With the age of 16, Germans are required to carry a ID card by law. And that's no new law (read: post 9/11), but has been in place for decades. Another thing we have: central registration.
Yes, German central registration and ID card requirements are longstanding, but, again, I explain that as basically "Germans being culturally ok with anything they think will make the bureaucracy work faster/better." I don't see my explanation is any different from what you said.
in other words the nominal price is dropping, but the nominal wage is dropping faster.. meaning real price is actually rising
Arguably, there are just a few issues that are keeping the nominal price from dropping faster (all of which are interrelated):
a.) Real estate. There are many factors (some of which are only in play in certain regions of the US but not others.) Curiously, (fundamental) demand is not really one of them. The "wealthy" here may be blamed, but they are just current homeowners, and the high cost of real estate is transfer of wealth between generations (young people paying high rent prices to older folks who own real estate.)
b.) Taxes. Almost all of this can be attributed to government overpromises (large pensions given to local government employees that are no longer working out on paper) for instance. This is a complex issue with no easy solution. If I were to take a bet, the emerging nations will not follow the same path and make the same mistakes.
c.) Commodity prices, such as gasoline.
d.) Health care costs.
I hypothesize as an arm chair Economist (with an Econ degree, but what that means is up to debate) that if Real Estate prices took a sufficient drop and a more realistic realingment, then the drop in overall wages would be met with an equal drop in nominal pricing.
And I find it particularly sad that the people who are warning about election fraud don't want to do a damn thing to prevent people from voting twice
All of the cases I know of where people voted more than once didn't actually involve voters voting more than once at different polling places.* It involved pollworkers themselves collaborating on voting multiple times (for those who believe in what happened in Chicago 1960, this is what is believed to have occurred--pollworkers were ordered to do X and Y by the Chicago Democratic machinery--and were provided the list of passed-on voters. It never included regular people walking off the street voting multiple times.)
While I am a fan of the ink dipped finger (for its simplicity) the ID card is irrelevant. Both are powerless to stop shenanigans by pollworkers.
*The exception that has been detected is people voting in their own name at two different addresses. This is not believed to be an attempt to influence a vote for a candidate, but so that they can vote on property tax issues where they have different property. Again, the ID card could not prevent this, but the ink dipped finger would, but on the other hand, so would a better voter registration database.
A very interesting piece about security on airports can be found here
I have not seen it mentioned anywhere, but, in the 30-35 years we've had airport security, worldwide, I can't think of a single incident where a terrorist was prevented from getting onto an airplane thanks to airport security. (I should think we would have heard about it, law enforcement would have talked about it breathlessly.)
It leads me to the conclusion that if a terrorist gets to the airport, it's already too late. You can only hope they fail; otherwise, catch them before they get to the airport.
(I believe that bombs have been sniffed out of luggage, and, giving credit, it's possible that a terrorist was de-armed but flew normally otherwise.)
I don't know about the rest of Europe, but if they act in any similar manner, then any praise for their protection of their citizens' privacy rights in this seems pretty silly to me.
There is a slightly different focus on privacy preferences in Europe than in the United States. It's also rooted in the fact that each country has comfort zones due to cultural issues (as far as I can tell, Germans are less camera friendly, French less ID card friendly; but the Germans are ok with ID cards because they're comfortable with anything that they perceive as making bureaucracy work better/faster.)
But on the whole, I'd say that it's just straight up hypocrisy; most of the EU privacy regulations were crafted to deal with how companies and other nations dealt with EU citizen information, and not so much how EU governments collected, retained and manipulated the data.
How about this as a creative solution--bother your incumbent congressman or congressional candidate, ask them if they support unjustifiable technology that can prove to be a risk to US citizens abroad.
I'm telling both the guys running for my district (which, fortunately, is a competitive one) that I'll vote for the guy who votes to repeal the REAL ID Act and, at the very least, makes the RFID chip optional in new passports.
I couldn't imagine life without my Model M (connected to my new Pentium 4) but I must admit, I would buy an OLED keyboard with buckling springs, and I'd pay good money for it too.
The only issue with the Model M...there is no way of talking on the phone and typing discretely at the same time.
Users should never be delving into the Registry. As such, it's level of "crypticness" is utterly irrelevant to, well, pretty much everyone.
That would be the ideal case, but that's not necessarily how application designers create things. As I said in another post, when I moved to another computer, I found out that AOL instant messenger stores away messages in the registry, so the only way I could retrieve them for the new PC was to export the appropriate registry keys.
While I agree that users shouldn't be delving into the registry, I'd also say that exporting your away messages is a common task. Again, this is not Microsoft's fault (necessarily) but to say that a user would never delve into the registry is a bit myopic.
I've never quite gotten why it was determined that putting all your settings and configuration in one basket was deemed to be a good idea. I can't think of any positive justification whatsoever for this.
I've struggled to understand this as well...and it really hit home the other day when I was transitioning to a new computer.
For reasons that only God may know, AIM stores away messages in the registry, and the only way to move away messages to a new computer is to export the registry key(s).
To be fair, I suspect Microsoft has guidelines recommending against using the registry that way. Nevertheless, AIM storing away messages in the registry is endemic of the one basket concept that is the registry
If you move to the state, you have X weeks to get a license and register your vehicles. (same in all states)
Slightly off topic, but this is only mostly true. Each state has its own lenience regarding this issue (I always thought my Ohio was very lenient...I had friends with Georgia plates here for 5 years...then I found out the lenience was partially because Ohio law never bothered to require you to register your car when you move in--not that you wouldn't want to, registration and insurance here are crazy cheap.)
On the other hand, I'd do my best to not register my car in California. I've got more friends with Nevada licenses than I can safely count.
I don't agree that this is hard. There is little evidence of people voting more than once. (The woman who is the head of the Ohio League of Women Voters said that the only evidence of people voting twice in Ohio occurs when someone votes in their own real name twice at two different addresses--so they they can vote for different property tax levies at their various properties.)
What there is evidence of is pollworkers themselves stuffing the ballot boxes with bad names.
I believe the main solution to that is mail in voting.
If the american public wants to scare the pants off the Washington lobbyists, a good place to start would be to campaign for Election Saturdays.
It might not be necessary. Quite a lot of states now allow for early voting and mail in voting.
I haven't voted in person since 1997. I don't plan to either. I vote by mail 3 weeks before the election. (Ohio will probably be an all mail-voting state in a few years anyway.)
As a college student and facebook user, Facebook jumped the shark a long time ago .
The thing that amazes me is that so many people did not see it coming. Myspace sold for about half a billion and Facebook wanted (several months ago) $2 billion in order to consider a buyout.
What would make a company with (at the time) about 1/10th the users think itself 4x more valuable?
a.) the fact that they ravage their user database and sell it to the highest bidder (which myspace can't due to the fact that the information is not as accurate, and paradoxically, myspace has a much better privacy policy) b.) their strong growth potential once they open their network to as many people as possible
but it seemed to me that the main advantage of FaceBook was that it was a relatively safe place for HS and College students to meet and interact.
There might have been a perceived psychological safety with Facebook (and it truly was psychologocal...I think it's easier to make an argument that Myspace was safer because it was easier to be anonymous on it.)
Having said that, the main advantage to Facebook was its nifty hierarchichal design. It was easy to find a John Smith, whether they are at an unknown college/school, a specific school, or your own. It was a lot more complex to point someone to their myspace, but all you needed was a name for facebook.
Is the good credit history from rich parents or hard work. Is the bad credit history from circumstances outside your control, or the inability to control spending.
It's an interesting question. I believe a lot of a person's money management skills come from their parents (and in this regard, wealthy parents don't necessarily give good credit to their children...spoiled children might become demanding adults who have little understanding of money management.) Undoubtedly, good money management is something that's passed down through the generations; in fact, a suprising amount of the Old Testament is devoted to money management issues.
Americans are a notoriously optimistic lot, and are often willing to go into debt with the belief that future higher pay will take care of it.
We were also a high savings low debt nation until the 1970s, when credit cards bloomed and the credit rating system developed. The parental knowledge of money and credit management was no longer as fitting in the new environment, so as time progressed, the generations became a bit lost in this regard. Optimistically, I could see a massive turn around--young people of today who have gotten burned on bad credit and buying decisions will teach their children to be extremely wary of credit and debt.
I've also heard an interesting theory regarding teenagers working. We have teenagers working not to support their families, but to soley support their own discretionary buying habits, and that creates a situation in which children grow into adults who are accustomed to having a lot of discretionary buying power, but once they are out on their own, that's not necessarily the case. The lesson here is that if children are to work, their parents have to work extra hard at making sure that their kids understand the benefits of saving and investing, and the joy of living without something that they really didn't need.
the freedom of movement in labour still has some way to catch up
Catch up? Freedom of movement of labor was a given until the 20th century. The right to travel without permission or documentation pretty much ended with World War I. I have been told (but have not found evidence for) that one of the goals of the League of Nations was to restore the right to travel across borders and to elminate the temporary Passport document. (Which really didn't become universal until the 1950's. Ellis Island was so important partially because many people showed up there with not a single piece of paper.)
This is something that will come to haunt the 1st world countries. We have relied upon skilled immigrant talent for years, but now other countries, while not as comfortable as the US or the EU are good enough for these people to live in without pining for the 1st world.
The old way, sure you were posting it on the internet, but there was a certain anonymnity to be found in the data overload of facebook.
There was a website at one time that plugged into myspace to deliver a semi-similar feed. It watched the profiles of all your friends (or people you wanted "watched") and if their relationship status flipped to single you'd get an email.
I thought it was a brillant concept. (I believe it was shut down because the way it interacted with myspace violated that site's terms of agreement.)
What would it take for me to design and distribute a program that you can install on your own computer to do the same thing? (I figure if it interacted with facebook or myspace in a low key way, and basically surfed your friend's profiles as if you were doing it from your own computer, it might just pass TOA muster.)
It could do a a semi-regular feed of all your friend's walls. It could collect all the pictures from their profiles and put them into a nifty slideshow. It could surf all the profile's friends ad nauseum and create a neural network of the way people have friended each other which you could probably do something really nifty with.
Eh, maybe this will convince people that they shouldn't put their whole lives on internet.
I can't disagree, but, at the moment, it's a fascinating experiment in human psychology (vis a vis people's understanding of privacy and their preferences for it.)
Perceptions plays an enormous role in social networking. Facebook's little institutional net may have felt safer, but I thought it was intolerably anti-privacy, and it's user agreement is worse than Myspace's.
It actually seemed that most people can articulate why they didn't like the feed, even though it was simply broadcasting something that was already public. The feed changed the way that people interacted with the site, which would, at the very least, imply multi-layered privacy preferences.
As an individual who has spent years being a privacy advocate that's really exciting. Many of my colleagues came to the conclusion that no one gives a damn about privacy, and yet, as this shows, people have odd instinctual reactions.
I don't know how a 15 year old would go about this online.
A Time magazine article from a month or two ago indicated that the state attorney general's were having panicked meetings regarding this issue (including the famous quote from the Connecticut AG along the lines of "if we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age online.")
For a time they actually considered requiring sites like Myspace to collect SSNs...and according to the article, they rejected the idea once they realized that most of the world does not have an SSN, but does use the internets.
If that doesn't give you an idea of the caliber of people we're dealing with, I dunno what would. Requiring teens to submit their SSNs to use these types of sites would be a disaster along biblical proportions--imagine how easy phishing would be--all you'd need to do is send out an email that claims it's from Xanga needing your SSN.
I don't know if there's a legal precedent for email, but I do know that you usually sign an agreement stating that the corporation can watch anything/everything you do using their workstations, telephones, email servers, etc, etc.
Keep in mind though, that response is more relevant in the context of an employer-employee relationship. Board of Directors are not "necessarily" employees of the company. Their election by the shareholders binds them to the company, what the company can do with them is limited, and I certainly would think the company could not dictate an agreement to them to do X or Y. The Directors have an obligation to the shareholders, not to the "company."
A better analogy would be if, in the records office, they put up a list of recent DUI convictions on a notice board.
How about analogizing with the obvious which is the sex offender registry.
People are bothered by the idea of living next to a sex offender, but if the public registry weren't there (sending a postcard in the neighborhood alerting everyone to the offender) they probably would just deal with it and not notice.
On the other hand, I'm sure if you worked at it hard enough, you could convince a neighborhood that they shouldn't have anyone convicted of DUI near their kids either.
It occurred to me the other day that profiling is deeply injurious to the security system we have set up. Why? We have identified a group of individuals who we suspect are more likely to be a threat to airline security. In order to mitigate this risk, it is proposed that those individuals go through more intense security checks.
Here's the paradox: the security system reveals itself to those who undergo it. The more you undergo security checks, and the more intensive they are, the better acquainted you become with the security system, how it works, its strength and weaknesses. Therefore, profiling paradoxically reveals the innards of airline security to exactly those people who we *don't* want to know how the airline security system works.
Slashdot Mirror
With the age of 16, Germans are required to carry a ID card by law. And that's no new law (read: post 9/11), but has been in place for decades. Another thing we have: central registration.
Yes, German central registration and ID card requirements are longstanding, but, again, I explain that as basically "Germans being culturally ok with anything they think will make the bureaucracy work faster/better." I don't see my explanation is any different from what you said.
in other words the nominal price is dropping, but the nominal wage is dropping faster.. meaning real price is actually rising
Arguably, there are just a few issues that are keeping the nominal price from dropping faster (all of which are interrelated):
a.) Real estate. There are many factors (some of which are only in play in certain regions of the US but not others.) Curiously, (fundamental) demand is not really one of them. The "wealthy" here may be blamed, but they are just current homeowners, and the high cost of real estate is transfer of wealth between generations (young people paying high rent prices to older folks who own real estate.)
b.) Taxes. Almost all of this can be attributed to government overpromises (large pensions given to local government employees that are no longer working out on paper) for instance. This is a complex issue with no easy solution. If I were to take a bet, the emerging nations will not follow the same path and make the same mistakes.
c.) Commodity prices, such as gasoline.
d.) Health care costs.
I hypothesize as an arm chair Economist (with an Econ degree, but what that means is up to debate) that if Real Estate prices took a sufficient drop and a more realistic realingment, then the drop in overall wages would be met with an equal drop in nominal pricing.
(There's a chance that that will occur.)
And I find it particularly sad that the people who are warning about election fraud don't want to do a damn thing to prevent people from voting twice
All of the cases I know of where people voted more than once didn't actually involve voters voting more than once at different polling places.* It involved pollworkers themselves collaborating on voting multiple times (for those who believe in what happened in Chicago 1960, this is what is believed to have occurred--pollworkers were ordered to do X and Y by the Chicago Democratic machinery--and were provided the list of passed-on voters. It never included regular people walking off the street voting multiple times.)
While I am a fan of the ink dipped finger (for its simplicity) the ID card is irrelevant. Both are powerless to stop shenanigans by pollworkers.
*The exception that has been detected is people voting in their own name at two different addresses. This is not believed to be an attempt to influence a vote for a candidate, but so that they can vote on property tax issues where they have different property. Again, the ID card could not prevent this, but the ink dipped finger would, but on the other hand, so would a better voter registration database.
A very interesting piece about security on airports can be found here
I have not seen it mentioned anywhere, but, in the 30-35 years we've had airport security, worldwide, I can't think of a single incident where a terrorist was prevented from getting onto an airplane thanks to airport security. (I should think we would have heard about it, law enforcement would have talked about it breathlessly.)
It leads me to the conclusion that if a terrorist gets to the airport, it's already too late. You can only hope they fail; otherwise, catch them before they get to the airport.
(I believe that bombs have been sniffed out of luggage, and, giving credit, it's possible that a terrorist was de-armed but flew normally otherwise.)
I don't know about the rest of Europe, but if they act in any similar manner, then any praise for their protection of their citizens' privacy rights in this seems pretty silly to me.
There is a slightly different focus on privacy preferences in Europe than in the United States. It's also rooted in the fact that each country has comfort zones due to cultural issues (as far as I can tell, Germans are less camera friendly, French less ID card friendly; but the Germans are ok with ID cards because they're comfortable with anything that they perceive as making bureaucracy work better/faster.)
But on the whole, I'd say that it's just straight up hypocrisy; most of the EU privacy regulations were crafted to deal with how companies and other nations dealt with EU citizen information, and not so much how EU governments collected, retained and manipulated the data.
And how do we define our times, where Britain is America's Bitch? The post-colonial times?
No, silly. Post-colonial times is when Britain and America become India's bitch.
You will know that this has occurred when memos everwhere have the line "please do the needful".
How about this as a creative solution--bother your incumbent congressman or congressional candidate, ask them if they support unjustifiable technology that can prove to be a risk to US citizens abroad.
I'm telling both the guys running for my district (which, fortunately, is a competitive one) that I'll vote for the guy who votes to repeal the REAL ID Act and, at the very least, makes the RFID chip optional in new passports.
I couldn't imagine life without my Model M (connected to my new Pentium 4) but I must admit, I would buy an OLED keyboard with buckling springs, and I'd pay good money for it too.
The only issue with the Model M...there is no way of talking on the phone and typing discretely at the same time.
Users should never be delving into the Registry. As such, it's level of "crypticness" is utterly irrelevant to, well, pretty much everyone.
That would be the ideal case, but that's not necessarily how application designers create things. As I said in another post, when I moved to another computer, I found out that AOL instant messenger stores away messages in the registry, so the only way I could retrieve them for the new PC was to export the appropriate registry keys.
While I agree that users shouldn't be delving into the registry, I'd also say that exporting your away messages is a common task. Again, this is not Microsoft's fault (necessarily) but to say that a user would never delve into the registry is a bit myopic.
I've never quite gotten why it was determined that putting all your settings and configuration in one basket was deemed to be a good idea. I can't think of any positive justification whatsoever for this.
I've struggled to understand this as well...and it really hit home the other day when I was transitioning to a new computer.
For reasons that only God may know, AIM stores away messages in the registry, and the only way to move away messages to a new computer is to export the registry key(s).
To be fair, I suspect Microsoft has guidelines recommending against using the registry that way. Nevertheless, AIM storing away messages in the registry is endemic of the one basket concept that is the registry
If you move to the state, you have X weeks to get a license and register your vehicles. (same in all states)
Slightly off topic, but this is only mostly true. Each state has its own lenience regarding this issue (I always thought my Ohio was very lenient...I had friends with Georgia plates here for 5 years...then I found out the lenience was partially because Ohio law never bothered to require you to register your car when you move in--not that you wouldn't want to, registration and insurance here are crazy cheap.)
On the other hand, I'd do my best to not register my car in California. I've got more friends with Nevada licenses than I can safely count.
Lets outsource the baby boomers. Send them to nursing homes in India
Though you are joking, I believe this is almost guaranteed to occur.
That, and long-term prison inmates. Both extremely expensive human intensive operations that can be done much cheaper outside of the US.
Making sure everyone only votes once
I don't agree that this is hard. There is little evidence of people voting more than once. (The woman who is the head of the Ohio League of Women Voters said that the only evidence of people voting twice in Ohio occurs when someone votes in their own real name twice at two different addresses--so they they can vote for different property tax levies at their various properties.)
What there is evidence of is pollworkers themselves stuffing the ballot boxes with bad names.
I believe the main solution to that is mail in voting.
If the american public wants to scare the pants off the Washington lobbyists, a good place to start would be to campaign for Election Saturdays.
It might not be necessary. Quite a lot of states now allow for early voting and mail in voting.
I haven't voted in person since 1997. I don't plan to either. I vote by mail 3 weeks before the election. (Ohio will probably be an all mail-voting state in a few years anyway.)
As a college student and facebook user, Facebook jumped the shark a long time ago .
The thing that amazes me is that so many people did not see it coming. Myspace sold for about half a billion and Facebook wanted (several months ago) $2 billion in order to consider a buyout.
What would make a company with (at the time) about 1/10th the users think itself 4x more valuable?
a.) the fact that they ravage their user database and sell it to the highest bidder (which myspace can't due to the fact that the information is not as accurate, and paradoxically, myspace has a much better privacy policy)
b.) their strong growth potential once they open their network to as many people as possible
but it seemed to me that the main advantage of FaceBook was that it was a relatively safe place for HS and College students to meet and interact.
There might have been a perceived psychological safety with Facebook (and it truly was psychologocal...I think it's easier to make an argument that Myspace was safer because it was easier to be anonymous on it.)
Having said that, the main advantage to Facebook was its nifty hierarchichal design. It was easy to find a John Smith, whether they are at an unknown college/school, a specific school, or your own. It was a lot more complex to point someone to their myspace, but all you needed was a name for facebook.
Is the good credit history from rich parents or hard work.
Is the bad credit history from circumstances outside your control, or the inability to control spending.
It's an interesting question. I believe a lot of a person's money management skills come from their parents (and in this regard, wealthy parents don't necessarily give good credit to their children...spoiled children might become demanding adults who have little understanding of money management.) Undoubtedly, good money management is something that's passed down through the generations; in fact, a suprising amount of the Old Testament is devoted to money management issues.
Americans are a notoriously optimistic lot, and are often willing to go into debt with the belief that future higher pay will take care of it.
We were also a high savings low debt nation until the 1970s, when credit cards bloomed and the credit rating system developed. The parental knowledge of money and credit management was no longer as fitting in the new environment, so as time progressed, the generations became a bit lost in this regard. Optimistically, I could see a massive turn around--young people of today who have gotten burned on bad credit and buying decisions will teach their children to be extremely wary of credit and debt.
I've also heard an interesting theory regarding teenagers working. We have teenagers working not to support their families, but to soley support their own discretionary buying habits, and that creates a situation in which children grow into adults who are accustomed to having a lot of discretionary buying power, but once they are out on their own, that's not necessarily the case. The lesson here is that if children are to work, their parents have to work extra hard at making sure that their kids understand the benefits of saving and investing, and the joy of living without something that they really didn't need.
the freedom of movement in labour still has some way to catch up
Catch up? Freedom of movement of labor was a given until the 20th century. The right to travel without permission or documentation pretty much ended with World War I. I have been told (but have not found evidence for) that one of the goals of the League of Nations was to restore the right to travel across borders and to elminate the temporary Passport document. (Which really didn't become universal until the 1950's. Ellis Island was so important partially because many people showed up there with not a single piece of paper.)
This is something that will come to haunt the 1st world countries. We have relied upon skilled immigrant talent for years, but now other countries, while not as comfortable as the US or the EU are good enough for these people to live in without pining for the 1st world.
Splendid. Thanks for pointing out that the metaphor is flawed all by itself.
The old way, sure you were posting it on the internet, but there was a certain anonymnity to be found in the data overload of facebook.
There was a website at one time that plugged into myspace to deliver a semi-similar feed. It watched the profiles of all your friends (or people you wanted "watched") and if their relationship status flipped to single you'd get an email.
I thought it was a brillant concept. (I believe it was shut down because the way it interacted with myspace violated that site's terms of agreement.)
What would it take for me to design and distribute a program that you can install on your own computer to do the same thing? (I figure if it interacted with facebook or myspace in a low key way, and basically surfed your friend's profiles as if you were doing it from your own computer, it might just pass TOA muster.)
It could do a a semi-regular feed of all your friend's walls. It could collect all the pictures from their profiles and put them into a nifty slideshow. It could surf all the profile's friends ad nauseum and create a neural network of the way people have friended each other which you could probably do something really nifty with.
Eh, maybe this will convince people that they shouldn't put their whole lives on internet.
I can't disagree, but, at the moment, it's a fascinating experiment in human psychology (vis a vis people's understanding of privacy and their preferences for it.)
Perceptions plays an enormous role in social networking. Facebook's little institutional net may have felt safer, but I thought it was intolerably anti-privacy, and it's user agreement is worse than Myspace's.
It actually seemed that most people can articulate why they didn't like the feed, even though it was simply broadcasting something that was already public. The feed changed the way that people interacted with the site, which would, at the very least, imply multi-layered privacy preferences.
As an individual who has spent years being a privacy advocate that's really exciting. Many of my colleagues came to the conclusion that no one gives a damn about privacy, and yet, as this shows, people have odd instinctual reactions.
I don't know how a 15 year old would go about this online.
A Time magazine article from a month or two ago indicated that the state attorney general's were having panicked meetings regarding this issue (including the famous quote from the Connecticut AG along the lines of "if we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age online.")
For a time they actually considered requiring sites like Myspace to collect SSNs...and according to the article, they rejected the idea once they realized that most of the world does not have an SSN, but does use the internets.
If that doesn't give you an idea of the caliber of people we're dealing with, I dunno what would. Requiring teens to submit their SSNs to use these types of sites would be a disaster along biblical proportions--imagine how easy phishing would be--all you'd need to do is send out an email that claims it's from Xanga needing your SSN.
I don't know if there's a legal precedent for email, but I do know that you usually sign an agreement stating that the corporation can watch anything/everything you do using their workstations, telephones, email servers, etc, etc.
Keep in mind though, that response is more relevant in the context of an employer-employee relationship. Board of Directors are not "necessarily" employees of the company. Their election by the shareholders binds them to the company, what the company can do with them is limited, and I certainly would think the company could not dictate an agreement to them to do X or Y. The Directors have an obligation to the shareholders, not to the "company."
A better analogy would be if, in the records office, they put up a list of recent DUI convictions on a notice board.
How about analogizing with the obvious which is the sex offender registry.
People are bothered by the idea of living next to a sex offender, but if the public registry weren't there (sending a postcard in the neighborhood alerting everyone to the offender) they probably would just deal with it and not notice.
On the other hand, I'm sure if you worked at it hard enough, you could convince a neighborhood that they shouldn't have anyone convicted of DUI near their kids either.
It occurred to me the other day that profiling is deeply injurious to the security system we have set up. Why? We have identified a group of individuals who we suspect are more likely to be a threat to airline security. In order to mitigate this risk, it is proposed that those individuals go through more intense security checks.
Here's the paradox: the security system reveals itself to those who undergo it. The more you undergo security checks, and the more intensive they are, the better acquainted you become with the security system, how it works, its strength and weaknesses. Therefore, profiling paradoxically reveals the innards of airline security to exactly those people who we *don't* want to know how the airline security system works.