I should add that Congress stuck down one bill that would have made it illegal back in March 2012, but another such bill was introduced shortly after that.
Okay, take "many" with a grain of salt. So far, as far as I know, they are Illinois, Maryland, and now Michigan. But other states are poised to do it, too (Connecticut is just one of many), and there is currently a bill before Congress to outlaw the practice, too.
"The parent was replying to a post that mentioned the porn industry, or jobs serving alcohol. I think the quoted bit was meant to cover those specific situations, where yes you can be asked if you are legally able to work in those categories."
I see. But it's still mostly state-specific. You can't sign a contract if you're under 18, so you can't be in porn anyway. As for serving alcohol, where I live you don't have to be 21 to just be a server (although you do to be a bartender).
"That depends there is a consenting party to that conversation:"
It also depends on what state you are in. Only twelve states (according to that Wikipedia article) have all-party consent laws. A sad minority, if you ask me. I think "one-party consent" is a completely ridiculous standard.
"You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning and use it as evidence..."
In many states you can do exactly that: only one party (that would be you here) has to consent to the recording. In fact, and unfortunately, I think the majority of states have this ridiculous law.
"... but guess what, past a thousand feet above your property or whatever the hell it is, you don't own a damn thing so say cheese and see you in court."
Again it depends on the state. I know of at least one state in which any measures taken in order to see what's on a property beyond what can be seen by a casual passerby can be considered "illegal surveillance", and can only be done with a judicial warrant.
So, if I were a resident of that state, theoretically you could stand on a ladder to talk to me over the back fence, but you could not stand on a ladder in order to SEE over my back fence. The same applies to drones, civilian and law enforcement... even if they are not OVER the property in question. The only thing that matters is that they are where they are IN ORDER TO see onto that property.
Of course, intent can sometimes be hard to prove, so these issues have to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
"How nice to be in a position to storm out of job interviews. Some people have it a little tougher than that these days."
I've done it, even when I was pretty desperate for work, during the recession started in 2001. For different reasons than this, but that still had to do with personal privacy.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. In a nutshell, it prohibits asking for credentials to private accounts that are not (A) provided by the employer or institution, or (B) paid for by the institution. With the exception of legitimate investigations into employee misconduct (e.g., publishing confidential company information) via said private account.
"This is outright illegal in my country. Don't you Americans have any basic right to privacy? "
There is no Federal law, but many states have outlawed the practice, and I believe many more will.
Keep in mind that in the U.S. there is a division between what the states can legally do vs. what the Federal government can legally do.
Having said that: yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we do in fact have a right to privacy. But you would not know that, looking at certain recent acts of Congress.
No, they can't, unless being a certain age is a demonstrable job requirement. And there aren't many fields in which it's a legitimate job requirement. They can ask if you are of legal age to sign a contract. Not much more than that.
"Employers can NOT ask how old you are? Seems that would matter in some jobs. Porno industry would be one. Any job that serves or sells alcohol."
This is one of the questions that are in a short list of things an employer may NOT ask when interviewing, according to Federal discrimination laws.
However, these rules don't apply when the factor at issue is a demonstrable requirement of the job. Then they aren't discriminating! So your porno example would never occur in the real world.
Another example: in order to be a firefighter, it is legitimate to require that they can carry a certain minimum amount of weight. That's not discriminating against women or small people; it's simply a requirement of the job.
That date of birth thing got me, though, too: it seems to me that it is de facto asking how old you are, so I am pretty sure they can't legally ask that on application papers or in an interview.
"... it's the idea of wringing every last cent out at any cost - no matter how despicable or ethically challenged your methods prove to be..."
I agree here, too. I don't have a problem with newspapers wanting to maximize their profits... after all, they are businesses. What I have a problem with is when they attempt to maximize profits at the expense of their own users' freedom and privacy.
I totally agree that when ads get intrusive and irritating, it automatically becomes an ad for a product I will not buy. Unless it is something I already buy, in which case I will start to look for alternatives.
"Is _not_ that the typical licensed driver (which, let's face it, is all but equivalent to the typical adult) is incompetent ?"
Correct. I wrote (and implied) nothing about drivers. My point was that states (at least those I have knowledge of) has not proven competent to judge them.
"Your dissonance is staggering, yet unsurprising. You apparently argue the same people who incapable of driving a car should be allowed to own and operate deadly weapons without even the most basic forms of regulation and control around access, competency and storage."
Huh?
What is staggering is your apparent total lack of reading comprehension.
My point was that government was already regulating "speech" of corporations every which way from Sunday, so for SCOTUS to rule they had a "right to free speech" is just plain asinine.
Since when does anybody or anything in this country other than people have "rights"?
"The "free speech" card is so abused nowadays that it will soon lose any meaning."
It never had any meaning. Corporations are not people. Hell, government has been regulating the supposed "right" of corporate speech all over the place for many years. Which makes that recent Supreme Court decision about campaign contributions nothing short of ludicrous. A clown show.
"that IR 4 is robotics. Not that robotics are a continuation of IT."
I disagree. That is to say, I think robotics will be one part of it. But only a part.
Here is where I see revolutions happening today:
(1) Robotics. Just to get this one out of the way. But to those who say "AI", I would say bollocks. We have learned how to make robots much better, and more efficient and effective, but in my opinion that has only served to illustrate that all these tasks are possible without what most people thought of as "AI" two decades ago. They are almost invariably specific-task-oriented and dumb as posts. There is still little or no "AI" in the classical sense of some kind of general intelligence.
(2) Medicine. I have been reading some of the journals and some of the new stuff is nothing short of amazing. And it keeps on coming.
(3) Biology and genetics. Do I really have to elaborate on this one? But we should proceed carefully. There is possibility of disaster if things are not handled responsibly.
(4) Physics. I think past the Higgs we will learn a few new principles, and open up some new areas of technology.
There are more. But I think at least these 4 will be involved in the next "revolution", which I argue is still largely on its way, not "past" at all.
"Yet such resistance to open up data on it. These are legal guns and these maps allow prospective homeowners to know which neighborhoods are "safer" (one way or the other). Leave it up."
Your premise is completely ridiculous.
When "the public" knows who has guns and who does not, what you have accomplished is making society and those neighborhoods FAR LESS SAFE. This should be obvious to any thinking person.
Let's say hypothetically that you're a burglar. You steal from homes to support your drug habit. Guess what? Now you have a ready-made ROADMAP showing you what houses to avoid... and which homes are safe to enter so you can steal from and terrorize the occupants with impunity.
For firearms to be an effective deterrent to crime (which they are, in most parts of the U.S.), one must be left to guess who is armed and who is not. The kind of law that makes this public information defeats the whole purpose. It tells the criminals right where the easy pickings are, and where, alternatively, they stand a chance of getting shot. Guess where they are going to go? Straight into your "safe" neighborhood with no guns. And that isn't mere speculation. That's what actually happens. Interviews with imprisoned felons over a period of decades have shown one thing very clearly: if they think the occupants of a home are armed, they are afraid to enter.
I mean really: this is absolutely ludicrous. Statistically, you are MUCH safer with an armed neighbor than you are without. If anybody tries to tell you otherwise, either they haven't done their homework or they are just plain lying.
To other posters who compared this to Social Security cards and the like: keep in mind that this is a State law. And one of the reasons I would never live in that state.
The Supreme Court ruled long ago that citizens had a RIGHT to travel within and between states using common modes of transportation. The ruling stated that the right was based on English Common Law predating the Constitution, and that it was considered so obvious at the time that the Founders did not feel the need to spell it out explicitly in the Constitution.
So regardless of whether it says so in the Constitution, SCOTUS has ruled that you do have that right.
Remember, according to that document itself: items that are NOT enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States, and to The People. And SCOTUS has ruled that this is one for The People.
Slashdot Mirror
I should add that Congress stuck down one bill that would have made it illegal back in March 2012, but another such bill was introduced shortly after that.
Okay, take "many" with a grain of salt. So far, as far as I know, they are Illinois, Maryland, and now Michigan. But other states are poised to do it, too (Connecticut is just one of many), and there is currently a bill before Congress to outlaw the practice, too.
"The parent was replying to a post that mentioned the porn industry, or jobs serving alcohol. I think the quoted bit was meant to cover those specific situations, where yes you can be asked if you are legally able to work in those categories."
I see. But it's still mostly state-specific. You can't sign a contract if you're under 18, so you can't be in porn anyway. As for serving alcohol, where I live you don't have to be 21 to just be a server (although you do to be a bartender).
"That depends there is a consenting party to that conversation:"
It also depends on what state you are in. Only twelve states (according to that Wikipedia article) have all-party consent laws. A sad minority, if you ask me. I think "one-party consent" is a completely ridiculous standard.
"You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning and use it as evidence..."
In many states you can do exactly that: only one party (that would be you here) has to consent to the recording. In fact, and unfortunately, I think the majority of states have this ridiculous law.
"... but guess what, past a thousand feet above your property or whatever the hell it is, you don't own a damn thing so say cheese and see you in court."
Again it depends on the state. I know of at least one state in which any measures taken in order to see what's on a property beyond what can be seen by a casual passerby can be considered "illegal surveillance", and can only be done with a judicial warrant.
So, if I were a resident of that state, theoretically you could stand on a ladder to talk to me over the back fence, but you could not stand on a ladder in order to SEE over my back fence. The same applies to drones, civilian and law enforcement... even if they are not OVER the property in question. The only thing that matters is that they are where they are IN ORDER TO see onto that property.
Of course, intent can sometimes be hard to prove, so these issues have to be taken on a case-by-case basis.
Anybody who put those on their application forms these days is just asking to be sued.
"How nice to be in a position to storm out of job interviews. Some people have it a little tougher than that these days."
I've done it, even when I was pretty desperate for work, during the recession started in 2001. For different reasons than this, but that still had to do with personal privacy.
I'd do it for this reason, too.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. In a nutshell, it prohibits asking for credentials to private accounts that are not (A) provided by the employer or institution, or (B) paid for by the institution. With the exception of legitimate investigations into employee misconduct (e.g., publishing confidential company information) via said private account.
I don't see much that is objectionable.
"... unless those accounts are owned by a company or an educational institution."
I believe by "owned" is meant "he account holder". Let's hope the actual language of the law is not that ambiguous.
"This is outright illegal in my country. Don't you Americans have any basic right to privacy? "
There is no Federal law, but many states have outlawed the practice, and I believe many more will.
Keep in mind that in the U.S. there is a division between what the states can legally do vs. what the Federal government can legally do.
Having said that: yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we do in fact have a right to privacy. But you would not know that, looking at certain recent acts of Congress.
"They can ask if you are over an age."
No, they can't, unless being a certain age is a demonstrable job requirement. And there aren't many fields in which it's a legitimate job requirement. They can ask if you are of legal age to sign a contract. Not much more than that.
"Employers can NOT ask how old you are? Seems that would matter in some jobs. Porno industry would be one. Any job that serves or sells alcohol."
This is one of the questions that are in a short list of things an employer may NOT ask when interviewing, according to Federal discrimination laws.
However, these rules don't apply when the factor at issue is a demonstrable requirement of the job. Then they aren't discriminating! So your porno example would never occur in the real world.
Another example: in order to be a firefighter, it is legitimate to require that they can carry a certain minimum amount of weight. That's not discriminating against women or small people; it's simply a requirement of the job.
That date of birth thing got me, though, too: it seems to me that it is de facto asking how old you are, so I am pretty sure they can't legally ask that on application papers or in an interview.
"You can be sure that 9 times out of 10, the job will go to the guy/gal who does hand over the info."
Who cares? If they ask me for something like that, they're not somebody I'd work for anyway!
"... it's the idea of wringing every last cent out at any cost - no matter how despicable or ethically challenged your methods prove to be..."
I agree here, too. I don't have a problem with newspapers wanting to maximize their profits... after all, they are businesses. What I have a problem with is when they attempt to maximize profits at the expense of their own users' freedom and privacy.
I totally agree that when ads get intrusive and irritating, it automatically becomes an ad for a product I will not buy. Unless it is something I already buy, in which case I will start to look for alternatives.
"Is _not_ that the typical licensed driver (which, let's face it, is all but equivalent to the typical adult) is incompetent ?"
Correct. I wrote (and implied) nothing about drivers. My point was that states (at least those I have knowledge of) has not proven competent to judge them.
"Your dissonance is staggering, yet unsurprising. You apparently argue the same people who incapable of driving a car should be allowed to own and operate deadly weapons without even the most basic forms of regulation and control around access, competency and storage."
Huh?
What is staggering is your apparent total lack of reading comprehension.
Who are you replying to? If it was me, why? You have done nothing but agree with me.
I think maybe you should go back and read again, and figure out what I was really saying.
My point was that government was already regulating "speech" of corporations every which way from Sunday, so for SCOTUS to rule they had a "right to free speech" is just plain asinine.
Since when does anybody or anything in this country other than people have "rights"?
Two good points. I am a bit unsure about the "3D Printing", however. Unless quality goes up and prices come down. Which they probably will do.
"The "free speech" card is so abused nowadays that it will soon lose any meaning."
It never had any meaning. Corporations are not people. Hell, government has been regulating the supposed "right" of corporate speech all over the place for many years. Which makes that recent Supreme Court decision about campaign contributions nothing short of ludicrous. A clown show.
"that IR 4 is robotics. Not that robotics are a continuation of IT."
I disagree. That is to say, I think robotics will be one part of it. But only a part.
Here is where I see revolutions happening today:
(1) Robotics. Just to get this one out of the way. But to those who say "AI", I would say bollocks. We have learned how to make robots much better, and more efficient and effective, but in my opinion that has only served to illustrate that all these tasks are possible without what most people thought of as "AI" two decades ago. They are almost invariably specific-task-oriented and dumb as posts. There is still little or no "AI" in the classical sense of some kind of general intelligence.
(2) Medicine. I have been reading some of the journals and some of the new stuff is nothing short of amazing. And it keeps on coming.
(3) Biology and genetics. Do I really have to elaborate on this one? But we should proceed carefully. There is possibility of disaster if things are not handled responsibly.
(4) Physics. I think past the Higgs we will learn a few new principles, and open up some new areas of technology.
There are more. But I think at least these 4 will be involved in the next "revolution", which I argue is still largely on its way, not "past" at all.
"Sheep train sounding louder, Glide on the sheep train..." -- Fat Stevens
"Yet such resistance to open up data on it. These are legal guns and these maps allow prospective homeowners to know which neighborhoods are "safer" (one way or the other). Leave it up."
Your premise is completely ridiculous.
When "the public" knows who has guns and who does not, what you have accomplished is making society and those neighborhoods FAR LESS SAFE. This should be obvious to any thinking person.
Let's say hypothetically that you're a burglar. You steal from homes to support your drug habit. Guess what? Now you have a ready-made ROADMAP showing you what houses to avoid... and which homes are safe to enter so you can steal from and terrorize the occupants with impunity.
For firearms to be an effective deterrent to crime (which they are, in most parts of the U.S.), one must be left to guess who is armed and who is not. The kind of law that makes this public information defeats the whole purpose. It tells the criminals right where the easy pickings are, and where, alternatively, they stand a chance of getting shot. Guess where they are going to go? Straight into your "safe" neighborhood with no guns. And that isn't mere speculation. That's what actually happens. Interviews with imprisoned felons over a period of decades have shown one thing very clearly: if they think the occupants of a home are armed, they are afraid to enter.
I mean really: this is absolutely ludicrous. Statistically, you are MUCH safer with an armed neighbor than you are without. If anybody tries to tell you otherwise, either they haven't done their homework or they are just plain lying.
To other posters who compared this to Social Security cards and the like: keep in mind that this is a State law. And one of the reasons I would never live in that state.
The Supreme Court ruled long ago that citizens had a RIGHT to travel within and between states using common modes of transportation. The ruling stated that the right was based on English Common Law predating the Constitution, and that it was considered so obvious at the time that the Founders did not feel the need to spell it out explicitly in the Constitution.
So regardless of whether it says so in the Constitution, SCOTUS has ruled that you do have that right.
Remember, according to that document itself: items that are NOT enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States, and to The People. And SCOTUS has ruled that this is one for The People.