Oops, I meant to post this reply to a different article. Sorry about that.
But yes, I did go see SWEP2: AotC yesterday afternoon. Since I'm a consultant, I didn't have to "skip work" or call in sick to see the movie.
(My timing was off on Thursday -- the early-afternoon shows were sold out -- so I bought an advance ticket for 2:10pm Friday. The theater was only about 10% full.
My goal was to see the movie before school got out because the teens are often rude and obnoxious. As it turned out, there was a rude and obnoxious guy in the row behind me anyway (sitting by himself), making loud annoying comments. To his credit, he mostly made the rude comments during the incredibly-lame romantic-dialogue segments, but it was so annoying that about a third of the way through the movie, I got up and moved several rows away.
A couple of years ago, I received one of those "automated telemarketing" calls (the legal term is that the call came from an "automated dialing-announcing device" or ADAD), from AT&T.
The call sought to entice me to subscribe to AT&T's cable modem service. I was already a customer, so I was baffled as to why they didn't have a cross-check system to prevent calling their own customers. But more importantly, their use of an ADAD was illegal in California, if they were calling non-customers.
I made a lot of phone calls and eventually spoke with AT&T Broadband's in-house legal counsel in Colorado. To his credit, he immediately recognized the legal issue and promptly ordered that the campaign be suspended pending his investigation.
In the end, his investigation determined that the ONLY people being called with the sales pitch for AT&T Cable Modem service were existing customers of AT&T's cable modem service. While this meant that the calls were technically not illegal (since it is legal to use ADADs to call your own customers), it was obviously a colossal waste of time and effort, which could only serve to annoy existing customers.
Naturally, the intent of the marketing team at AT&T Broadband was to call their cable-TV customers who did NOT already have cable-modem service. However, it turned out that the company had internal "checks and balances" that prevented the "cable modem" people from getting access to the "non-modem cable" customers.
Later, AT&T used the same ADAD technology to call its customers on Saturday, December 5 to inform them that the @home service ended on December 4 (as if they didn't already know) and several days later, the ADADs were used to notify cable modem customers that service had been restored through AT&T Broadband's own network. Now there is a valid use of ADAD technology.
Note that currently, since the switch from @home and until the Comcast merger closes, AT&T Broadband Internet is essentially a completely independent and unrelated entity, with no connection except name and ownership (and wires) with AT&T Broadband (cable TV).
The only other ADAD call I've ever received that made sense was the medical-appointment reminder call I get from UCSF several days before each doctor visit.
At least once a month, I get an ADAD call, always in violation of California or federal law, but the calls are always Caller-ID blocked and don't identify the caller, so I haven't been able to do anything about them.
A couple of years ago, I received one of those "automated telemarketing" calls (the legal term is that the call came from an "automated dialing-announcing device" or ADAD), from AT&T.
The call sought to entice me to subscribe to AT&T's cable modem service. I was already a customer, so I was baffled as to why they didn't have a cross-check system to prevent calling their own customers. But more importantly, their use of an ADAD was illegal in California, if they were calling non-customers.
I made a lot of phone calls and eventually spoke with AT&T Broadband's in-house legal counsel in Colorado. To his credit, he immediately recognized the legal issue and promptly ordered that the campaign be suspended pending his investigation.
In the end, his investigation determined that the ONLY people being called with the sales pitch for AT&T Cable Modem service were existing customers of AT&T's cable modem service. While this meant that the calls were technically not illegal (since it is legal to use ADADs to call your own customers), it was obviously a colossal waste of time and effort, which could only serve to annoy existing customers.
Naturally, the intent of the marketing team at AT&T Broadband was to call their cable-TV customers who did NOT already have cable-modem service. However, it turned out that the company had internal "checks and balances" that prevented the "cable modem" people from getting access to the "non-modem cable" customers.
Later, AT&T used the same ADAD technology to call its customers on Saturday, December 5 to inform them that the @home service ended on December 4 (as if they didn't already know) and several days later, the ADADs were used to notify cable modem customers that service had been restored through AT&T Broadband's own network. Now there is a valid use of ADAD technology.
Note that currently, since the switch from @home and until the Comcast merger closes, AT&T Broadband Internet is essentially a completely independent and unrelated entity, with no connection except name and ownership (and wires) with AT&T Broadband (cable TV).
The only other ADAD call I've ever received that made sense was the medical-appointment reminder call I get from UCSF several days before each doctor visit.
At least once a month, I get an ADAD call, always in violation of California or federal law, but the calls are always Caller-ID blocked and don't identify the caller, so I haven't been able to do anything about them.
Re:the beauty of credit cards
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 2
Sorry, but when this happened to me (twice), my credit card company advised me that while they would allow me to dispute the charge each month, they could not prevent future billings and thus I'd have to call every month to get the charge reversed.
The only real solution, alas, is to ask the credit card company to change your card number, and go out and change that number everywhere else it is billed monthly. Since joining the Internet Age in 1996, I've done this twice to get recurring charges to stop, after the ISPs repeatedly promised but failed to stop the monthly charges (of course, during that same time, I've also changed credit card companies twice more, and changed my credit card number twice more for other reasons, so I've had 6 credit-card numbers in 6 years -- not counting cards that I've acquired and later cancelled without ever charging any online transactions with them).
I've cancelled AOL accounts three times -- and the last two times it was quite easy. I just called the regular toll-free support number and the first person who came on cheerfully accepted my cancellation, without either the hostile attitude nor the persistent defense reported here.
In contrast, I have never had trouble cancelling an Earthlink account, because both times I tried to create an account, their system failed to create a new account (which explains why I returned to AOL three times).
Finally, there is absolutely no surer guarantee of infinite-billing hell, than the merger of your ISP into a larger one (e.g. Mindspring becomes part of Earthlink). I had this happen twice, and both times the "new" company insisted that my account cancellations weren't taking effect because of system integration problems. In one case, every cancelled account was automatically restored to active status on the day before the new billing cycle, making it impossible to stop the charges without cancelling the credit card number.
I certainly understand your situation; being identified as "over-qualified" is one of the strangest non-hire excuses I can imagine. Shouldn't every company aspire to have all its employees not just qualified, but over-qualified?
The solution, of course, is to alter your resume when applying for certain jobs.
The simplest strategy is to simply offer no resume: for the burger flipping job, or many other minimum-wage positions, presenting a resume is probably a red flag all by itself.
On job applications (or on your resume), do just the opposite of what most folks do: understate and deflate your experience.
I suppose the worst problem is how to fill the blanks: if you were working at a dot-bomb company from 1997-2001, you can't just leave those years blank without raising concerns (though if you have young kids, you can report that "following the birth of my first child in 1996, I decided to spend more time at home" without actually lying (maybe you didn't ever manage to act on that decision, for example, until the company's Chapter 7 filing in 2001).
Or just make some minor changes in the way you describe that job: if your resume now says, "Chief Technology Officer supervising 65 programmers and maintenance of 200 web servers from 1997-2001," try changing the title to something that sounds a lot less grandiose (like "Computer Operator" or "Equipment Manager").
Let's face it, being "over-qualified" for a job you want right now, is a problem that most people only dream about.
As I re-read the Seattle Weekly articles, it appears that the issue was not Mr. Trummel's statements of opinions, nor facts, but instead there are references suggesting that the order simply ordered Mr. Trummel to remove certain "personal information" about specific individuals from the site.
Sorry to be skeptical here, but I suspect that the omission of the list of "personal information" might make us less sympathetic to Mr. Trummel's cause.
What is the "personal information" that the judge ordered removed? Is this really just a privacy issue (social security or credit-card numbers, or unlisted telephone numbers)?
I don't think the First Amendment protects my right to publish a web page that truthfully states:
Slashdot.org poster "Kilroy" is actually John Q. Smith, who lives at 123 Main Street, Apartment 3B, in Anytown, Utah. His social security number is 123-45-6789, his Visa credit card number is 4321-1234-5678-9012, and he most commonly uses the password "thelma" for his online accounts, and the PIN number 45678 for his ATM card and credit cards. His unlisted home telephone number is 801-555-1234, and his cell phone number is 801-555-4321. He has a special pager just to be notified when his wife gives birth, that number is 801-555-9876.
There might be some argument about some of the information, but if someone were posting ALL of this information about me (presumably with the goal of f*cking up my life for a few weeks or months), I'd certainly want a judge to order them to remove the information and cease disseminating this information further (though let's face it, the milk is spilt).
I don't know if this is what Mr. Trummel is alleged to have posted -- probably he did not post this kind of information. Again, the facts are still missing here.
In the materials cited, there appears to be some substantial confusion between:
the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America;
the "shield laws" which protect reporters in some states against subpoena of their notes and unpublished materials;
defamation law (slander and libel); and
the contempt power of a judicial officer.
I had to navigate through several intermediate sites to actually find the Seattle Weekly article which implies that Mr. Trummel was jailed because he violated a court order compelling him to remove certain allegations and assertions from his web site. Since I don't have access to the court file and the various articles omit most of the pertinent facts, I can't really be sure, but I think these are the facts:
Mr. Trummel was evicted from a housing situation, and was unhappy with the persons who managed that situation. Mr. Trummel posted a number of negative comments and allegations about certain persons at his web site. He also apparently engaged in other, more traditional "harassment" (visiting the location, making statements, etc.). Those persons took exception and sued for "harassment." It is unclear if the lawsuit included claims for libel or slander. It is unclear if an evidentiary hearing was held. It is unclear if the judge ruled on whether the persons criticized were "public figures" (which under established U.S. Supreme Court rulings under the First Amendment, would change the rules for a libel suit). While there are statements that the judge ruled that certain of Mr. Trummel's defenses were not valid (apparently concluding that the first amendment defense did not apply), it is unclear whether the judge ever made a ruling as to whether Mr. Trummel was a "journalist" or if so, whether that was somehow relevant to the determination of the case.
It seems entirely possible that the judge heard evidence and ruled that the statements were false, and were made with actual knowledge of their falsity, for the purpose of harassing the persons named. If so, and if Mr. Trummel is judgment-proof (unable to pay damages), then an injunction might be proper, and violation of that court order might be appropriately punished through a contempt proceeding and jail time.
I wish someone had the actual facts to present, rather than the bald assertion that the judge says the First Amendment only applies to journalists, which seems unlikely.
Where is the copy of the judge's order? Where is the copy of the lawsuit pleadings? These are all public records, and their absence (and the absence of any direct reference to the information needed to confirm the remarkable claims) make me quite suspicious and unwilling to leap to the support of this fellow.
If there was never any evidence submitted or considered, or if the judge ruled that publication of truthful statements, or expressions of opinion, could be enjoined without violating the first amendment, I would be glad to jump in and support the poor jailed fellow.
Don't misinterpret this: I have a web site where I often post strong opinions, mixed with statements of fact, which annoy certain people. I have a degree in journalism and worked full-time as a reporter and editor for a number of years. My current site does not accept advertising, and does not charge subscription fees. So, in many ways, I am in the situation described as applying to Mr. Trummel, and the claims in the Slashdot piece and the Seattle Times article do concern me -- but I need more facts before I will believe that there really is an affront to the First Amendment.
Finally: Comparisons to the "shield law" case of Vanessa Leggett (in Texas) are not applicable. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is no protection under the First Amendment to absolutely protect reporters from having to turn over their notes to prosecutors or defense attorneys under subpoena, certainly when there is a bone fide claim that the notes are substantially likely to contain information that might exonerate the defendant. To "cure" this defect, many states have enacted "shield laws" which create such a privilege (not a right) for journalists. The statutes do not extend this privelege to everyone who might gather information and who might wish to express it -- the legislatures have chosen to narrowly define the class of protected persons, usually requiring a direct association or assignment from an established news organization. While courts may rule that the First Amendment requires that any such law not discriminate between different types of journalists (and thus that the privilege should extend to "true crime book" writers like Ms. Vanessa Leggett, or to a person who maintains a not-for-profit web site), this would not mean that the First Amendment creates the "shield privilege," and a legislature could elect to repeal the statute and require all journalists to turn over their notes under specific circumstances.
Let's get the facts first, and use them in reaching our conclusion -- it sounds like several folks have done the reverse: they want to believe that any jailing of any "expressive person" (writer or artist) is invalid.
"Once someone has signed-up on the commercial sex site, with a valid credit card number, you can show them anything."
You missed my point. Online stores don't normally require people to sign up and provide their credit card just to browse. You can go to Amazon.com, BN.com, etc. and look around, check out products, look at book covers, add stuff to a cart -- all without first providing your credit card number.
Those stores that require registration before allowing a visitor to shop, routinely lose 90% of incoming visitors who balk at this requirement.
Currently, many online stores selling adult products address this the "easy way" -- they mostly ignore the law, and display all the offensive box art to anyone who visits their store. But as I understand it, that's illegal under COPA.
A few online stores (like MagicMountain.com) actually blur out any offensive imagery from each box-art item, at what must be incredible expense (for thousands of SKUs). And adult consumers can't see the complete box art and determine if this is the movie they want.
Suppose I were creating a site that sells videos, and I wanted to include "trailers" or still photos to show what the film is about. Like any other online film reseller, I know that I can't demand that my customers to pay me for the privilege of shopping at my store.
What this law says, is that I must do exactly that: lock the door to my store and sell keys, even though that's not a business I want to be in. And customers who want to pay by cash or money order or PayPal are simply out of luck: they can't shop at my store, at least they can't see the box art and the trailers.
What's even more frustrating, is that there is no "credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number" that effectively bars children. Indeed, many minors have credit cards, or can obtain an adult-ID passcode. To my knowledge, there simply is no "reasonable measure" which would "restrict access by minors." Instead, the effect is to reduce all access, probably reducing adult access more frequently than access by minors (who often have more time and ingenuity to circumvent the system).
No, I don't want to show minors any "material that is harmful to minors," but under this law that means I simply cannot operate an "adult product" online store at all. (In theory, I could operate a store that doesn't show the product "box art" nor trailers, but then I lose all the advantages of selling online -- now any local porn shop has a distinct advantage.)
Of course, none of this addresses issues like a legitimate sex-education web site resource. As I understand it, I can include all the text I want, but pictures won't be permitted for any topic that might be "harmful to minors," unless I charge a fee which can be paid by credit card.
Yes, if you choose to vacation in the USA, you could be arrested and prosecuted if your adult content was viewed by someone in the USA and your web site did not comply with all the requirements of COPA and other laws of the United states. (Prosecution under COPA is not permitted currently, but if the law is upheld, you might later be prosecuted under that law. Prosecution under other laws, including local obscenity ordinances, could happen any time. If you are an adult webmaster in the UK or elsewhere, and if you think there is any likelihood that you might be prosecuted, I would certainly suggest you avoid Tennessee (and probably the entire Southern and Midwestern USA) on your next USA vacation. However, even if you chose to vacation only in a decadent USA city like Los Angeles or San Francisco or New York, you would still potentially be subjected to arrest and extradition to Tennessee (though the cost of extradition is so high that it's quite unlikely for this kind of alleged offense).
It was disappointing that the Court did not rule on what "community" can be used to measure the community standards.
In particular, we know that there have been strategic efforts to prosecute purveyors of "adult" materials in the "least tolerant" communities.
Since it is technically impossible to know what community a web visitor is in (thanks to AOL and other proxy servers), the end result is simple: nobody can offer ANY "adult" materials to anyone in the world, unless those materials are acceptable under the community standards of the most conservative community in the United States.
The real goal, of course, is not to prosecute violations of this law -- it is to create a system that strongly deters creation or distribution of ANY adult content online. By imposing an impossible standard to prevent access by minors, the law effectively closes off access to everyone.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the current minimum costs associated with starting an adult business, even ignoring the cost of legal advice and any costs associated with harassment by local law enforcement. I suspect the costs are quite high, especially for a firm producing original content. The bottom line, in my view, is that our government is imposing the moral views of a few to strongly discourage and often prevent access to adult materials wanted by the majority.
Huh? This is exactly how rechargeable cordless phones work. If you set it down into its cradle, it recharges while not in use.
No wait -- Are you suggesting that when I set the phone down on my desk, nowhere near the cradle or any source of electricity, it should somehow recharge itself by simply drawing electricity from the ether?
An interesting idea, but not yet practical. See, e.g., the movie "The Quiet Earth" [1985].
It sounds like Microsoft wins this round -- perhaps rightly so, if this really was a last-minute bit of evidence. (Recall that one of Microsoft's demos was proven fraudulent after some time to study it, and of course Microsoft would assume that anyone else might do the same thing, so they'd need time to uncover the tricks.)
I dunno if it matters much -- there really isn't any big argument about whether some stuff could be separated from Windows, only whether it "should" be separated. In some ways, the states may gain a benefit since the judge knows there is a demo out there showing it works (sure, she's supposed to disregard evidence that wasn't formally submitted, but how can you really ignore an offer of evidence that goes to the very core of the case?)
A while back, I bought the 3-camera pack from X10 (the evil pop-up ad people), which included three wireless cameras (somewhat of a misnomer since you have to plug 'em in to power or replace batteries constantly).
The wireless receiver plugs into a USB port and the bundled software (actually you have to download it) allows you to record time-lapse images.
It's been a while, it might only run as slow as 1 image per second or per minute, but I know I found it entertaining to play with for a while.
Now, like so many other cool toys, all the X10 stuff sits in a package on the shelf.
When I attended the RoboCup 2001 competition in Seattle, the students had reprogrammed new behaviors and movements into their Aibos -- with Sony's blessing. My never-quite-finished report on the event, with links to photos and AVIs, is at:
I was told that the Aibos and the programming stations (used by the college teams competing in the Aibo competition) were not regular retail devices, but clearly Sony was endorsing the notion of reprogramming Aibo, at least by experts-in-training. (Sony was a major sponsor of the event.)
It was amusing to see some of the new behaviors programmed by students in an effort to make the Aibos play better soccer. While the Aibo plays lousy soccer (due to extremely limited memory and a design focus on "cuteness" instead of efficiency), they are absolutely fun to watch.
I also noticed the gravity issue, but I think we're supposed to assume that she was presenting more surface area and thus fell more slowly due to resistance from the air. She is light and dainty, while Spidey is more dense and (thanks to his cool costume) more aerodynamic.
What I found more interesting was that the "web goo" seemed pretty thick and substantive, and it seems pretty clear that Spidey is expelling more than his entire body volume in goo in some scenes. [Insert porn-movie joke here.]
Maybe he chugs protein shakes or something? Or maybe the goo expands a LOT as it is expelled from his body (accept, of course, that the goo is super-stong and super-sticky). (And of course, the properties of the web goo change from scene to scene and sometimes even within a single scene.)
Of course, we are supposed to suspend disbelief, and accept that the laws of physics can vary around our super-hero and super-villain.
> NDAs can't be used to stop you from reporting possibly illegal actions to law enforcement.
Actually, they often are used for exactly this. The employer argues that the information is secret, and no laws were broken, and the employee will be sued if s/he discloses the information to law enforcement agencies who are not bound to honor the confidentiality.
The goal is to create a "chilling effect" so that reports are made only when there is pretty clear legal violation, or where the employee is particularly strong-willed.
Turn it around: what happens if an employee discloses information regarding the employer to a law enforcement agency, which then discloses that information to experts and/or competitors of the company while evaluating whether a law has been broken? If law enforcement concludes that "no legal violation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt," but now the information is "out there" in competitors' hands, the company will certainly want to respond against the ex-employee.
I don't know how a court might rule, but I'm sure the employer will want to discourage any ex-employees (and current employees) from talking to law enforcement as much as possible. That would certainly include terminating any ongoing severance payments and benefits, leaving it to the employee to litigate to recover the promised benefits! Without any cash, unemployed and blacklisted, the employee likely won't even be able to hire an attorney to defend against the company's civil suit for breach of the confidentiality agreement -- allowing the company's army of attorneys to attack hard in order to deter others from ever coming forward. (Welcome to the tobacco industry.)
Bottom line: there are many cases where ex-employees cite confidentiality agreements when refusing to talk to law enforcement, and in 99% of cases the law enforcement agency doesn't have the resources to litigate to create a legal obligation for the ex-employee to talk.
> Should programmers be able to refuse to write code that harms the public ?
Of course. In the USA and most western countries, nobody is required to engage in conduct they believe is illegal, unethical, unsafe, or unpleasant -- with the exception of certain positions in the military, who are required to follow the chain of command in most circumstances.
Of course, there are economic pressures: if the only living-wage job in your community for which you are qualified is to work in a coal mine, or in a prison, or writing virus code, then you must make an economic decision: Balancing.
Nobody has to write bad code. If you believe that your shop should never release code unless it includes sixteen types of "defensive code" (resisting viruses and privacy-invading applets and so on), then you tell your employer those terms, and your employer will decide which action to pursue: ending your employment, or changing its practices.
We have all had those "moments" in our lives where we had to make a decision about Right and Wrong. If I do this, is it Right or is it Wrong? If I do this, can I accept the consequences? If I do this, will I be able to respect myself as a person? If I do this, how can I explain myself later to my child?
Sometimes, the decisions are easy: your employer assigns you to load toxic waste into drums and to pour it into a river. Sometimes, the decisions are really hard: your team has spent 1,000 hours testing your code and you are pretty sure that it's good, but you really wish that you had more time for testing, or a different regimen for testing, and now your team leader announces that he's going to release the code -- it certainly makes a difference if the code we are talking about is Doom III or the operating program for a nuclear reactor.
Everybody has a different benchmark. I've heard lots of stories, all of them quite respectable:
I can't do this because if I ever run for public office, this would ruin my chances
My religion prohibits this
This violates the "golden rule" (do unto others...)
My professional ethics prohibit this
I cannot do this and still be a role model for my child
This violates my personal beliefs
This is just, plain wrong, and I won't do it.
In my opinion, you should use whatever test makes you pause and refuse as often as possible. When someone suggests that the problem is that "we might get caught," I lose all respect for that person: that statement already accepts that the action is wrong (nobody ever says "I'd love to help you rescue that child from the burning building, but I'm afraid I might get caught").
Sure, there are things we do that we wouldn't want to discuss with our kids -- not because they are "wrong" but because they are personal or unpleasant or simply not appropriate to discuss with a child.
Life is full of hard choices. I think that 99% of the time, we know what is the "right" thing to do. We often recognize that we are doing something 'wrong' and we have lots of excuses, and some of them feel quite tolerable (I need this job, my kids need health insurance, little harm will come, or harm is quite unlikely).
A long time ago, I found that when I was in certain kinds of situations, I found it "necessary" to do certain things. It was my job, it was legal, it was appropriate -- but it was unpleasant and people disliked me because of it. I had to decide whether I wanted to be the kind of person who did those things. I decided that I did not want to be that kind of person, and I recognized that I could not do my job competently without being that kind of person. I quit my job and changed my profession.
And now, to the question at hand:
> "Should [programmers] code defensively to prevent software and information being misused for
unintended purposes? And how do we protect such programmers from being dismissed unfairly for
standing on principle?"
Okay, now we are looking at something much less clear. What kind of application are we talking about, and what kind of abuse or misuse are we worried about?
There are various issues to balance, including potential legal liability, potential adverse publicity and adverse market response, and of course potential harm to the public.
Legal liability is a good starting point. If I am writing the code for a new version of a Microsoft operating system, and I already know that there are 1,000 viruses that attack Windows systems, I probably would be legally liable for releasing a product that is vulnerable to one of those existing viruses, if I could easily and inexpensively block them. An internet-ready operating system with no protection against known viruses, would be a defective product, and I'd probably be legally responsible for the damages, at least to consumers. Even if legal liability were avoided (for example, through enforceable contracts), the adverse publicity and of course the complete failure of the operating system to work, would result in complete market failure: people would not buy this product or my other products.
Now, let's look to the harder case. Suppose I am responsible for the coding for Doom III, a complex computer game that (I assume) includes internet-play. I know there are viruses out there, and I know that there are malicious people out there. I also suspect that someone could write a virus that would target my widely software, attaching itself and perhaps even trying to propegate to other users or distribute private data or system-access information by modifying the code that allows internet play. Must I write code to resist that potential virus? No matter what I do, a clever cracker will find a way to circumvent my efforts -- but what must I do? How much time, what portion of my budget, should be spent to fighting crime?
Basically, it's a balancing act.
Try another example: your employer asks you to write a database or accounting program. You know that it is quite likely that your program will be purchased and used by drug traffickers to track their shipments and profits. What duty do you have to prevent such uses, or to detect such uses and report them to law enforcement?
Try another example: your employer asks you to write a Napster-like computer program that will allow people to share files. You know that some people will misuse the program (sharing copyrighted materials), but you also know that many people will use the program lawfully.
Now, suppose you work for one of these latter two companies, and you decide that your employer is not doing enough to prevent misuse, and you refuse to write certain code, but you also refuse to resign. Maybe your employer's attorneys present you with a "severance agreement" that includes a generous cash severance and a confidentiality clause. Or maybe you already signed a confidentiality agreement, and your employer fires you with no severance.
Damn, I have to side with the employer. There's nothing illegal going on, and you aren't being asked to do something unsafe or improper -- you simply have chosen a set of personal ethical standards that conflict with your employer. So I'd probably agree that your employer could fire you, but I might be uncomfortable enforcing the confidentiality agreement, at least insofar as it might seek to prevent you from talking to appropriate law-enforcement agencies.
I have recently noticed more and more situations in which the networks (or maybe it's the local affiliates) appear to be "out of sync" regarding the time.
In other words, if I switch channels just as the hour-long 8pm program on one channel ends, I find that I'm 2 minutes into the second channel's 9pm program. This does not appear to be some kind of isolated situation -- it seems to be happening quite often, certainly I notice it several times per week.
According to my best indicators of the "real" time, most networks seem to run late (e.g. their 9pm programs start at 9:02pm and end at 9:59 or 10:00) but others are "out of sync" by one, two, or occasionally three minutes.
While some might just consider this another example of broadcast-TV incompetence (or perhaps someone can find a way to blame it on cable TV), I wonder if one or more of the networks or local affiliates might be doing this intentionally -- either to gain some kind of perceived competitive edge, or to screw up people who are recording programs using VCRs or PVRs and relying on program start and end times?
Can anyone explain this odd trend? Has anyone else noticed it? Or has it always been happening and I've just been oblivious until recently?
If it matters, I'm in the San Francisco bay area, with AT&T Broadband cable.
I'd gladly pay an extra $250 per year for the commercial-skip feature, if it were actually available somehow, at some price. (Hmm, does that price include commercial-skip abilities for all programming that comes into my home, including cable-only channels like Comedy Central, or just broadcast channels?)
I really want the ability to record programs, and later watch them, and I'd pay a premium for certain PVR features like:
Dual tuners (so I can record one program while watching another, or record two programs at once)
A meaningful "commercial skip" (I'd even accept a 30-second-skip button or a working fast-fast-forward mode)
Accurate programming information (not data that's six weeks old, but data that's updated to reflect programming changes
I'd pay an additional premium for a system that would not record the last 10 minutes of an overtime sports event and then cut off recording 10 minutes before my program ends.
I'd pay extra for a system that recognizes my programming preferences and suggests new programs I might enjoy.
I'd like the ability to pause live TV.
I'd like the ability to "record the past," with my PVR recording and storing the last minute or two so I can hit a command to save it to watch again (hey, sometimes those nude scenes are worth seeing again, and sometimes you want another look at a flash of skin in a commercial).
Proper synchronization so I don't lose the first 2 or last 2 minutes of programs because the system decides that it's 7:59 when Fox thinks it's 8:01.
Each of these features is worth money, and if I have to pay a premium to get some or all of these features, I will do so. If the broadcasting networks think that it's worth $250 extra per year to receive their programs without commercials, then why don't they try offering it? Couldn't they offer their content without commercials on a series of premium cable channels? Gosh, no, it turns out that it's not just about skipping commercials -- I think people are more interested in the time-shifting ability than skipping commercials. I certainly am.
While each of these features is promised by one or more companies that claim to manufacture PVRs, I have been unable to see any PVR in use, except for one demo of UltimateTV (which I later learned I cannot use because I apparently can't get a signal at my home).
I've recently been shopping for a PVR and have concluded that none are currently available from companies likely to be in business in 6 months.
I really, really want a Personal Video Recorder, and I'd gladly pay a premium. Indeed, I actually bought an RCA UltimateTV unit and satellite dish, but I can't get a signal and neither DirecTV nor UltimateTV could suggest the name of any installers who would not charge me huge fees just to confirm that I can't get a satellite signal. I sent the system back.
I wanted to try TiVo, which has a "fast-fast-forward" but they signed an exclusive deal with Best Buy, which won't demo the unit (and doesn't have them in stock anyway).
ReplayTV demands a huge premium (charging roughly a $300-$350 premium for its prepaid lifetime subscription for programming -- but the money isn't put in escrow, and I assume that if the company loses or settles the pending lawsuits, it will abandon all customers.)
And that leaves . . . nobody. Oh, yeah, DishTV offers its own PVR, but of course I don't expect to get a DishTV signal if I can't get a DirecTV signal (and I understand the companies are merging).
I really want the ability to record programs, and later watch them, and I'd pay a premium for certain features like dual tuners (so I can record one program while watching another, or record two programs at once), a meaningful "commercial skip," and accurate programming information and proper synchronization so I don't lose the first 2 or last 2 minutes of programs because the system decides that it's 7:59 when Fox thinks it's 8:01.
I'd gladly pay a premium, and $250 per year for the commercial-skip capability would be well worth it.
There are a bunch of services that will provide you with a counter or tracker, with varying report information available. Some will give you all the same data you'd see in a log file, others give you much less.
I certainly agree that getting a "degree in Education" should not be a requirement (and it's not a requirement in California nor I think in most states), nor should teachers be required to pursue a master's degree in education. (I think it's true that in California, teachers do get more pay if they have a master's degree in education.)
But a teaching credential is different. Basically, a teaching credential means taking some classes on "how to teach," and on subjects like how to deal with the needs of minor students, and the legal obligations of teachers (e.g. reporting knowledge of molestation). The requirements for a teaching credential differ for the age group being taught, in a fairly logical way, at least in California. (See the links, below.)
I have a B.A. degree in journalism, plus a J.D. (law) degree, plus a number of years of respectable work experience. I'm confident that I could probably get a job teaching college classes if I wanted, and for a couple years I even taught a class in the local school district's "adult education" program. But I absolutely believe that I would need special training to be qualified to teach to children.
What is disturbing to me, is that school districts are permitted to hire uncertified teachers, who can continue employment for up to five years while making NO effort toward certification. Until recently, these 'teachers' could be dropped into classrooms without ANY training (some were even permitted to skip orientation sessions), and when they "timed out" in one school district they could simply start the clock again in another school district.
And where did this happen most often? In inner-city schools, where the obstacles are so plentiful that we need the very best-trained teachers.
What is involved in getting a teaching certification? Spend one summer at a local college's intense program, or night school for a couple nights per week for two semesters or three quarters. Read, do the homework, pass the exams.
Nobody pretends that it is difficult to get a teaching certification: the classes can be easy, the exams a breeze. It is only "difficult" for those who want to cut corners and try to teach kids without ever learning "how kids learn" and how to deal with situations that arise in the classroom setting.
I occasionally think that I'd like to teach, but I really don't think I have the energy or stamina. Start my first class at 8am? Teach five 50-minute classes per day, with an average of 35 students per class (175 students!). Deal with career teachers and petty bureaucracy? Survive the intense emotional needs of children? Grade papers and exams while watching TV every night? Maybe I could teach one or two classes per day, or better yet nine to twelve hours per week of classroom teaching time (like a college professor).
Teaching is a very difficult job, and we don't pay teachers very well, hardly even a living wage unless they "play the game" of seeking out a master's degree in education and survive many years in a school district to work up the pay ladder. Yeah, they get 8 to 10 weeks of summer vacation, and maybe they work fewer hours than some of us who've ridden the dot-com roller coaster, but they are doing something we all agree must be done -- and done well -- and it is a job I know that most people couldn't do very well.
My gosh, how many years has it been since I read a column in PC Magazine, probably in 1985, urging an emphasis on "numeracy" as a special focus along with "literacy" ??
Just last week, I read an article in Mother Jones magazine about Robert Moses, a 60's civil rights leader who now is strongly advocating better math education for minorities, both through his own actions teaching in a Mississippi school (he commutes weekly from his Massachusetts home, bless those dedicated liberals), and in his book, Radical Literacy. (I just ordered the book, ISBN 080703127, but haven't got it yet.)
I absolutely agree that math and science education should be a stronger emphasis in schools (math is probably more important than science, but they each fuel the other). And clearly, inner-city schools, and other poor schools, provide lousy education, especially in math and science. And as the survey cited here demonstrates, that lousy education shows.
Here in Pleasanton, California, a wealthy suburb, my Rotary Club awards prizes each month to a "student of the month." I'm amazed each month that these kids all take multiple AP classes (sometimes five or six) and have GPAs of 4.15 or 4.25. When I went to school, even taking AP Calculus, it was mathematically impossible to have a GPA greater than 4.0 -- speaking of "math literacy". But what about the many inner-city students who never graduate from high school, and lack even the basic math skills required to work at a cash register? (Ask your local McDonald's manager how they work around the lack of functional literacy and math skills.)
Another book plug: I just finished the book And Still We Rise, a reporter's account of a year in an AP English classroom in South Central Los Angeles. It's a remarkable book that left me feeling hopeful (unlike most books in this genre, which leave me frightened and numb). But alas, that book focuses only on just a few dozen surviving geniuses, and not thousands of their peers whose best efforts could not overcome the cruel challenges of the inner-city school environment.
Finally, I read an article in yesterday's newspaper (the Valley Herald), recounting a new bill by my local state legislator, who wants to exempt more new teachers from needing teaching credentials. The bill's stated intent is to allow more skilled professionals to teach, but I suspect the real goal is to circumvent teaching standards and put more lower-cost teachers into classrooms without adequate training.
No, I don't think domain names were "supposed to be first come, first served." I think the notion originally was that people and companies would play fairly, and not engage in "land grabs" nor register domain names which would only be useful because they were associated with someone else's reputation or business.
Ultimately, what is "supposed to be" is settled by custom and law, and in this case a procedure was established, and in the USA a law was created especially to deal with this issue, and so "first come, first served" is NOT how our system has decided things are "supposed to be."
Would I have designed a different system? Yeah, if I were emperor of the internet, I would have a different set of rules, which would make it a little bit harder for someone to win a case like this -- but if we did things the way I think they should be, the outcome in this case would not change.
At one time, everyone was free to hunt animals and catch fish on public lands, without limitation. But then some people began hunting and fishing too much, depleting stocks and threatening species, and now things are different. Some fishermen and hunters claim that they are "supposed to be" able to hunt and fish until nothing is left, but our society has decided on a different set of rules.
How are things "supposed to be"? It all depends on who does the supposing.
Slashdot Mirror
But yes, I did go see SWEP2: AotC yesterday afternoon. Since I'm a consultant, I didn't have to "skip work" or call in sick to see the movie.
(My timing was off on Thursday -- the early-afternoon shows were sold out -- so I bought an advance ticket for 2:10pm Friday. The theater was only about 10% full.
My goal was to see the movie before school got out because the teens are often rude and obnoxious. As it turned out, there was a rude and obnoxious guy in the row behind me anyway (sitting by himself), making loud annoying comments. To his credit, he mostly made the rude comments during the incredibly-lame romantic-dialogue segments, but it was so annoying that about a third of the way through the movie, I got up and moved several rows away.
After seeing the movie, I am somewhat more inclined to agree with "The Case for the Empire."
The call sought to entice me to subscribe to AT&T's cable modem service. I was already a customer, so I was baffled as to why they didn't have a cross-check system to prevent calling their own customers. But more importantly, their use of an ADAD was illegal in California, if they were calling non-customers.
I made a lot of phone calls and eventually spoke with AT&T Broadband's in-house legal counsel in Colorado. To his credit, he immediately recognized the legal issue and promptly ordered that the campaign be suspended pending his investigation.
In the end, his investigation determined that the ONLY people being called with the sales pitch for AT&T Cable Modem service were existing customers of AT&T's cable modem service. While this meant that the calls were technically not illegal (since it is legal to use ADADs to call your own customers), it was obviously a colossal waste of time and effort, which could only serve to annoy existing customers.
Naturally, the intent of the marketing team at AT&T Broadband was to call their cable-TV customers who did NOT already have cable-modem service. However, it turned out that the company had internal "checks and balances" that prevented the "cable modem" people from getting access to the "non-modem cable" customers.
Later, AT&T used the same ADAD technology to call its customers on Saturday, December 5 to inform them that the @home service ended on December 4 (as if they didn't already know) and several days later, the ADADs were used to notify cable modem customers that service had been restored through AT&T Broadband's own network. Now there is a valid use of ADAD technology.
Note that currently, since the switch from @home and until the Comcast merger closes, AT&T Broadband Internet is essentially a completely independent and unrelated entity, with no connection except name and ownership (and wires) with AT&T Broadband (cable TV).
The only other ADAD call I've ever received that made sense was the medical-appointment reminder call I get from UCSF several days before each doctor visit.
At least once a month, I get an ADAD call, always in violation of California or federal law, but the calls are always Caller-ID blocked and don't identify the caller, so I haven't been able to do anything about them.
The call sought to entice me to subscribe to AT&T's cable modem service. I was already a customer, so I was baffled as to why they didn't have a cross-check system to prevent calling their own customers. But more importantly, their use of an ADAD was illegal in California, if they were calling non-customers.
I made a lot of phone calls and eventually spoke with AT&T Broadband's in-house legal counsel in Colorado. To his credit, he immediately recognized the legal issue and promptly ordered that the campaign be suspended pending his investigation.
In the end, his investigation determined that the ONLY people being called with the sales pitch for AT&T Cable Modem service were existing customers of AT&T's cable modem service. While this meant that the calls were technically not illegal (since it is legal to use ADADs to call your own customers), it was obviously a colossal waste of time and effort, which could only serve to annoy existing customers.
Naturally, the intent of the marketing team at AT&T Broadband was to call their cable-TV customers who did NOT already have cable-modem service. However, it turned out that the company had internal "checks and balances" that prevented the "cable modem" people from getting access to the "non-modem cable" customers.
Later, AT&T used the same ADAD technology to call its customers on Saturday, December 5 to inform them that the @home service ended on December 4 (as if they didn't already know) and several days later, the ADADs were used to notify cable modem customers that service had been restored through AT&T Broadband's own network. Now there is a valid use of ADAD technology.
Note that currently, since the switch from @home and until the Comcast merger closes, AT&T Broadband Internet is essentially a completely independent and unrelated entity, with no connection except name and ownership (and wires) with AT&T Broadband (cable TV).
The only other ADAD call I've ever received that made sense was the medical-appointment reminder call I get from UCSF several days before each doctor visit.
At least once a month, I get an ADAD call, always in violation of California or federal law, but the calls are always Caller-ID blocked and don't identify the caller, so I haven't been able to do anything about them.
The only real solution, alas, is to ask the credit card company to change your card number, and go out and change that number everywhere else it is billed monthly. Since joining the Internet Age in 1996, I've done this twice to get recurring charges to stop, after the ISPs repeatedly promised but failed to stop the monthly charges (of course, during that same time, I've also changed credit card companies twice more, and changed my credit card number twice more for other reasons, so I've had 6 credit-card numbers in 6 years -- not counting cards that I've acquired and later cancelled without ever charging any online transactions with them).
I've cancelled AOL accounts three times -- and the last two times it was quite easy. I just called the regular toll-free support number and the first person who came on cheerfully accepted my cancellation, without either the hostile attitude nor the persistent defense reported here.
In contrast, I have never had trouble cancelling an Earthlink account, because both times I tried to create an account, their system failed to create a new account (which explains why I returned to AOL three times).
Finally, there is absolutely no surer guarantee of infinite-billing hell, than the merger of your ISP into a larger one (e.g. Mindspring becomes part of Earthlink). I had this happen twice, and both times the "new" company insisted that my account cancellations weren't taking effect because of system integration problems. In one case, every cancelled account was automatically restored to active status on the day before the new billing cycle, making it impossible to stop the charges without cancelling the credit card number.
The solution, of course, is to alter your resume when applying for certain jobs.
The simplest strategy is to simply offer no resume: for the burger flipping job, or many other minimum-wage positions, presenting a resume is probably a red flag all by itself.
On job applications (or on your resume), do just the opposite of what most folks do: understate and deflate your experience.
I suppose the worst problem is how to fill the blanks: if you were working at a dot-bomb company from 1997-2001, you can't just leave those years blank without raising concerns (though if you have young kids, you can report that "following the birth of my first child in 1996, I decided to spend more time at home" without actually lying (maybe you didn't ever manage to act on that decision, for example, until the company's Chapter 7 filing in 2001).
Or just make some minor changes in the way you describe that job: if your resume now says, "Chief Technology Officer supervising 65 programmers and maintenance of 200 web servers from 1997-2001," try changing the title to something that sounds a lot less grandiose (like "Computer Operator" or "Equipment Manager").
Let's face it, being "over-qualified" for a job you want right now, is a problem that most people only dream about.
Sorry to be skeptical here, but I suspect that the omission of the list of "personal information" might make us less sympathetic to Mr. Trummel's cause.
What is the "personal information" that the judge ordered removed? Is this really just a privacy issue (social security or credit-card numbers, or unlisted telephone numbers)?
I don't think the First Amendment protects my right to publish a web page that truthfully states:
There might be some argument about some of the information, but if someone were posting ALL of this information about me (presumably with the goal of f*cking up my life for a few weeks or months), I'd certainly want a judge to order them to remove the information and cease disseminating this information further (though let's face it, the milk is spilt).I don't know if this is what Mr. Trummel is alleged to have posted -- probably he did not post this kind of information. Again, the facts are still missing here.
I had to navigate through several intermediate sites to actually find the Seattle Weekly article which implies that Mr. Trummel was jailed because he violated a court order compelling him to remove certain allegations and assertions from his web site. Since I don't have access to the court file and the various articles omit most of the pertinent facts, I can't really be sure, but I think these are the facts:
It seems entirely possible that the judge heard evidence and ruled that the statements were false, and were made with actual knowledge of their falsity, for the purpose of harassing the persons named. If so, and if Mr. Trummel is judgment-proof (unable to pay damages), then an injunction might be proper, and violation of that court order might be appropriately punished through a contempt proceeding and jail time.
I wish someone had the actual facts to present, rather than the bald assertion that the judge says the First Amendment only applies to journalists, which seems unlikely.
Where is the copy of the judge's order? Where is the copy of the lawsuit pleadings? These are all public records, and their absence (and the absence of any direct reference to the information needed to confirm the remarkable claims) make me quite suspicious and unwilling to leap to the support of this fellow.
If there was never any evidence submitted or considered, or if the judge ruled that publication of truthful statements, or expressions of opinion, could be enjoined without violating the first amendment, I would be glad to jump in and support the poor jailed fellow.
Don't misinterpret this: I have a web site where I often post strong opinions, mixed with statements of fact, which annoy certain people. I have a degree in journalism and worked full-time as a reporter and editor for a number of years. My current site does not accept advertising, and does not charge subscription fees. So, in many ways, I am in the situation described as applying to Mr. Trummel, and the claims in the Slashdot piece and the Seattle Times article do concern me -- but I need more facts before I will believe that there really is an affront to the First Amendment.
Finally: Comparisons to the "shield law" case of Vanessa Leggett (in Texas) are not applicable. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is no protection under the First Amendment to absolutely protect reporters from having to turn over their notes to prosecutors or defense attorneys under subpoena, certainly when there is a bone fide claim that the notes are substantially likely to contain information that might exonerate the defendant. To "cure" this defect, many states have enacted "shield laws" which create such a privilege (not a right) for journalists. The statutes do not extend this privelege to everyone who might gather information and who might wish to express it -- the legislatures have chosen to narrowly define the class of protected persons, usually requiring a direct association or assignment from an established news organization. While courts may rule that the First Amendment requires that any such law not discriminate between different types of journalists (and thus that the privilege should extend to "true crime book" writers like Ms. Vanessa Leggett, or to a person who maintains a not-for-profit web site), this would not mean that the First Amendment creates the "shield privilege," and a legislature could elect to repeal the statute and require all journalists to turn over their notes under specific circumstances.
Let's get the facts first, and use them in reaching our conclusion -- it sounds like several folks have done the reverse: they want to believe that any jailing of any "expressive person" (writer or artist) is invalid.
Oops, I meant to write "MovieMountain.com" instead of magic. Quite different places.
Those stores that require registration before allowing a visitor to shop, routinely lose 90% of incoming visitors who balk at this requirement.
Currently, many online stores selling adult products address this the "easy way" -- they mostly ignore the law, and display all the offensive box art to anyone who visits their store. But as I understand it, that's illegal under COPA.
A few online stores (like MagicMountain.com) actually blur out any offensive imagery from each box-art item, at what must be incredible expense (for thousands of SKUs). And adult consumers can't see the complete box art and determine if this is the movie they want.
What this law says, is that I must do exactly that: lock the door to my store and sell keys, even though that's not a business I want to be in. And customers who want to pay by cash or money order or PayPal are simply out of luck: they can't shop at my store, at least they can't see the box art and the trailers.
What's even more frustrating, is that there is no "credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number" that effectively bars children. Indeed, many minors have credit cards, or can obtain an adult-ID passcode. To my knowledge, there simply is no "reasonable measure" which would "restrict access by minors." Instead, the effect is to reduce all access, probably reducing adult access more frequently than access by minors (who often have more time and ingenuity to circumvent the system).
No, I don't want to show minors any "material that is harmful to minors," but under this law that means I simply cannot operate an "adult product" online store at all. (In theory, I could operate a store that doesn't show the product "box art" nor trailers, but then I lose all the advantages of selling online -- now any local porn shop has a distinct advantage.)
Of course, none of this addresses issues like a legitimate sex-education web site resource. As I understand it, I can include all the text I want, but pictures won't be permitted for any topic that might be "harmful to minors," unless I charge a fee which can be paid by credit card.
Yes, if you choose to vacation in the USA, you could be arrested and prosecuted if your adult content was viewed by someone in the USA and your web site did not comply with all the requirements of COPA and other laws of the United states. (Prosecution under COPA is not permitted currently, but if the law is upheld, you might later be prosecuted under that law. Prosecution under other laws, including local obscenity ordinances, could happen any time. If you are an adult webmaster in the UK or elsewhere, and if you think there is any likelihood that you might be prosecuted, I would certainly suggest you avoid Tennessee (and probably the entire Southern and Midwestern USA) on your next USA vacation. However, even if you chose to vacation only in a decadent USA city like Los Angeles or San Francisco or New York, you would still potentially be subjected to arrest and extradition to Tennessee (though the cost of extradition is so high that it's quite unlikely for this kind of alleged offense).
In particular, we know that there have been strategic efforts to prosecute purveyors of "adult" materials in the "least tolerant" communities.
Since it is technically impossible to know what community a web visitor is in (thanks to AOL and other proxy servers), the end result is simple: nobody can offer ANY "adult" materials to anyone in the world, unless those materials are acceptable under the community standards of the most conservative community in the United States.
The real goal, of course, is not to prosecute violations of this law -- it is to create a system that strongly deters creation or distribution of ANY adult content online. By imposing an impossible standard to prevent access by minors, the law effectively closes off access to everyone.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the current minimum costs associated with starting an adult business, even ignoring the cost of legal advice and any costs associated with harassment by local law enforcement. I suspect the costs are quite high, especially for a firm producing original content. The bottom line, in my view, is that our government is imposing the moral views of a few to strongly discourage and often prevent access to adult materials wanted by the majority.
No wait -- Are you suggesting that when I set the phone down on my desk, nowhere near the cradle or any source of electricity, it should somehow recharge itself by simply drawing electricity from the ether?
An interesting idea, but not yet practical. See, e.g., the movie "The Quiet Earth" [1985].
I dunno if it matters much -- there really isn't any big argument about whether some stuff could be separated from Windows, only whether it "should" be separated. In some ways, the states may gain a benefit since the judge knows there is a demo out there showing it works (sure, she's supposed to disregard evidence that wasn't formally submitted, but how can you really ignore an offer of evidence that goes to the very core of the case?)
The wireless receiver plugs into a USB port and the bundled software (actually you have to download it) allows you to record time-lapse images.
It's been a while, it might only run as slow as 1 image per second or per minute, but I know I found it entertaining to play with for a while.
Now, like so many other cool toys, all the X10 stuff sits in a package on the shelf.
You can see one time-wasting use I had for the wireless camera (and thus you can see the limited image quality), at http://www.robot-news.com/tele-rover/ (or just go straight to the animated GIF at http://www.robot-news.com/tele-rover/animated.gif) .
It was amusing to see some of the new behaviors programmed by students in an effort to make the Aibos play better soccer. While the Aibo plays lousy soccer (due to extremely limited memory and a design focus on "cuteness" instead of efficiency), they are absolutely fun to watch.
What I found more interesting was that the "web goo" seemed pretty thick and substantive, and it seems pretty clear that Spidey is expelling more than his entire body volume in goo in some scenes. [Insert porn-movie joke here.] Maybe he chugs protein shakes or something? Or maybe the goo expands a LOT as it is expelled from his body (accept, of course, that the goo is super-stong and super-sticky). (And of course, the properties of the web goo change from scene to scene and sometimes even within a single scene.)
Of course, we are supposed to suspend disbelief, and accept that the laws of physics can vary around our super-hero and super-villain.
It's a silly movie. Let's get over it.
Actually, they often are used for exactly this. The employer argues that the information is secret, and no laws were broken, and the employee will be sued if s/he discloses the information to law enforcement agencies who are not bound to honor the confidentiality.
The goal is to create a "chilling effect" so that reports are made only when there is pretty clear legal violation, or where the employee is particularly strong-willed.
Turn it around: what happens if an employee discloses information regarding the employer to a law enforcement agency, which then discloses that information to experts and/or competitors of the company while evaluating whether a law has been broken? If law enforcement concludes that "no legal violation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt," but now the information is "out there" in competitors' hands, the company will certainly want to respond against the ex-employee.
I don't know how a court might rule, but I'm sure the employer will want to discourage any ex-employees (and current employees) from talking to law enforcement as much as possible. That would certainly include terminating any ongoing severance payments and benefits, leaving it to the employee to litigate to recover the promised benefits! Without any cash, unemployed and blacklisted, the employee likely won't even be able to hire an attorney to defend against the company's civil suit for breach of the confidentiality agreement -- allowing the company's army of attorneys to attack hard in order to deter others from ever coming forward. (Welcome to the tobacco industry.)
Bottom line: there are many cases where ex-employees cite confidentiality agreements when refusing to talk to law enforcement, and in 99% of cases the law enforcement agency doesn't have the resources to litigate to create a legal obligation for the ex-employee to talk.
Of course. In the USA and most western countries, nobody is required to engage in conduct they believe is illegal, unethical, unsafe, or unpleasant -- with the exception of certain positions in the military, who are required to follow the chain of command in most circumstances.
Of course, there are economic pressures: if the only living-wage job in your community for which you are qualified is to work in a coal mine, or in a prison, or writing virus code, then you must make an economic decision: Balancing.
Nobody has to write bad code. If you believe that your shop should never release code unless it includes sixteen types of "defensive code" (resisting viruses and privacy-invading applets and so on), then you tell your employer those terms, and your employer will decide which action to pursue: ending your employment, or changing its practices.
We have all had those "moments" in our lives where we had to make a decision about Right and Wrong. If I do this, is it Right or is it Wrong? If I do this, can I accept the consequences? If I do this, will I be able to respect myself as a person? If I do this, how can I explain myself later to my child?
Sometimes, the decisions are easy: your employer assigns you to load toxic waste into drums and to pour it into a river. Sometimes, the decisions are really hard: your team has spent 1,000 hours testing your code and you are pretty sure that it's good, but you really wish that you had more time for testing, or a different regimen for testing, and now your team leader announces that he's going to release the code -- it certainly makes a difference if the code we are talking about is Doom III or the operating program for a nuclear reactor.
Everybody has a different benchmark. I've heard lots of stories, all of them quite respectable:
- I can't do this because if I ever run for public office, this would ruin my chances
- My religion prohibits this
- This violates the "golden rule" (do unto others...)
- My professional ethics prohibit this
- I cannot do this and still be a role model for my child
- This violates my personal beliefs
- This is just, plain wrong, and I won't do it.
In my opinion, you should use whatever test makes you pause and refuse as often as possible. When someone suggests that the problem is that "we might get caught," I lose all respect for that person: that statement already accepts that the action is wrong (nobody ever says "I'd love to help you rescue that child from the burning building, but I'm afraid I might get caught").Sure, there are things we do that we wouldn't want to discuss with our kids -- not because they are "wrong" but because they are personal or unpleasant or simply not appropriate to discuss with a child.
Life is full of hard choices. I think that 99% of the time, we know what is the "right" thing to do. We often recognize that we are doing something 'wrong' and we have lots of excuses, and some of them feel quite tolerable (I need this job, my kids need health insurance, little harm will come, or harm is quite unlikely).
A long time ago, I found that when I was in certain kinds of situations, I found it "necessary" to do certain things. It was my job, it was legal, it was appropriate -- but it was unpleasant and people disliked me because of it. I had to decide whether I wanted to be the kind of person who did those things. I decided that I did not want to be that kind of person, and I recognized that I could not do my job competently without being that kind of person. I quit my job and changed my profession.
And now, to the question at hand:
> "Should [programmers] code defensively to prevent software and information being misused for unintended purposes? And how do we protect such programmers from being dismissed unfairly for standing on principle?"
Okay, now we are looking at something much less clear. What kind of application are we talking about, and what kind of abuse or misuse are we worried about?
There are various issues to balance, including potential legal liability, potential adverse publicity and adverse market response, and of course potential harm to the public.
Legal liability is a good starting point. If I am writing the code for a new version of a Microsoft operating system, and I already know that there are 1,000 viruses that attack Windows systems, I probably would be legally liable for releasing a product that is vulnerable to one of those existing viruses, if I could easily and inexpensively block them. An internet-ready operating system with no protection against known viruses, would be a defective product, and I'd probably be legally responsible for the damages, at least to consumers. Even if legal liability were avoided (for example, through enforceable contracts), the adverse publicity and of course the complete failure of the operating system to work, would result in complete market failure: people would not buy this product or my other products.
Now, let's look to the harder case. Suppose I am responsible for the coding for Doom III, a complex computer game that (I assume) includes internet-play. I know there are viruses out there, and I know that there are malicious people out there. I also suspect that someone could write a virus that would target my widely software, attaching itself and perhaps even trying to propegate to other users or distribute private data or system-access information by modifying the code that allows internet play. Must I write code to resist that potential virus? No matter what I do, a clever cracker will find a way to circumvent my efforts -- but what must I do? How much time, what portion of my budget, should be spent to fighting crime?
Basically, it's a balancing act.
Try another example: your employer asks you to write a database or accounting program. You know that it is quite likely that your program will be purchased and used by drug traffickers to track their shipments and profits. What duty do you have to prevent such uses, or to detect such uses and report them to law enforcement?
Try another example: your employer asks you to write a Napster-like computer program that will allow people to share files. You know that some people will misuse the program (sharing copyrighted materials), but you also know that many people will use the program lawfully.
Now, suppose you work for one of these latter two companies, and you decide that your employer is not doing enough to prevent misuse, and you refuse to write certain code, but you also refuse to resign. Maybe your employer's attorneys present you with a "severance agreement" that includes a generous cash severance and a confidentiality clause. Or maybe you already signed a confidentiality agreement, and your employer fires you with no severance.
Damn, I have to side with the employer. There's nothing illegal going on, and you aren't being asked to do something unsafe or improper -- you simply have chosen a set of personal ethical standards that conflict with your employer. So I'd probably agree that your employer could fire you, but I might be uncomfortable enforcing the confidentiality agreement, at least insofar as it might seek to prevent you from talking to appropriate law-enforcement agencies.
In other words, if I switch channels just as the hour-long 8pm program on one channel ends, I find that I'm 2 minutes into the second channel's 9pm program. This does not appear to be some kind of isolated situation -- it seems to be happening quite often, certainly I notice it several times per week.
According to my best indicators of the "real" time, most networks seem to run late (e.g. their 9pm programs start at 9:02pm and end at 9:59 or 10:00) but others are "out of sync" by one, two, or occasionally three minutes.
While some might just consider this another example of broadcast-TV incompetence (or perhaps someone can find a way to blame it on cable TV), I wonder if one or more of the networks or local affiliates might be doing this intentionally -- either to gain some kind of perceived competitive edge, or to screw up people who are recording programs using VCRs or PVRs and relying on program start and end times?
Can anyone explain this odd trend? Has anyone else noticed it? Or has it always been happening and I've just been oblivious until recently?
If it matters, I'm in the San Francisco bay area, with AT&T Broadband cable.
I really want the ability to record programs, and later watch them, and I'd pay a premium for certain PVR features like:
Each of these features is worth money, and if I have to pay a premium to get some or all of these features, I will do so. If the broadcasting networks think that it's worth $250 extra per year to receive their programs without commercials, then why don't they try offering it? Couldn't they offer their content without commercials on a series of premium cable channels? Gosh, no, it turns out that it's not just about skipping commercials -- I think people are more interested in the time-shifting ability than skipping commercials. I certainly am.
While each of these features is promised by one or more companies that claim to manufacture PVRs, I have been unable to see any PVR in use, except for one demo of UltimateTV (which I later learned I cannot use because I apparently can't get a signal at my home).
I've recently been shopping for a PVR and have concluded that none are currently available from companies likely to be in business in 6 months.
I really, really want a Personal Video Recorder, and I'd gladly pay a premium. Indeed, I actually bought an RCA UltimateTV unit and satellite dish, but I can't get a signal and neither DirecTV nor UltimateTV could suggest the name of any installers who would not charge me huge fees just to confirm that I can't get a satellite signal. I sent the system back.
I wanted to try TiVo, which has a "fast-fast-forward" but they signed an exclusive deal with Best Buy, which won't demo the unit (and doesn't have them in stock anyway).
ReplayTV demands a huge premium (charging roughly a $300-$350 premium for its prepaid lifetime subscription for programming -- but the money isn't put in escrow, and I assume that if the company loses or settles the pending lawsuits, it will abandon all customers.)
And that leaves . . . nobody. Oh, yeah, DishTV offers its own PVR, but of course I don't expect to get a DishTV signal if I can't get a DirecTV signal (and I understand the companies are merging).
I really want the ability to record programs, and later watch them, and I'd pay a premium for certain features like dual tuners (so I can record one program while watching another, or record two programs at once), a meaningful "commercial skip," and accurate programming information and proper synchronization so I don't lose the first 2 or last 2 minutes of programs because the system decides that it's 7:59 when Fox thinks it's 8:01.
I'd gladly pay a premium, and $250 per year for the commercial-skip capability would be well worth it.
There is a list of these services, including paid and free counters and trackers, at http://www.adbility.com/show.asp?cat_id=346 (adbility.com) (select from the left-menu sub-options there).
But a teaching credential is different. Basically, a teaching credential means taking some classes on "how to teach," and on subjects like how to deal with the needs of minor students, and the legal obligations of teachers (e.g. reporting knowledge of molestation). The requirements for a teaching credential differ for the age group being taught, in a fairly logical way, at least in California. (See the links, below.)
I have a B.A. degree in journalism, plus a J.D. (law) degree, plus a number of years of respectable work experience. I'm confident that I could probably get a job teaching college classes if I wanted, and for a couple years I even taught a class in the local school district's "adult education" program. But I absolutely believe that I would need special training to be qualified to teach to children.
What is disturbing to me, is that school districts are permitted to hire uncertified teachers, who can continue employment for up to five years while making NO effort toward certification. Until recently, these 'teachers' could be dropped into classrooms without ANY training (some were even permitted to skip orientation sessions), and when they "timed out" in one school district they could simply start the clock again in another school district.
And where did this happen most often? In inner-city schools, where the obstacles are so plentiful that we need the very best-trained teachers.
What is involved in getting a teaching certification? Spend one summer at a local college's intense program, or night school for a couple nights per week for two semesters or three quarters. Read, do the homework, pass the exams.
Nobody pretends that it is difficult to get a teaching certification: the classes can be easy, the exams a breeze. It is only "difficult" for those who want to cut corners and try to teach kids without ever learning "how kids learn" and how to deal with situations that arise in the classroom setting.
I occasionally think that I'd like to teach, but I really don't think I have the energy or stamina. Start my first class at 8am? Teach five 50-minute classes per day, with an average of 35 students per class (175 students!). Deal with career teachers and petty bureaucracy? Survive the intense emotional needs of children? Grade papers and exams while watching TV every night? Maybe I could teach one or two classes per day, or better yet nine to twelve hours per week of classroom teaching time (like a college professor).
Teaching is a very difficult job, and we don't pay teachers very well, hardly even a living wage unless they "play the game" of seeking out a master's degree in education and survive many years in a school district to work up the pay ladder. Yeah, they get 8 to 10 weeks of summer vacation, and maybe they work fewer hours than some of us who've ridden the dot-com roller coaster, but they are doing something we all agree must be done -- and done well -- and it is a job I know that most people couldn't do very well.
Some links:
Just last week, I read an article in Mother Jones magazine about Robert Moses, a 60's civil rights leader who now is strongly advocating better math education for minorities, both through his own actions teaching in a Mississippi school (he commutes weekly from his Massachusetts home, bless those dedicated liberals), and in his book, Radical Literacy . (I just ordered the book, ISBN 080703127, but haven't got it yet.)
I absolutely agree that math and science education should be a stronger emphasis in schools (math is probably more important than science, but they each fuel the other). And clearly, inner-city schools, and other poor schools, provide lousy education, especially in math and science. And as the survey cited here demonstrates, that lousy education shows.
Here in Pleasanton, California, a wealthy suburb, my Rotary Club awards prizes each month to a "student of the month." I'm amazed each month that these kids all take multiple AP classes (sometimes five or six) and have GPAs of 4.15 or 4.25. When I went to school, even taking AP Calculus, it was mathematically impossible to have a GPA greater than 4.0 -- speaking of "math literacy". But what about the many inner-city students who never graduate from high school, and lack even the basic math skills required to work at a cash register? (Ask your local McDonald's manager how they work around the lack of functional literacy and math skills.)
Another book plug: I just finished the book And Still We Rise , a reporter's account of a year in an AP English classroom in South Central Los Angeles. It's a remarkable book that left me feeling hopeful (unlike most books in this genre, which leave me frightened and numb). But alas, that book focuses only on just a few dozen surviving geniuses, and not thousands of their peers whose best efforts could not overcome the cruel challenges of the inner-city school environment.
Finally, I read an article in yesterday's newspaper (the Valley Herald), recounting a new bill by my local state legislator, who wants to exempt more new teachers from needing teaching credentials. The bill's stated intent is to allow more skilled professionals to teach, but I suspect the real goal is to circumvent teaching standards and put more lower-cost teachers into classrooms without adequate training.
Ultimately, what is "supposed to be" is settled by custom and law, and in this case a procedure was established, and in the USA a law was created especially to deal with this issue, and so "first come, first served" is NOT how our system has decided things are "supposed to be."
Would I have designed a different system? Yeah, if I were emperor of the internet, I would have a different set of rules, which would make it a little bit harder for someone to win a case like this -- but if we did things the way I think they should be, the outcome in this case would not change.
At one time, everyone was free to hunt animals and catch fish on public lands, without limitation. But then some people began hunting and fishing too much, depleting stocks and threatening species, and now things are different. Some fishermen and hunters claim that they are "supposed to be" able to hunt and fish until nothing is left, but our society has decided on a different set of rules.
How are things "supposed to be"? It all depends on who does the supposing.