistakes" from an extremely unhealthy puritanical view.)

    10. Re: Generational gap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't hire you because you apparently have never taken any risks in your life and most likely never do anything creative or interesting ever, plus have no concept of risk/reward, since you seem to think any risk is unacceptable.
      But if I were hiring for an assembly line, you'd be great.

    11. Re:Generational gap by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You never went to a keg party? Because we have seen people not get a job, one teacher even got fired for a pic of her at a keg party in college.

      The problem is many an HR dept is run by prissypants that couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons and take out the fact that they had a miserable life on everybody else.

      As another pointed out what these people are calling mistakes and judging people over and things that the last couple of presidents did, so its being a hypocrite to the billionth power to say someone can be POTUS but isn't "pure" enough to work as a corporate drone.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. Freedom is not worth having if... by rvw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.

    It's not my quote, but Ghandi's, and it perfectly fits the current digital age. It's not the things that go well and without effort that make you, but it's the mistakes that make a difference, if you learn from them at least. And if you don't, well they make a difference as well of course, but not for the better.

    On the other hand, online mistakes maybe follow you along. If you can handle them at a later age, it might be no different than now. Pictures are another thing however. They make an impression that is not easily forgotten.

  4. Schmidt Borg needed by anthony_greer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bill Gates and to a large extent MS is now harmless, I propose Slashdot make Schmidt and/or a google logo the new Borge story icon...

  5. 2 way street by anthony_greer · · Score: 2

    The people doing the hiring probably did something stupid as kids or in college, and given a few years, the kids doing job searches now will b hiring managers and HR people and the system will learn to adapt and what to ignore and what to take seriously...everybody fucks up once in a while but we just put our dirty laundry on youtube now.

    1. Re:2 way street by Hentes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I fear it may even be the opposite: applicants for whom a Google search doesn't return every detail of their lives will be labeled too antisocial for the job.

  6. ..but it's the same for everyone by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so nobody will give a crap about "minor" stuff in 10 years. it's crap overload.

    nobody gives a crap about pamela anderson sex vid even now, mind you. that's not what defines her.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:..but it's the same for everyone by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so nobody will give a crap about "minor" stuff in 10 years. it's crap overload.

      The world will not. But individuals will.

      Imagine meeting your dream partner, the perfect girl/guy. And then losing her because of something stupid you did 10 years before, something you yourself had forgotten, but since there's a record of everything, someone who didn't like you dug it up and sent it to her.

      (and don't tell me your perfect partner wouldn't judge you based on something so long ago, I intentionally left it open what it could've been.)

      There's a reason that even criminal records get cleaned after some time. Both psychologists and neurologists have found how important forgetting is to the human mind. And sociologists know how important it is to a society.

      Everything memorized for all times isn't a dream, it's a nightmare. Not because of any small cultural thing that'll just have to change, but because of fundamental human factors that don't change as easily or quickly as technology does.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:..but it's the same for everyone by stenvar · · Score: 2

      Anonymity and forgetting are relatively new inventions. When people were living in small groups or villages, mistakes did follow you a lifetime.

    3. Re:..but it's the same for everyone by Tom · · Score: 2

      But they were subject to human memory and limited record-keeping. And thus, to a kind of "gossip evolution". Minor stuff would be forgotten, important stuff remembered. And memory is not a very good recording device. Memory is constantly adjusted, memories years old keep changing in your mind, just so slowly that you never notice. There's some really fascinating research into this area.

      What does that mean for your village? It means that if you made a big mistake 10 years ago, but then after that came around and became a really positive member of the community, the memory of your mistake will change within people's minds. It can and will change to the point where it has little connect with what really happened.

      This, btw., is why people like Gates or Rockefeller turn towards philanthropy in their later lives, and why it works if you do it that way, but doesn't if you simply leave all your money to charity at your death.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  7. In other news: by dicobalt · · Score: 2

    Everyone is expected to be perfect all of the time.

  8. Thankfully, Facebook is on the way out.... by gatkinso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...at least judging by the admittedly small pool of middle schoolers that my kids are friends with.

    They flat out think it is stupid, and for old people. Don't know any high schoolers except for the former baby sitter - she seemed to indicate that high school kids were only using Facebook due to peer pressure.

    While highly unscientific, *if* this is a general trend it does not indicate a long term growth path for Facebook in their current incarnation. I guess at that point they simply drop the social networking facade for their data collection activities and reveal themselves to be the massive advertising targeting and analytics firm that they really are, plus they start to sell off the impressive portfolio of technology they have developed (which alone is worth billions).

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Thankfully, Facebook is on the way out.... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The switch. It's happened before - remember Myspace? It's a ghost town now.

      The time isn't right just yet, but give it a few more years and facebook may follow, as a new network rises in its place.

    2. Re:Thankfully, Facebook is on the way out.... by ebno-10db · · Score: 5, Interesting

      FWIW my coworker says the same thing about his teenagers. May Facebook and all this other social media crap die out. It's especially odd with teenagers, who normally see their friends every school day. Hint to nerds: girls are actually more fun in person.

    3. Re:Thankfully, Facebook is on the way out.... by excelsior_gr · · Score: 2

      girls are actually more fun in person.

      That's a common myth.

  9. Actually by lightknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, this might be a good thing. See, up until now, human beings have engaged repeatedly in trying to cover up their mistakes; this would not be such an issue if it did not require making more mistakes.

    By allowing for a more accurate record of mistakes, society will be forced to evolve beyond its current idiotic game of 'hide the sin, then seize the moral high ground' which many of its officers currently engage in. The only potential problem are the paranoid powerful ones who think ghosts are chasing them seeking vengeance for their past actions -> they're the ones likely to set a match to civilization to try and burn any copies of their past mistakes. "Though no one is chasing them, they still run."

    But then, the human ego is a delicate thing, and much of humanity has evolved to be a social species...like coral....so the thought of the scrutiny of the world, tempered like a blade, suddenly thrust upon a single person, is perhaps too much to bear.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  10. This... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Kids of today will simply grow up to hold the attitude that literally everyone has made mistakes in their past, especially so while young, and most things a person did won't be held against them.

    Everyone already considers mistakes done as a toddler irrelevant, and most do so for mistakes done as a preteen as well.
    This will just push the age limit for acceptability of "sins of youth" further.

    At the same time, it will shine some light on what we as a society are willing to forgive and forget on account of "being young and crazy".
    My guess... Drinking, drugs, questionable fashion choices in the form of tattoos and piercings... maybe even some small crimes like shoplifting.
    On the other hand, serious crimes probably won't be so easily forgiven.

    But the most fun bit to watch will be what happens to the cases where one's old beliefs, ideas and words are brought back years later.
    Will it be OK for a young boy/man to join a radical group based on some rather violent ideas he, as an angry teenager, believes to be true, and later realizing how nonsensical it all was to just move on - or will he have no other choice but to stick with that crowd his entire life as it's the only group that will accept him?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:This... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It will be interesting to see what happens to Paris Brown. In case you don't know she was given the job of Youth Crime Commissioner at 17 but then forced out of it for comments she posted on Twitter between the ages of 14 and 16. Apparently one year isn't long enough for such actions to be considered in the past.

      Thing is anyone who Google's her in the future will instantly be reminded of this incident and presented with hate-mongering articles from the Daily Mail talking about what a horrible, racist, homophobic drug abuser she is.

      Consider that 15 years ago the Daily Mail didn't put its hate filled rants on the internet so a year or two later everyone would probably have forgotten about her and any potential employer would have a hard time finding out about it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:This... by russotto · · Score: 2

      Will it be OK for a young boy/man to join a radical group based on some rather violent ideas he, as an angry teenager, believes to be true, and later realizing how nonsensical it all was to just move on - or will he have no other choice but to stick with that crowd his entire life as it's the only group that will accept him?

      Oh, we passed that line before the Internet was formed. Stop me if this is sounding familiar: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of..."
      Two endings to it, "the Communist party?" and the still-asked "any group that advocates the violent overthrow of the United States Government?"

      Shoplifting, BTW, is not forgiven. If you shoplifted at 18, you can't work in a bank when you're 58. That's by Federal law, and quite a few bank employees have been dismissed as a result since it was put into effect.

    3. Re:This... by stenvar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Paris Brown? A "youth ambassador" paid £25,000/y let go for saying un-PC things? Seems like political correctness eating its own children.

    4. Re:This... by stretch0611 · · Score: 2

      I do believe that mistakes in the past should be looked at more as learning issues, and I am tolerant to people's different choices.

      However, Let me play devil's advocate, because while some things online will blow over, at a certain point they will make a difference. Also, I definitely see younger people need to learn about TMI when it comes to their online selves...

      Drinking, drugs, questionable fashion choices in the form of tattoos and piercings...

      Personally, I do not have a problem with any of these. While I have done these in my past, (except the tattoos and piercing) and I still drink (but no longer to excess) They can now and in the future cost you a job; even at a future "young person" company. It is one thing to hire some of these people in the IT industry that most /.'ers are familiar with, but there are only so many jobs there and not everyone can do that work. How many businesses will be willing to hire someone with multiple tattoos that can not be covered up or facial piercings (e.g. nose rings, lip and brow piercing, etc.) Many will need to be in sales, and trust me, even young companies (especially young growing companies) are not willing to alienate their customers especially if they need to sell to the conservative "will somebody think of the children" crowd.

      Sometimes they will just be needed to meet with clients. Even as a developer, I have needed to do this... One ex-employer specifically told me (after I was hired) that after technical interviews I was essentially hired, and the face to face interview was only to prove that I "clean cut." If I had tats, noticeable piercing, or even body odor, it would have killed the deal. The fact is if you meet with clients you represent the company, and they want a professional image.

      Remember, the professional image is more than skin deep. If a client or customer loses your business card and/or contact information, they may google your name to try to find it. (or may do this just because they can...) If they do not like what they see, they will contact the business owner, and you will be forced to work on a different account, or if there is not enough work, you will be let go. You are only employed to bring value to a company. If you can do this or if others do it much better, do not expect to be employed very long.

      some small crimes like shoplifting. On the other hand, serious crimes probably won't be so easily forgiven.

      There is a fine line here... Just how many businesses do you think will forgive shoplifting? It is a form of theft, and even though it is one of the most minor form of theft, many businesses will think that if you stole in the past, you may steal again, and they don't want it to happen to them. Recently, there was a local news report about police departments not being able to find qualified candidates. Part of the story specifically mentioned that candidates had to have a clean credit history and that disqualified a large percentage of applicants. While I personally think this is going too far with the recent economic collapse, what other small crimes do you think will stop people from a job?

      what happens to the cases where one's old beliefs, ideas and words are brought back years later.

      This is very true... Especially if unemployment remains higher than normal, this can always come back to haunt you. Many companies will not give you a reason why they will not hire you. If it is a market favorable to the businesses with many more applicants than positions you will never know why. It could be something you post including religious views, sexism, racism, ageism, a single photo of alcohol, who knows... It may even be a medical condition.(and they don't want to pay the premiums or deal with you missing work.) Many of this is illegal depending on which state you live in, but you will never know what it is and your guess is hardly the proof you need in order to sue a company. (And most smalle

      --
      Looking for a job?
      Want your resume written professionally?
      DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
  11. Common names have an advantage by Hrrrg · · Score: 2

    As a parent, this has been my concern for some time. My wife and I have decided never to refer to our daughter by her real name online. We never post photos of her anywhere. As she grows older, we are going to teach her to minimize her online presence and warn her that future employers or colleges may request her passwords to various social media sites to learn more about her. However, you cannot completely control what other people post about you. In fact, if you post nothing about yourself online, then what other people post may have a disproportionate impact. However, it seems to me that people who have a common name (ie John Smith) will have an advantage over other people. This leads me to believe that, in the future, a lot of people will be changing their names to something more common to restore some of their privacy.

  12. People Change and Anonymity can be Good by Gim+Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back when the Internet was a new thing, I remember the cartoon of the dogs on a computer with the caption, On the Internet, no one knows you are a dog.

    Unfortunately, this is not true any more. The hive mind of the Internet never seems to forget and this may have consequences we can not even imagine yet. I am now in my mid sixties and have seen the world change from where the mistakes of youth did not come back to haunt you in latter life. I doubt that this will be true for anyone growing up now.

    One of the things not often appreciated is just how much my country, The United States, owes to people who came here in order to leave their past behind and start over. Even in our country, until very recently, it was possible to begin anew and leave the past behind. Yes, there were some negative aspects of this. I am sure that there are unsolved crimes committed by the ones that "got away". One of the popular genres of TV shows is that of solving cold cases. However, the benefit of being able to "start over" seems to outweigh the risk of those that get away. Even in law there are Statute of Limitations for most crimes and sometimes I think the Internet needs a statute of limitations on how long it "remembers" some things.

    Making mistakes is a part of learning and growing up. A person in their teens is not the same person in their late twenties, and by the time they are in their fifties or beyond they have probably changed again. Giving people the room and freedom to grow and start over is as important to society as almost anything.

    As the engineers I used to work with often said about a failed rocket launch, "we learn the most from our mistakes - they blow up."

    For those of us who worked on some of the old "Big Iron" mainframe systems we can remember that most forms of storage required specifying a retention date or retention period. After which time the data would be deleted. If one needed the data the owner could change the date before it was deleted. I think that some sort of retention period should be applied to all social media sites, and other sites that hold personal information. Perhaps we should start a Give the Internet Amnesia movement!

  13. Discrimination vs. "character-forming" ... by MacTO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bad experiences can be character-forming, but character forming goes both ways.

    Employers look at a person's history while hiring. A person with a clear history or a history of positive contributions is going to have a leg up when it comes to securing employment. A person which has a history of negative decisions is going to have less success securing employment.

    Making everyone's life an open book doesn't solve that problem because it is based upon a bunch of false premisses. It is based upon the make-believe notion that everyone makes mistakes, and the fictional notion that everyone makes similar types of mistakes.

    First of all, some people make far fewer mistakes than other people. A person who studied hard in college is probably going to frown upon a person who partied hard in college. A person who steered clear of drugs is probably going to look down upon a person who got sucked in by drugs. Even if the person who made irresponsible decisions turned their life around, the person who demonstrated responsibility throughout their life may still hold a dim view of them.

    Even if people made mistakes in similar quantities, different types of mistakes have different social stigmas. A teenager caught DUI may be branded, but a lot of people will overlook that 10 years down the road because a lot of teenagers do stupid things. If that teenager killed a person while DUI they will be branded for life. Same mistake, different outcome, different social stigma. Don't think that stuff like that is posted online? Think again. People post videos of assaults and rapes online then harass the victim over it (a teen in my area recently killed herself because of that).

    So yeah, posting mistakes online is an issue.

  14. A more likely outcome by tlambert · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The people doing the hiring probably did something stupid as kids or in college, and given a few years, the kids doing job searches now will b hiring managers and HR people and the system will learn to adapt and what to ignore and what to take seriously...everybody fucks up once in a while but we just put our dirty laundry on youtube now.

    A more likely outcome is that upper echelon positions would be recruited from socially conservative groups who are not only socially conservative in public, but also socially conservative in private.

    These could be ex-employees or early retirement employees of agencies known for strongly vetting their employees backgrounds. For example, there's a reason that the CIA and FBI tend to disproportionately recruit from socially conservative groups like the LDS church. The primary reason for this is they don't want anything in their employees past that the agency or the employees family doesn't already know about being potentially used as leverage and.or blackmail material which could then be used to compromise the agency.

    After the scandals of prior years, it's no error that Sharlene Wells was crowned Miss America in 1985 to have at least term of someone socially conservative enough to avoid causing a new scandal before the pageant repaired its ailing reputation from the Vanessa Williams scandal of 1984. They wanted a "Good Mormon Girl" who wouldn't make waves.

    Make a mistake as a teen, and you could find yourself barred from the upper reached of money-based power, especially if you compound the mistake by recording it in publicly visible social media.

    1. Re:A more likely outcome by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Not quite sure why hiring from a heterodox offshoot that both the catholic protestant church consider a heretical cult and in the recent past was involved in armed insurrection against the state is a good idea for sensitive posts.

      The Catholics and Protestants believe each other to be heterodox relative to each other. It's difficult to classify the LDS church as a cult, as they have survived more than a generation past the death of their charismatic leader, without also classifying any follower of a faith that at one point had a charismatic leader as a cult. No idea what you are talking about on the armed insurrection comment, so I'll say "citation needed".

      http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/gov.htm
      http://www.businessinsider.com/11-surprising-things-you-didnt-know-about-mormons-2011-6?op=1

      You should also consider that the vast majority of the US military is recruited from "red states", and three letter agencies also tend to recruit from ex military.

      I generally don't believe that respect for authority is always a good thing, But couple that with an abstinence from drugs, alcohol, and in the more devout, even caffeine done for religious reasons, along with foreign language skills from foreign missions on behalf of the LDS church, also for religious reasons, and you'd have a hard time coming up with a better recruiting pool for three letter government agencies.

  15. misconception by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

    Like so many, he is mistaking "anyone" for "everyone".

    I have tons of things I don't want everyone to know, though I don't mind of some specific people do.

    We all have.

    And then there's degrees. I don't mind telling people about some of the mistakes I made. I don't see why I should go into the details. I don't make a secret of who I'm with or who I've been with, but I wouldn't want to have a list published somewhere. I'm sure even Schmidt or Zuckerberg don't want videos of their last night of sex online for the world to see, even though they'll probably have no problem saying that they've had sex that night on public TV. But there are degrees of disclosure and privacy.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  16. Why doe snayone care what Eric Schmidt thinks? by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can someone tell me? He didn't invent Google and while there he didn't invent squat at Google He was brought on ONLY because the VC behind Google insisted that Larry and Serge could not act as CEOs for Google when it was starting. Larry and Serge then went through a long list of candidates, rejecting them all, because they're, you know souless suits. Finally they took on Schmidt because time was running out and they had to take on someone. Before that, Schmidt had been a typical middle manager of no distinction.

    While at Google Schmidt's main concern was to tell his longtime wife they were now in an open marriage and start dating hot girls with drug problems for whom he paid for drug rehab and jetting around to Burning Man and generally getting a second crack at being the cool kid everyone wanted to hang out with in high school. . When he wasn't thus engaged, he was saying things which Google had to back peddle on and which indicated that Schmidt was a shallow, coarse, unintelligent asshole.

    So why when her talks does anyone care? He's a vacant careerist of no distinction and less character who through a stroke of enormous good luck fell very far upwards in life.

    It's all publicly available information and anyone who knows the history of Google from just the popular press knows it's all true, never mind people who know the back story to all of the above who we can presume can't stand the site of the guy.

    Please, Slashdot, no more Eric Schmidt said "blah" stories, OK?

    1. Re:Why doe snayone care what Eric Schmidt thinks? by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Why does ayone care what Eric Schmidt thinks?

      Because he was CEO and is still executive chairman of Google. Soulless suit or not, that gives him a lot of influence and what he says gets a lot of publicity, even outside of Slashdot.

    2. Re:Why doe snayone care what Eric Schmidt thinks? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      I ungenerously assumed he might have been the guy who wrote the docs, but that was a bad assumption:

      14. Acknowledgments.
      As should be obvious from the above, the outside of Lex is patterned on Yacc and the inside on Aho's string matching routines. Therefore, both S. C. Johnson and A. V. Aho are really originators of much of Lex, as well as debuggers of it. Many thanks are due to both.

      The code of the current version of Lex was designed, written, and debugged by Eric Schmidt.

      I watched the debate between Schmidt and Thiel, and he came off as a reasonable, fairly sharp fellow, perhaps with some of the sharper parts rounded over by experience. With that kind of experience and his successful stint at Google, I'm unlikely to dismiss his insights out of hand. To do so would be to assume that my experience and insights are superior to his, and I have no basis to make such an assumption, and a fair degree of data to show that I probably ought to carefully scrutinize what he has to say before dismissing it. Teenage basement-dwellers, take note and mind the hubris.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Why doe snayone care what Eric Schmidt thinks? by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

      Come on Bill. What you're seeing is something I call the Charlie Rose Effect whereby people get on a stage, literally have a spotlight shone on them, sit relaxed with their top shirt button undone, have the whole thing MC'ed and field Questions Asked By The Audience suddenly come off as wise.

      This is a game society plays with itself, because there are millions of content mills who need content - at universities, conferences, on TV and the internet- and a millions of people who want that spotlight and because we have a need to believe.

      Eric Schmidt is less intelligent and insightful than literally billions of people on almost every topic you can name; my grad student roommate is more interesting and insightful across a wide swath of worldy things than he has ever been on, like, rolling basis.

      He is less interesting than virtually any random TED presenter, himself excepted. He is less intelligent than most grad students. He is radically underachieved along interestingness / insightfulness dimensions given the decades of unique access he's had to the world's coolest stuff, information and personalities.

      His job description now as it has been for a long time, is merely to talk to interesting people doing interesting things and still one has to wring the Eric Schmidt sponge nearly dry to get even a single utterance that is arguably thought provoking.

      Some schmucky guy with the World's Luckiest Resume on stage holding forth on The Future of The Future and an audience listening intently is an optical illusion of sorts. Don't believe what your eyes are telling you.