I agree, but one thing to keep in mind is public perception. A lot of these people are now scared shitless, and that's a difficult tide to go up against. Most policy-makers wouldn't have the backbone for it. I don't know what the right answer should be. It seems many of the people in charge don't either, so they're doing a classic fall-back maneuver. It sucks ass that the place to fall back to is coal, but I see why they feel they have to, until/unless a leader with some brass stands up.
It doesn't really matter why they're kept out of their homes; the fact that people are too scared to live in or buy homes in an area is still a real estate crisis, and, as we've seen in the U.S., real estate loss can be a quick way to lose everything. Sometimes facts aren't enough to stem fear, at least not right away.
GP already addressed this point well in his post. It isn't fair to the nuclear power industry as a whole, but Fukushima shook the trust of the populace badly. Their fear is not unreasonable, especially in light of all the mistakes that were later uncovered (and, of course, widespread fear gives rise to "stupid regulations").
Think of it this way: If you survive the very, very unlikely incident of a plane crash, would it be unreasonable if you started to fear flying, regardless of the overall safety statistics? Sure, you may be one of the many folks that flies again with no problem, but it would also be understandable if you decided to drive everywhere, instead. The psychology behind this type of fear makes clear sense.
Slow down there, turbo. I'm pretty sure you just said the same thing I did. If you get hauled downtown by the coppers, they can keep you while they perform their initial investigation. If you are seen as a potential danger to the public or are a flight risk, they can even keep you until your initial arraignment and beyond, and this happens a lot, especially in violent or sexual crimes. They can even post your mugshot in "busted" the very day of your arrest.
It very much depends on what you need help with. If it's anything that may reflect poorly on you, your call should be to a lawyer, not the police. Doesn't matter how nice and helpful they are. It's not even whether the cops are assholes, nice, competent, or bumbling... it's about being prepared to start process over which you have no control.
Better to report it anonymously. Maybe using words cut from magazines. Sort of a "bad things are happening!" note instead of a "ransom" note. Probably, it's best to do ANY sort of crime reporting anonymously. It'll sounds more mysterious, though you will lose your rights to the related Lifetime movie of the week.
Depends; have you ever said the words "child" and "pornography" in the same sentence prior to reporting the theft? If so, yeah, you will be barred from driving, because you'll be in jail.
So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter? Let us spend some time thinking about how many things are wrong here.
"Think of the children!" bestows a broad and unfair power balance. Accused sex offenders are boned* no matter how things shake loose.
So he reported his own child pornography to the police?
The way the authorities look at it, yes. To them, who else's would it be? It's his computer, his home, his daughter, his whatever. Whether it was accidental and unintentional procurement is to be considered after his potential victims are safe.
So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?
Again, the authorities can take the liberty of ignoring why the evidence arrived, and focus only the fact that it is, indeed, evidence, as stupid as that is. They probably figure the suspect can just take it up with a judge.
So why even bother with courts and trials? If the police suspect someone is guilty, we should immediately start procedures to protect everyone else from that dangerous person! Presumption of innocence? System of laws? Why bother?
Because, often, court is the final place to find justice for a suspect, one way other the other. As you said yourself, the police and their handlers are more concerned with protecting potential victims than protecting their suspect's freedom, at least until some undeniable results shake loose.
All that said, this is definitely not the only scenario where a suspect loses their liberty or other rights well before any convictions of a crime. Any person who spends the night in jail after an arrest, waiting to sober up, or for the clerks to finish the booking paperwork knows this well. Sure, it can be obvious that you're drunk, but are they guilty yet? Of course not. Much as we like to say "innocent until proven guilty" there is a VAST number of situations where "presumed innocent" has nothing to do with "free to go about their normal business".
Still, this whole case makes me sick, and while I will always believe that co-operating with the authorities (with the advice of a lawyer, of course) is your best chance of coming through an arrest unscathed (i.e. it's not a good idea to piss off your captors) it's far, far, FAR better if you can avoid scrutiny in the first place, whether you're doing illegal things or not. This is just a sad and scary fact.
*I tried very, very hard to pick a word that wasn't a terrible pun here; but it since that just wasn't possible, I just gave up and followed the Path of Bender.
I think it's more about the lamb (minority) being able to keep the wolves' (majority) power from becoming absolute, not about preventing a majority vote.
In other words, the minority voters have a few options to keep the majority voters from absolutely railroading a bill through (say, filibusters or other obstructionism, "educating" the public, amendment negotiations, etc). Also, some of the potentially devastating actions require a much higher majority vote than others. And, I think it brings the point home that even if the minority has some defenses available, it still has the deck stacked against it; the minority has to be vigilant and watchful to keep the majority in check.
Still, I agree, it's one of those quotes that that's pretty open to interpretation, which is another reason I don't think Franklin said it.
I like Churchill's quote, too: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Usually it's paraphrased as "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
While I really like it, I don't think your quote was Franklin; I think it was more recent. Also, there's been a piece tacked to the end at some point: "Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Well-armed is a pretty modern term, though, so I'm guessing it was added even more recently.
Good points, all. I'd even go one further and say if the policies truly ARE this draconian, the OP should simply use the laptop for work, only. His "I can't just not surf the web!" argument just won't fly if his company has him locked down this tightly.
In my experience, having a company laptop issued to you is much like having a company car issued to you. Take care of it, don't do anything you're not supposed to with it, and remember it's issued to you to make your job easier, so make sure it does. I can't think of a single thing that you should be doing on a company laptop that you'd need to encrypt or hide from your employer (remember, THEY own the hardware), so a lot of your question is moot.
Stuff like reading an e-book, browsing the web, or customizing it to your specification is probably fine, assuming it doesn't interfere with your actual work. Well, unless your company has specifically told you NOT to do these things, in which case you really should bring a second, personal, laptop (or kindle, or ipad, as others have said) with you. Doing anything you'd be embarrassed to have your boss find out about is simply not a good idea, though. Think of it like it's your work desktop, only portable, and adjust your usage accordingly.
I don't see why this question needs a more complicated answer than this. If you still have questions, ask your boss. None of us on Slashdot are policymakers for your company, and asking us to decide for them is silly.
Actually it's not really that strange once you think about it. A large portion of first world economies are now service-related. I started thinking about many of the companies I do business with, and even the print shop I manage. Do I really need most, or even any, of the things I get from Newegg or Gamestop? Do my customers need those personalized golf balls, T-shirts, or fine-art prints?
Then, I started thinking about the things I buy that I *do* need, and how I typically buy higher quality versions of those things instead of the bare minimum (I'm thinking of things like food or clothing, here).
It seems to me that Apple being the world's most valuable company says more about the world than it does about Apple. I wonder how far down the list you have to go to find the first company that makes some of the things we actually DO need.
The information you provided means this cannot be a real thing that is happening; if it is I think my head just might implode.
What it means is they want to watch us at all times using our own cameras, and in return they're offering, for our convenience, to snoop through our data. A few posts up we were talking about getting free goats for offering up constant home movies of ourselves. This is more like offering up constant home movies and, in return, getting a free goat that's constantly staring at you.
Yeah. What's in it for me, Mr. Arora? And don't say "Access to ads for products you actually want!" because I'm a grown-up and know how to find things I want*. Besides, I doubt your "targeted ads" are any better than clicking I'm Feeling Lucky and dumping my CC# into the first 16 digit field I find.
I could be persuaded to let you watch me pick my nose at $1000 per frame, though. Otherwise, you and your startup can feck right off, sir.
*Who are we trying to kid, anyway? As a married father of two teenage daughters, I already KNOW what ads would best target ME: late-night Tampax/Midol shops, Rue 21 and Banana Republic clothing stores, and any vendor at the mall selling shit that confuses me. You should pay my kids as if they were on your marketing staff; they already did your research for you, buddy.
While I agree with your point 100%, I also think that:
a) the Catholic church could have acted quite differently in finding, reporting, and bringing justice to the offending priests, and:
b) there are some vocations (priest, teacher, coach, and youth leader, as you mention, and others) where the expected child predator rate should be ZERO, or as close to it as possible. I know this seems an unrealistic expectation on the surface, but consider, for a moment, how many professions require extensive and thorough background checks or psych evaluations to access resources far less critical than our kids*, and the hefty consequences that are handed down if protocols are broken. If these same techniques were used for the vocations you listed, I can only surmise the percentage of child predators would be significantly lower in those vocations than that of the greater population (not to mention the salaries and quality would likely improve, too, though I cannot guess what would happen to the candidate pool).
*I don't normally do the "think of the children" thing, but I have two daughters, and this hits pretty close to home for me.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but one thing to keep in mind is public perception. A lot of these people are now scared shitless, and that's a difficult tide to go up against. Most policy-makers wouldn't have the backbone for it. I don't know what the right answer should be. It seems many of the people in charge don't either, so they're doing a classic fall-back maneuver. It sucks ass that the place to fall back to is coal, but I see why they feel they have to, until/unless a leader with some brass stands up.
It doesn't really matter why they're kept out of their homes; the fact that people are too scared to live in or buy homes in an area is still a real estate crisis, and, as we've seen in the U.S., real estate loss can be a quick way to lose everything. Sometimes facts aren't enough to stem fear, at least not right away.
GP already addressed this point well in his post. It isn't fair to the nuclear power industry as a whole, but Fukushima shook the trust of the populace badly. Their fear is not unreasonable, especially in light of all the mistakes that were later uncovered (and, of course, widespread fear gives rise to "stupid regulations").
Think of it this way: If you survive the very, very unlikely incident of a plane crash, would it be unreasonable if you started to fear flying, regardless of the overall safety statistics? Sure, you may be one of the many folks that flies again with no problem, but it would also be understandable if you decided to drive everywhere, instead. The psychology behind this type of fear makes clear sense.
Slow down there, turbo. I'm pretty sure you just said the same thing I did. If you get hauled downtown by the coppers, they can keep you while they perform their initial investigation. If you are seen as a potential danger to the public or are a flight risk, they can even keep you until your initial arraignment and beyond, and this happens a lot, especially in violent or sexual crimes. They can even post your mugshot in "busted" the very day of your arrest.
Whoa.... is... is it Mayan photon torpedoes that end the world next December? It all makes sense now.
It very much depends on what you need help with. If it's anything that may reflect poorly on you, your call should be to a lawyer, not the police. Doesn't matter how nice and helpful they are. It's not even whether the cops are assholes, nice, competent, or bumbling... it's about being prepared to start process over which you have no control.
Better to report it anonymously. Maybe using words cut from magazines. Sort of a "bad things are happening!" note instead of a "ransom" note. Probably, it's best to do ANY sort of crime reporting anonymously. It'll sounds more mysterious, though you will lose your rights to the related Lifetime movie of the week.
Depends; have you ever said the words "child" and "pornography" in the same sentence prior to reporting the theft? If so, yeah, you will be barred from driving, because you'll be in jail.
So he is not under arrest, he has not been found guitly of a crime...but the state can prevent him from being alone with his own daughter? Let us spend some time thinking about how many things are wrong here.
"Think of the children!" bestows a broad and unfair power balance. Accused sex offenders are boned* no matter how things shake loose.
So he reported his own child pornography to the police?
The way the authorities look at it, yes. To them, who else's would it be? It's his computer, his home, his daughter, his whatever. Whether it was accidental and unintentional procurement is to be considered after his potential victims are safe.
So to make sure they have his details, he ran straight to them?
Again, the authorities can take the liberty of ignoring why the evidence arrived, and focus only the fact that it is, indeed, evidence, as stupid as that is. They probably figure the suspect can just take it up with a judge.
So why even bother with courts and trials? If the police suspect someone is guilty, we should immediately start procedures to protect everyone else from that dangerous person! Presumption of innocence? System of laws? Why bother?
Because, often, court is the final place to find justice for a suspect, one way other the other. As you said yourself, the police and their handlers are more concerned with protecting potential victims than protecting their suspect's freedom, at least until some undeniable results shake loose.
All that said, this is definitely not the only scenario where a suspect loses their liberty or other rights well before any convictions of a crime. Any person who spends the night in jail after an arrest, waiting to sober up, or for the clerks to finish the booking paperwork knows this well. Sure, it can be obvious that you're drunk, but are they guilty yet? Of course not. Much as we like to say "innocent until proven guilty" there is a VAST number of situations where "presumed innocent" has nothing to do with "free to go about their normal business".
Still, this whole case makes me sick, and while I will always believe that co-operating with the authorities (with the advice of a lawyer, of course) is your best chance of coming through an arrest unscathed (i.e. it's not a good idea to piss off your captors) it's far, far, FAR better if you can avoid scrutiny in the first place, whether you're doing illegal things or not. This is just a sad and scary fact.
*I tried very, very hard to pick a word that wasn't a terrible pun here; but it since that just wasn't possible, I just gave up and followed the Path of Bender.
So you, also, wondered why they didn't just burn the evidence, like normal people?
Did you know that all of those correlations you listed ALSO correlate to the well-documented Pirate to Global Warming ratio?
It's truly astounding how far-reaching bulletproof statistics really are.
I think it's more about the lamb (minority) being able to keep the wolves' (majority) power from becoming absolute, not about preventing a majority vote.
In other words, the minority voters have a few options to keep the majority voters from absolutely railroading a bill through (say, filibusters or other obstructionism, "educating" the public, amendment negotiations, etc). Also, some of the potentially devastating actions require a much higher majority vote than others. And, I think it brings the point home that even if the minority has some defenses available, it still has the deck stacked against it; the minority has to be vigilant and watchful to keep the majority in check.
Still, I agree, it's one of those quotes that that's pretty open to interpretation, which is another reason I don't think Franklin said it.
I like Churchill's quote, too: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Usually it's paraphrased as "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
While I really like it, I don't think your quote was Franklin; I think it was more recent. Also, there's been a piece tacked to the end at some point: "Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Well-armed is a pretty modern term, though, so I'm guessing it was added even more recently.
Keep your work and personal life separate.
Truer words were never spoken. Well said.
Good points, all. I'd even go one further and say if the policies truly ARE this draconian, the OP should simply use the laptop for work, only. His "I can't just not surf the web!" argument just won't fly if his company has him locked down this tightly.
In my experience, having a company laptop issued to you is much like having a company car issued to you. Take care of it, don't do anything you're not supposed to with it, and remember it's issued to you to make your job easier, so make sure it does. I can't think of a single thing that you should be doing on a company laptop that you'd need to encrypt or hide from your employer (remember, THEY own the hardware), so a lot of your question is moot.
Stuff like reading an e-book, browsing the web, or customizing it to your specification is probably fine, assuming it doesn't interfere with your actual work. Well, unless your company has specifically told you NOT to do these things, in which case you really should bring a second, personal, laptop (or kindle, or ipad, as others have said) with you. Doing anything you'd be embarrassed to have your boss find out about is simply not a good idea, though. Think of it like it's your work desktop, only portable, and adjust your usage accordingly.
I don't see why this question needs a more complicated answer than this. If you still have questions, ask your boss. None of us on Slashdot are policymakers for your company, and asking us to decide for them is silly.
Actually it's not really that strange once you think about it. A large portion of first world economies are now service-related. I started thinking about many of the companies I do business with, and even the print shop I manage. Do I really need most, or even any, of the things I get from Newegg or Gamestop? Do my customers need those personalized golf balls, T-shirts, or fine-art prints?
Then, I started thinking about the things I buy that I *do* need, and how I typically buy higher quality versions of those things instead of the bare minimum (I'm thinking of things like food or clothing, here).
It seems to me that Apple being the world's most valuable company says more about the world than it does about Apple. I wonder how far down the list you have to go to find the first company that makes some of the things we actually DO need.
The information you provided means this cannot be a real thing that is happening; if it is I think my head just might implode.
What it means is they want to watch us at all times using our own cameras, and in return they're offering, for our convenience, to snoop through our data. A few posts up we were talking about getting free goats for offering up constant home movies of ourselves. This is more like offering up constant home movies and, in return, getting a free goat that's constantly staring at you.
If only it worked this way:
Dear Sir,
I would like to sign up for your offer of (robotic voice) FREE GOAT. I have been made to understand that FREE GOAT is both adorable and delicious..
Please ship FREE GOAT overnight directly to my doorstep at your earliest convenience, for I have become hungry while typing this sign-up request.
Thank you,
Guy willing to let a FREE GOAT vendor know he likes FREE GOAT for a FREE GOAT.
Yeah. What's in it for me, Mr. Arora? And don't say "Access to ads for products you actually want!" because I'm a grown-up and know how to find things I want*. Besides, I doubt your "targeted ads" are any better than clicking I'm Feeling Lucky and dumping my CC# into the first 16 digit field I find.
I could be persuaded to let you watch me pick my nose at $1000 per frame, though. Otherwise, you and your startup can feck right off, sir.
*Who are we trying to kid, anyway? As a married father of two teenage daughters, I already KNOW what ads would best target ME: late-night Tampax/Midol shops, Rue 21 and Banana Republic clothing stores, and any vendor at the mall selling shit that confuses me. You should pay my kids as if they were on your marketing staff; they already did your research for you, buddy.
No shit. I charge $10 each, $15 if you have me design the art. $32 is retarded.
I always just answer "Yes". They stay confused for, like, 30 miles.
My wife should have been one of the research subjects. Sigh....
Yes. In places outside of Texas this is not yet accepted as a method of ending a casual conversation.
I'm reasonably sure Texans would disagree with you, but it's better you don't try to find out. I would miss you too much.
Hmm. I wonder if they probably licensed Slashdot's filter for use in this gun. If not, that's prior art, baby!
While I agree with your point 100%, I also think that:
a) the Catholic church could have acted quite differently in finding, reporting, and bringing justice to the offending priests, and:
b) there are some vocations (priest, teacher, coach, and youth leader, as you mention, and others) where the expected child predator rate should be ZERO, or as close to it as possible. I know this seems an unrealistic expectation on the surface, but consider, for a moment, how many professions require extensive and thorough background checks or psych evaluations to access resources far less critical than our kids*, and the hefty consequences that are handed down if protocols are broken. If these same techniques were used for the vocations you listed, I can only surmise the percentage of child predators would be significantly lower in those vocations than that of the greater population (not to mention the salaries and quality would likely improve, too, though I cannot guess what would happen to the candidate pool).
*I don't normally do the "think of the children" thing, but I have two daughters, and this hits pretty close to home for me.