From what you quote, it looks like this guy gets arrested every couple of years, but has only been convicted twice. I wouldn't tempt him by giving him administrative access to any computers. I would probably be willing to hire him as a cashier, but only if I had a surveillance system. As other posters have said, all other things being equal, the ex-con does not get hired and the good citizen (or good crook) does get the job.
Well... all things being considered, if there are two applicants equally qualified and one of them has a criminal record... I'd imagine the job would go to the guy without the criminal record.
But, I think the nature, frequency, and age of the offenses should be taken into account. That's my point. I do not believe, from my experience, current HR departments do that.
Some poor guy that held up a liquor store or committed check fraud 30 years ago is, and should be, a different case than a serial rapist / murderer released 3 weeks prior. I think you can see the logic in this, no?
Plus let's look at what is involved. Giving the guy access to the computers at a mom and pop shop isn't going to risk much. Giving him access to computers in a brokerage... that's a different ballpark.
However, I think the guy's attitude and manner would've had a lot to do with it. This guy isn't 18 or 20. He's 60 years old. I would've expected him to act with a little more decorum. Maybe make all their backgrounds some funny pr0n or something. *grin*
Seriously though, I'd have had to meet him. I might've hired him for admin work.
(They are culpable if they hire an ax-murderer just released from prison and he axifies some people.)
Why?
Because a violent offender might be expected to offend again in the same manner.
The corporation would bear civil responsibility due to negligence. This is why they do background checks.
In the case of an ax murderer being just released from prison, the corporation would have some significant and, most important legally, "reasonable" idea that this person might act in a way that would endanger other employees, clients, or pretty much anyone while on the job.
Putting employees at risk creates liability in any way that it is done. The risk is especially egregious if it could have been prevented (say a faulty saw without a hand guard, slippery steps, an unlit parking lot in a bad part of town, or (I dunno) hiring an ax murderer right out of prison).
Did you read your own post? charges against Duronio from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. That's a lifetime history of bad behavior. And burglary, although long ago, indicates a severe character defect.
I did read it. They were charges. Not convictions.
Burglary, when he was... 20 - 27ish might be chalked up to folly.
We have no evidence (in the article at least) that he was convicted of anything else other than those two and some tax deal (not listed as an evasion).
As for a character defect? I'm afraid I don't believe in character defects any more than I believe animalistic features are a sign of genetic inferiority.
He made a mistake 4 decades ago. It seems he hasn't repeated that. I'd say that to come from what sounds like a rocky start and land a good job as an IT guy at a good company shows strong character.
How about just stick with the existing version and don't upgrade?
I am currently, but because things change, I want to have a successor picked out before this one goes the way of the dinosaur.
I am also not putting it past bittorrent to 'tinker' with uTorrent and have it not connect to any other uTorrent client prior to their 'magic-so-gud-fer-u' version.
I am assuming that uTorrent is now a dead line (hence the keeping) and that the torrentsphere will continue to evolve.
I would like to take advantage of as much new-shiny-cool torrent goodness as evolves and therefore need a healthy client to latch on to.
So get writing, you lazy coders! Bucketfulls of money await you (apparently) if you create a good one!
There is no way they'd hire someone that qualified, focused, and driven to be the CEO. His butt will still be a janitor.
As for protecting your systems from bad acts, keep audit trails. Where necessary, have independent systems log all administrator activity, and make sure those logs get stored in a difficult-to-erase-without-raising-alarms location, like magnetic tape on a machine your admins don't control. Change the tape daily or more and never recycle.
Use the concept of least-privilage. Make sure admins have the tools to do the work they need to do, where they need to do it, when they need to do it, and no more. Critical systems should have multiple approvals required to effect changes.
And as for your thoughts on system security... hehe. I think you're pulling our eLegs(TM). No company has security like that. Nor will they ever. In 20 years I've never seen anything approaching the security you describe. Not anywhere. (Including EDS.)
The "let's do a half-assed job" premise will take effect 10 minutes after something like that began.
Even if it did, what would I do? There are thousands of ways to get around it.
The scary part about IT guys is... they're a LOT smarter than management or pretty much anyone else in the company and they're generally efficient as well. (The idea that IT guys are lazy is a damned lie.) The corporate culture has driven many of them to be paranoid to boot. (Witness the beauty that is the slashdot crowd.)
Computer systems are all crackable in direct proportion to the number of wetware interfaces with the access needed.
Corporate political stupidity will mandate a viable number. I cannot count the number of clients that I have wherein the owner or manager insists on having a domain admin account. Can't read email without it apparently.
There is no viable way to protect a corporation's computer networks from a (functional) IT guy inside in a viable manner.
You can limit the damage if you have multiple IT guys and make damned sure one of them is loyal to management. However, it is my experience that any management lackey IT guy is generally the stupid one that lied to get his job and is incompetent.
The fake pro-management IT guys generally cause more damage overall by stupidity and incompetence than a determined, berserk, and smart IT guy ever would.
Management is generally so threatened by someone towering over them in skill and ability that they have to treat the poor IT guy like complete crap to work through massive inferiority dissonance. The current corporate system is designed to insure IT disloyalty.
Actually, it's all about creating an environment of fear for the common consumer.
I agree here, but I don't think it does what they think it does... *grin*
Joe Sixpack's kids could care less what the RIAA does as they're out to "stick it to the man!" as much as they are getting free music. They can't work for a living and can't get this stuff any other way. They aren't likely to appreciate the possible ramifications of litigation, so it is ineffectual.
Mary Muffin, seeing some poor wretch that doesn't know a lick about computers hauled into court and broken over an obviously frivolous, possibly meritless, and certainly fruitless lawsuit isn't going to instill fear. It's going to piss her off... eventually.
Corey Computer just chuckles and goes about his work, confident that his comrades in arms at slashdot will shine one if by land and two if by sea if there is any troubles.
Grandma Givelte (? sorry. ran short of g-words on that one.) will be just plain confused and pretty much ignore the whole issue.
So the grand effect of all this is... they waste millions of their dollars on lawyers, get no where, make the kids (who will be consumers soon) think they're uncool, piss off the parents, amuse the techies, and fail to impact the older crowd.
Ask some older people sometime if they even know what the RIAA or MPAA is. They probably don't.
I asked a couple of kids. They know, but think it is a government agency or something.
Techies, like me, simply view them with the ill-disguised contempt they deserve... and continue about my business.
Yeah, and if you get out of prison only to find that nobody wants to hire an excon for anything better than washing dishes, what would you do?
Exactly what my psychology would demand: when under stress, we do the things with which we feel the most comfortable.
In this case it'd be going back to doing whatever made me money before. (most likely criminal.) I make this point about sexual offenders as well. (Although not about money.)
How would burglary and assault (um... 47 YEARS AGO) lead to logic bombs? (From the OP) How would this have helped?
From the article:
Using only publicly available information, Hershman found three incidents, including drug-related charges from 1980 and a tax violation, within 24 hours. Within three or four days, he says investigators found information on a conviction and incarceration from the early 1960s related to aggravated assault and burglary charges. A presentencing[sic] report from the Probation Office in U.S. District Court also lists charges against Duronio from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
So... basically, 27 years ago this guy had a drug case, and more than 40 years ago had an aggravated assault and burglary charge. From this they were supposed to deduce that this guy was going to logic bomb them?
Or, according to TFA and Hershman, this would've been enough for them not to hire him at all or just for computer work? He doesn't say. I've worked in firms that would refuse to hire you if you had anything on your record.
Please note here that Mr. Hershman sells this service and I am not so sure that he would be considered unbiased.
Here is some guy that would have been penalized for something he did 40 years ago?
Talk about 2nd class citizens. Do they understand that over 2% of the population is in prison and a considerable portion of people living today have been in prison or convicted of some offense at one point or another?
One of the engineers I hired had a drug conviction, but it was clear that she was recovering and this was a good opportunity for her. That was several years ago. Do I feel bad about that? Of course not.
I understand why companies feel the need to do criminal background checks to absolve themselves of a possible lawsuit. (They are culpable if they hire an ax-murderer just released from prison and he axifies some people.)
I believe that some of this is designed to find a chink to break down an employee so he/she will accept less in salary.
"Hmm... you have bad credit. Oh look, you also have some speeding tickets. Now, how much did you say you wanted for the privilege of working here?"
Criminal background checks should be used judiciously in sensitive positions. IT is probably one of those... but companies shouldn't just rubber-stamp anyone with a conviction a "no hire".
I agree fully. I've long thought that having all "sex offenders" grouped into one big group is preposterous if we're going to pretend to be a just nation of laws.
Do you know that someone that exposes themselves in public is considered a sex offender? How about some guy standing in his house when a lady next door uses her video camera to video tape the poor bastard and turns it into police? He's now branded for life in every conceivable way possible in the same boat as Jeffrey Dahmer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer/
There need to be a number of classes of sex offender. Some 18 year old that gets caught by the 15 year old's parents should not be in the same boat as a serial rapist! The idea is absurd.
Additionally, I know everyone wants to "save the childrens!" by passing these laws.
However, it is my contention that they make offenders more likely to offend. Why?
Right now, a sex offender has absolutely zero hope of fitting into society. Every stay-at-home soccer-mom with nothing else to do looks at these registers. According to the one in the area I live in, 23(!!) sex offenders live within a 5 block radius.
A soccer-mom would fly right out of her Keds at reading that and being to gather the pitchfork and torch crowd.
Closer inspection, however, would glean that 1/2 of them are of the 18 and got caught with a pre-legal crowd. No forced intent, nothing unwilling nor, in fact, unnatural.
Another large portion are the post 18, got caught with a younger person crowd. (The "victims" in this case were 15+.) While unseemly, this is still, in general, not unnatural.
Another sizable portion are the indecent exposure crowd. They might or might not be sex offenders. They might be victims of nosiness. (Admittedly most of them do, in fact, have a problem with exposing themselves. Additionally (and sadly), none in my area appear to be attractive females.)
4 are the sexual assault crowd. These are a little worse, and might escalate or not depending on if this was alcohol induced and the age at the time of the assault.
A very small portion (2) have records for aggravated sexual assault and rape.
1 has a record for true child molestation.
So these people are known to me to be "evil children molesters!" I must go throw rocks at their houses, right? Right?
It is at least a guarantee that their neighbors would be informed, and probably everyone on the street, the local schools, and just about everywhere else the "vigilantes" decided was good for the community.
They won't be able to get a job, as every place in general pulls both your credit history (why??) and criminal background before hiring you. You can guess what will happen if "sex offender" pops up. That'd be no hire.
So we have an impulse-impaired, maladjusted, unemployable person that gets pestered (probably) by parole officers, police, and well meaning hordes of citizens on a regular basis. What do you think this person is going to be driven to? Revenge.
Why do you think so many sex offenders try to move without informing police? Not (usually) because they are trying to escape prosecution, but because they're trying to live their lives without being constantly hounded. Remember, few "sex offenders" are actually what the public considers pedophiles.
Solutions?
Re-define sex-offender in existing laws to remove the obviously bad inclusions.
If we are going to keep the same registration and tracking ideas in place after re-definition, then we should either keep them locked up and never EVER let them out, or execute them.
Since it does no good to keep them locked up and we have decided that they are incurable (hence the registry), and it is expensive, I vote for the latter choice of killing them, if we are going to continue with the registry idea, as in my mind this will create almost 100% recidivism.
However, I realize that as a society, the USA does not have the political or moral willpower to do so.
I'm not a lawyer, but I sue and have been sued and am familiar (I believe) with the process.
One could and should be able to sue Choicepoint if one is denied a job because of this data if it is inaccurate or if they provided my information to someone that didn't need to have it and didn't have my authorization. (Barring government of course.)
I'd just have someone I knew that was a Choicepoint subscriber, with a duly signed form from me allowing such a thing, to submit a query. It seems like tenancy would be the way to go, as they pull everything (with no reason to do so in my opinion) and have dirt-level security. (I've worked in over a hundred complexes in the big city where I live. I assure you they have NO security.)
When the data is returned, I'd review it. If it were wrong, I'd file suit on Choicepoint and start discovery on every place at which I've rented and every job at which I had applied for years. All I care about is if they had used Choicepoint or not. I'd match the records retrieved from Choicepoint.
Then I would argue in court that Choicepoint had damaged me by providing false information that effected my life and damaged me substantially. I would argue that this is particularly flagrant given that Choicepoint will neither let me see nor correct this false information and is damaging me to this very day. Nor would they stop when asked. I'd ask for an injunction against them releasing this data to anyone. (Not that this would stop them from releasing it to the government.)
One of the problems with this approach is convincing the court that a) you have been damaged by not renting or not getting a job and b) that the Choicepoint data had something to do with it.
If the data was obtained without my consent, say a slimy bill collector company, I could sue them for providing sensitive information without my approval. That'd probably be an easier burden to show injury.
(Note: I would make an attempt (in fact, I'm writing the letter right now and send it registered mail, return receipt required) to contact them and review my records. Anything more than a full disclosure (*sigh* exempting my double-naught super-secret terrorist score) wouldn't fly with the court in all probability. If they coughed it up, my cause would be ended. If not, so much for the transparency they flaunt on their website's privacy policy. http://www.privacyatchoicepoint.com/)
Additionally, I imagine I would obtain ALL the people to which this information was provided for at least 10 years. If something popped up for which I did not authorize, I'd add that to the pile, stating that they are assisting data theft and I have no idea if my data had been compromised, nor had I authorized Choicepoint to release this data.
I would be interested to understand how Choicepoint can release this information without my express permission when other companies must obtain it. (They may be requesting signed forms, and if so, ok. If I signed and they can produce the signed forms.)
I would be interested to understand how they obtained all this data. Most of it is probably public record, so that'd be fine, but my credit reports probably are not. Did I sign something someplace that allowed this?
More speculation would be pointless without additional information, but I guess my point is... they are definitely not immune to being sued.
Finally, am I the only one bothered by the idea that: You (reader) might be, to a lesser or greater degree, a terrorist than I am, but you, nor I, may not be not a terrorist under this system? So it follows that everyone under this system is a terrorist by implication.
Since they refuse all data, I have to for safety's sake assume this is true, and the only real benefit this has (since it cannot be a deterrent as it cannot be known) is to provoke fear and control in the population?
The MP3 debate is near and dear to my heart and I've given it a lot of thought. So here is my 25 cents (inflation):
CD prices are not, as such, artificially inflated to an outrageous degree. However, they are IMO spending their money inefficiently.
A LOT of the money they collect for a CD has already been spent in marketing.
If we're going to point our fingers at them and say that they're bad people, we should do it because they're ramming (successfully) horrid music down people's throats.
If you listen to the music put out these days, you'd find that almost all of the songs from a given artist sound exactly alike. *cough* metalliwhiner *cough* or any of the other popular bands.
The reasoning behind this is simple: when mary-muffins goes to buy the latest CD, she is less than happy if all the music doesn't sound as good as the 1 or 2 tracks splattered across pay-for-playdio. (I don't like getting a CD for a single song and have the rest of the CD suck either.)
Mary-muffins would know good music if it hit her in the face, she is just never allowed to hear it. The current RIAA members are the gatekeepers. Remember (anyone?) mp3.com? I do.
I found over a dozen bands that never appear on the splaterworks. Small, little bands with unique sounds and really interesting songs.
CNET bought them and for some odd reason, destroyed the entire music catalog and the service. It no longer exists.
Song (as well as movie) piracy exists for a single reason, and it has little to do with money above a certain age: ease.
If I can download a song or 6, in mp3 or better, at an acceptable bitrate in which I can hear the songs before hand (lower bit rate is acceptable for that of course), and if it is as easy as getting songs from bittorrent or whatever (click and go), then I'd buy.
Otherwise, if I can get superior service, packaging, delivery, and ease of use for free... why wouldn't I?
(Spare me the legal or moral argument. I consider the RIAA to be far more reprehensible than someone infringing on their copyrights. I consider them to have sleazed their way into many of the copyrights they own in the first place. I cite http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html/ as Courtney Love's take on the music industry and http://negativland.com/albini.html/ as Steve Albini (producer of Nirvana's "In Utero".)
Knowing that the music industry spends a LOT of money on promotion, and that live events and selling goodies (like t-shirts and whatnot) make the bands more money and promote at the same time (assuming people want to see them, unlike the ditzy shizz (those idiotic morons that maligned their country and alienated their entire clientele then wondered what the hell happened)), the music industry simply needs to change tactics.
They would earn (tons) of money, get to keep themselves as the gatekeepers, and take less risk in promotion if they followed this plan:
create a web portal and transfer their existing catalog of artists onto it. DRM free.
create a small cafeteria plan of offerings ($x for y songs per month, $x per song, and so forth). Create a merchandising link to sell the band's material goodies as well.
create a system for preview, band info, perhaps even music videos (streaming, if not download) to promote some hype.
DO NOT promote the artists via the normal very expensive channels. Do not pay radio stations to play the artists. Do not spend loads of cash to merchandise them.
As an effect of 4, the _patrons_ would then decide to which music to listen. Word of mouth, especially among the teen to college crowd, is the most effective advertising vehicle. You can't buy advertising as good as word of mouth.
Use intelligent linking with the bands. "You like x band? You'd probably like y band too. Click here to see."
Slashdot Mirror
Well... all things being considered, if there are two applicants equally qualified and one of them has a criminal record... I'd imagine the job would go to the guy without the criminal record.
But, I think the nature, frequency, and age of the offenses should be taken into account. That's my point. I do not believe, from my experience, current HR departments do that.
Some poor guy that held up a liquor store or committed check fraud 30 years ago is, and should be, a different case than a serial rapist / murderer released 3 weeks prior. I think you can see the logic in this, no?
Plus let's look at what is involved. Giving the guy access to the computers at a mom and pop shop isn't going to risk much. Giving him access to computers in a brokerage... that's a different ballpark.
However, I think the guy's attitude and manner would've had a lot to do with it. This guy isn't 18 or 20. He's 60 years old. I would've expected him to act with a little more decorum. Maybe make all their backgrounds some funny pr0n or something. *grin*
Seriously though, I'd have had to meet him. I might've hired him for admin work.
Because a violent offender might be expected to offend again in the same manner.
The corporation would bear civil responsibility due to negligence. This is why they do background checks.
In the case of an ax murderer being just released from prison, the corporation would have some significant and, most important legally, "reasonable" idea that this person might act in a way that would endanger other employees, clients, or pretty much anyone while on the job.
Putting employees at risk creates liability in any way that it is done. The risk is especially egregious if it could have been prevented (say a faulty saw without a hand guard, slippery steps, an unlit parking lot in a bad part of town, or (I dunno) hiring an ax murderer right out of prison).
I did read it. They were charges. Not convictions.
Burglary, when he was... 20 - 27ish might be chalked up to folly.
We have no evidence (in the article at least) that he was convicted of anything else other than those two and some tax deal (not listed as an evasion).
As for a character defect? I'm afraid I don't believe in character defects any more than I believe animalistic features are a sign of genetic inferiority.
He made a mistake 4 decades ago. It seems he hasn't repeated that. I'd say that to come from what sounds like a rocky start and land a good job as an IT guy at a good company shows strong character.
I am currently, but because things change, I want to have a successor picked out before this one goes the way of the dinosaur.
I am also not putting it past bittorrent to 'tinker' with uTorrent and have it not connect to any other uTorrent client prior to their 'magic-so-gud-fer-u' version.
I am assuming that uTorrent is now a dead line (hence the keeping) and that the torrentsphere will continue to evolve.
I would like to take advantage of as much new-shiny-cool torrent goodness as evolves and therefore need a healthy client to latch on to.
So get writing, you lazy coders! Bucketfulls of money await you (apparently) if you create a good one!
There is no way they'd hire someone that qualified, focused, and driven to be the CEO. His butt will still be a janitor.
And as for your thoughts on system security... hehe. I think you're pulling our eLegs(TM). No company has security like that. Nor will they ever. In 20 years I've never seen anything approaching the security you describe. Not anywhere. (Including EDS.)
The "let's do a half-assed job" premise will take effect 10 minutes after something like that began.
Even if it did, what would I do? There are thousands of ways to get around it.
The scary part about IT guys is... they're a LOT smarter than management or pretty much anyone else in the company and they're generally efficient as well. (The idea that IT guys are lazy is a damned lie.) The corporate culture has driven many of them to be paranoid to boot. (Witness the beauty that is the slashdot crowd.)
Computer systems are all crackable in direct proportion to the number of wetware interfaces with the access needed.
Corporate political stupidity will mandate a viable number. I cannot count the number of clients that I have wherein the owner or manager insists on having a domain admin account. Can't read email without it apparently.
There is no viable way to protect a corporation's computer networks from a (functional) IT guy inside in a viable manner.
You can limit the damage if you have multiple IT guys and make damned sure one of them is loyal to management. However, it is my experience that any management lackey IT guy is generally the stupid one that lied to get his job and is incompetent.
The fake pro-management IT guys generally cause more damage overall by stupidity and incompetence than a determined, berserk, and smart IT guy ever would.
Management is generally so threatened by someone towering over them in skill and ability that they have to treat the poor IT guy like complete crap to work through massive inferiority dissonance. The current corporate system is designed to insure IT disloyalty.
Actually, it's all about creating an environment of fear for the common consumer.
I agree here, but I don't think it does what they think it does... *grin*
So the grand effect of all this is... they waste millions of their dollars on lawyers, get no where, make the kids (who will be consumers soon) think they're uncool, piss off the parents, amuse the techies, and fail to impact the older crowd.
Ask some older people sometime if they even know what the RIAA or MPAA is. They probably don't.
I asked a couple of kids. They know, but think it is a government agency or something.
Techies, like me, simply view them with the ill-disguised contempt they deserve... and continue about my business.
Yeah, and if you get out of prison only to find that nobody wants to hire an excon for anything better than washing dishes, what would you do?
Exactly what my psychology would demand: when under stress, we do the things with which we feel the most comfortable.
In this case it'd be going back to doing whatever made me money before. (most likely criminal.) I make this point about sexual offenders as well. (Although not about money.)
How would burglary and assault (um... 47 YEARS AGO) lead to logic bombs? (From the OP) How would this have helped?
From the article:
Using only publicly available information, Hershman found three incidents, including drug-related charges from 1980 and a tax violation, within 24 hours. Within three or four days, he says investigators found information on a conviction and incarceration from the early 1960s related to aggravated assault and burglary charges. A presentencing[sic] report from the Probation Office in U.S. District Court also lists charges against Duronio from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
So... basically, 27 years ago this guy had a drug case, and more than 40 years ago had an aggravated assault and burglary charge. From this they were supposed to deduce that this guy was going to logic bomb them?
Or, according to TFA and Hershman, this would've been enough for them not to hire him at all or just for computer work? He doesn't say. I've worked in firms that would refuse to hire you if you had anything on your record.
Please note here that Mr. Hershman sells this service and I am not so sure that he would be considered unbiased.
Here is some guy that would have been penalized for something he did 40 years ago?
Talk about 2nd class citizens. Do they understand that over 2% of the population is in prison and a considerable portion of people living today have been in prison or convicted of some offense at one point or another?
One of the engineers I hired had a drug conviction, but it was clear that she was recovering and this was a good opportunity for her. That was several years ago. Do I feel bad about that? Of course not.
I understand why companies feel the need to do criminal background checks to absolve themselves of a possible lawsuit. (They are culpable if they hire an ax-murderer just released from prison and he axifies some people.)
I believe that some of this is designed to find a chink to break down an employee so he/she will accept less in salary.
"Hmm... you have bad credit. Oh look, you also have some speeding tickets. Now, how much did you say you wanted for the privilege of working here?"
Criminal background checks should be used judiciously in sensitive positions. IT is probably one of those... but companies shouldn't just rubber-stamp anyone with a conviction a "no hire".
I agree fully. I've long thought that having all "sex offenders" grouped into one big group is preposterous if we're going to pretend to be a just nation of laws.
Do you know that someone that exposes themselves in public is considered a sex offender? How about some guy standing in his house when a lady next door uses her video camera to video tape the poor bastard and turns it into police? He's now branded for life in every conceivable way possible in the same boat as Jeffrey Dahmer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer/
There need to be a number of classes of sex offender. Some 18 year old that gets caught by the 15 year old's parents should not be in the same boat as a serial rapist! The idea is absurd.
Additionally, I know everyone wants to "save the childrens!" by passing these laws.
However, it is my contention that they make offenders more likely to offend. Why?
Right now, a sex offender has absolutely zero hope of fitting into society. Every stay-at-home soccer-mom with nothing else to do looks at these registers. According to the one in the area I live in, 23(!!) sex offenders live within a 5 block radius.
A soccer-mom would fly right out of her Keds at reading that and being to gather the pitchfork and torch crowd.
Closer inspection, however, would glean that 1/2 of them are of the 18 and got caught with a pre-legal crowd. No forced intent, nothing unwilling nor, in fact, unnatural.
Another large portion are the post 18, got caught with a younger person crowd. (The "victims" in this case were 15+.) While unseemly, this is still, in general, not unnatural.
Another sizable portion are the indecent exposure crowd. They might or might not be sex offenders. They might be victims of nosiness. (Admittedly most of them do, in fact, have a problem with exposing themselves. Additionally (and sadly), none in my area appear to be attractive females.)
4 are the sexual assault crowd. These are a little worse, and might escalate or not depending on if this was alcohol induced and the age at the time of the assault.
A very small portion (2) have records for aggravated sexual assault and rape.
1 has a record for true child molestation.
So these people are known to me to be "evil children molesters!" I must go throw rocks at their houses, right? Right?
It is at least a guarantee that their neighbors would be informed, and probably everyone on the street, the local schools, and just about everywhere else the "vigilantes" decided was good for the community.
They won't be able to get a job, as every place in general pulls both your credit history (why??) and criminal background before hiring you. You can guess what will happen if "sex offender" pops up. That'd be no hire.
So we have an impulse-impaired, maladjusted, unemployable person that gets pestered (probably) by parole officers, police, and well meaning hordes of citizens on a regular basis. What do you think this person is going to be driven to? Revenge.
Why do you think so many sex offenders try to move without informing police? Not (usually) because they are trying to escape prosecution, but because they're trying to live their lives without being constantly hounded. Remember, few "sex offenders" are actually what the public considers pedophiles.
Solutions?
Re-define sex-offender in existing laws to remove the obviously bad inclusions.
If we are going to keep the same registration and tracking ideas in place after re-definition, then we should either keep them locked up and never EVER let them out, or execute them.
Since it does no good to keep them locked up and we have decided that they are incurable (hence the registry), and it is expensive, I vote for the latter choice of killing them, if we are going to continue with the registry idea, as in my mind this will create almost 100% recidivism.
However, I realize that as a society, the USA does not have the political or moral willpower to do so.
I thought the very same thing when I read the title.
uTorrent was an awesome piece of software. It.just.worked. It was small, non-invasive, and non-evilware.
My heart sank.
I have no faith that this would be anything other than the death of uTorrent as a usable client.
(Same as winamp years ago, same as winternals, same as ... the list goes on.)
Oh well, which client does one use next?
I'm not a lawyer, but I sue and have been sued and am familiar (I believe) with the process.
One could and should be able to sue Choicepoint if one is denied a job because of this data if it is inaccurate or if they provided my information to someone that didn't need to have it and didn't have my authorization. (Barring government of course.)
I'd just have someone I knew that was a Choicepoint subscriber, with a duly signed form from me allowing such a thing, to submit a query. It seems like tenancy would be the way to go, as they pull everything (with no reason to do so in my opinion) and have dirt-level security. (I've worked in over a hundred complexes in the big city where I live. I assure you they have NO security.)
When the data is returned, I'd review it. If it were wrong, I'd file suit on Choicepoint and start discovery on every place at which I've rented and every job at which I had applied for years. All I care about is if they had used Choicepoint or not. I'd match the records retrieved from Choicepoint.
Then I would argue in court that Choicepoint had damaged me by providing false information that effected my life and damaged me substantially. I would argue that this is particularly flagrant given that Choicepoint will neither let me see nor correct this false information and is damaging me to this very day. Nor would they stop when asked. I'd ask for an injunction against them releasing this data to anyone. (Not that this would stop them from releasing it to the government.)
One of the problems with this approach is convincing the court that a) you have been damaged by not renting or not getting a job and b) that the Choicepoint data had something to do with it.
If the data was obtained without my consent, say a slimy bill collector company, I could sue them for providing sensitive information without my approval. That'd probably be an easier burden to show injury.
(Note: I would make an attempt (in fact, I'm writing the letter right now and send it registered mail, return receipt required) to contact them and review my records. Anything more than a full disclosure (*sigh* exempting my double-naught super-secret terrorist score) wouldn't fly with the court in all probability. If they coughed it up, my cause would be ended. If not, so much for the transparency they flaunt on their website's privacy policy. http://www.privacyatchoicepoint.com/)
Additionally, I imagine I would obtain ALL the people to which this information was provided for at least 10 years. If something popped up for which I did not authorize, I'd add that to the pile, stating that they are assisting data theft and I have no idea if my data had been compromised, nor had I authorized Choicepoint to release this data.
I would be interested to understand how Choicepoint can release this information without my express permission when other companies must obtain it. (They may be requesting signed forms, and if so, ok. If I signed and they can produce the signed forms.)
I would be interested to understand how they obtained all this data. Most of it is probably public record, so that'd be fine, but my credit reports probably are not. Did I sign something someplace that allowed this?
More speculation would be pointless without additional information, but I guess my point is... they are definitely not immune to being sued.
Finally, am I the only one bothered by the idea that: You (reader) might be, to a lesser or greater degree, a terrorist than I am, but you, nor I, may not be not a terrorist under this system? So it follows that everyone under this system is a terrorist by implication.
Since they refuse all data, I have to for safety's sake assume this is true, and the only real benefit this has (since it cannot be a deterrent as it cannot be known) is to provoke fear and control in the population?
Eheieh, Eheieh! Where has our country gone?
The MP3 debate is near and dear to my heart and I've given it a lot of thought. So here is my 25 cents (inflation):
CD prices are not, as such, artificially inflated to an outrageous degree. However, they are IMO spending their money inefficiently.
A LOT of the money they collect for a CD has already been spent in marketing.
If we're going to point our fingers at them and say that they're bad people, we should do it because they're ramming (successfully) horrid music down people's throats.
If you listen to the music put out these days, you'd find that almost all of the songs from a given artist sound exactly alike. *cough* metalliwhiner *cough* or any of the other popular bands.
The reasoning behind this is simple: when mary-muffins goes to buy the latest CD, she is less than happy if all the music doesn't sound as good as the 1 or 2 tracks splattered across pay-for-playdio. (I don't like getting a CD for a single song and have the rest of the CD suck either.)
Mary-muffins would know good music if it hit her in the face, she is just never allowed to hear it. The current RIAA members are the gatekeepers. Remember (anyone?) mp3.com? I do.
I found over a dozen bands that never appear on the splaterworks. Small, little bands with unique sounds and really interesting songs.
CNET bought them and for some odd reason, destroyed the entire music catalog and the service. It no longer exists.
Song (as well as movie) piracy exists for a single reason, and it has little to do with money above a certain age: ease.
If I can download a song or 6, in mp3 or better, at an acceptable bitrate in which I can hear the songs before hand (lower bit rate is acceptable for that of course), and if it is as easy as getting songs from bittorrent or whatever (click and go), then I'd buy.
Otherwise, if I can get superior service, packaging, delivery, and ease of use for free... why wouldn't I?
(Spare me the legal or moral argument. I consider the RIAA to be far more reprehensible than someone infringing on their copyrights. I consider them to have sleazed their way into many of the copyrights they own in the first place. I cite http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html/ as Courtney Love's take on the music industry and http://negativland.com/albini.html/ as Steve Albini (producer of Nirvana's "In Utero".)
Knowing that the music industry spends a LOT of money on promotion, and that live events and selling goodies (like t-shirts and whatnot) make the bands more money and promote at the same time (assuming people want to see them, unlike the ditzy shizz (those idiotic morons that maligned their country and alienated their entire clientele then wondered what the hell happened)), the music industry simply needs to change tactics.
They would earn (tons) of money, get to keep themselves as the gatekeepers, and take less risk in promotion if they followed this plan: