Yeah. You'd think they would have an ongoing schedule of therapy for the screeners, available continuously while they hold the job.
Why do you want to force people into therapy? Let it be an option for people who can't take the pressure of any job not just this job but don't force it on anyone.
Wow, I figure if anybody had to do that for a year, they should be given a pension, a quiet place to get away from things, and a LOT of therapy.
I can't imagine being the poor bastard that has to look at the worst stuff on the internet. I've glimpsed enough to know that I wouldn't want to see any more of it. I'm frequently appalled at some of the things people choose to see.
I think even the law enforcement guys can get fucked up from this, and they understand the need for support systems. Your first job our of school? That would ruin you forever.
Considering how timid you are with pictures, how would you like to see, smell and touch dead bodies for a living?
Why don't you use your empathy for feel for the people who have to do the jobs much tougher than looking at pictures? Like the people who actually have to talk to rape victims (one of the toughest jobs), or people who actually have to investigate gruesome crime scenes, or people who actually have to watch people die for a living, or cut people open for a living, honestly the people who just have to view pictures and films of events have jobs far easier than a lot of people in society who actually see the same stuff only in real life where they have to interact with all 5 senses.
Everything is rooted in meaning. A person with a powerful capacity to invent personal context might be able to sustain a healthy personality for quite a while. They would need to know that human depravity has no bottom, and that what they are doing is a service to take said depravity out of the mainstream. Next, they would need to have a strong spiritual life, seeing the flesh as only meat, a vessel for the human soul, would reduce the impact of people doing terrible things to meat. Finally, they would have to have a rich and diverse personal life that fulfilled and empowered them outside of managing digital toxic waste. Without a profoundly rich personal life, they nastiness would be quickly take its toll. Think of this as a psychic decathlon. Certainly not for a timid soul.
Exposing an employee to this kind of working condition without prior consent and lengthy explanation as to the possible impact I think would qualify as an OSHA violation. Google might need to consider legal ramifications. Contrary to the corporate norm, people are not disposable,
You hit the nail on the head. It's all about context. People are willing to sacrifice for a greater good in context. People aren't willing to just sit looking at that shit for no good reason usually when they can sit and look at something innocuous for no good reason and get the same pay or greater pay. That being said if Google called me up tomorrow and gave me the job I'd probably take it just so I could put Google on my resume. I guess that makes me a psychopath?
I have to totally agree, seeing it in pictures is far different than sitting there watching it happen in real life. In that case i may not use the 'weak mind' argument.
I know personally i have been in the position of 'reviewing' internally reported sites in a large corporate environment, and it didn't effect me in the least, i knew it was just a bunch of pixels on the screen and didn't change me in the least. Also i didn't take it home with me. I also didn't hate or enjoy, it was just my job at the time. Of course by the other guy's definition, that makes me a sociopath i guess.
Exactly the point I'm trying to make here. Some people know how to compartmentalize things in their mind, it's a skill and other people never can separate themselves from their work. Sometimes a job is going to be difficult, nasty, gross, painful, but there is a greater purpose for that sacrifice.
In this case it's moderating Facebook. If you have that job you have to see that content to protect other more sensitive minds from having to see it. In essence you're a soldier on the front line managing obscene content to protect the people who can't handle to see it. Just like someone has to open up bodies for autopsy but no one says those people are sociopaths.
Anybody who thinks simply being tough-minded (as opposed to being highly twisted) is all that it would take to "man up" and get past this is likely full of crap.
So, 4chan is full of sociopaths. Then, by your logic my assessment of the human race's progress should be much different...
Note to self: update The Guide to read: "Mostly Sociopathic", or "Mostly Full of Crap"
Some people aren't fit for certain jobs. If you can't see sick shit without getting sick to your stomach or breaking into tears then there are certain jobs you can't do. That doesn't mean I can't do those jobs or other people can't do them and no it doesn't mean the people who do them have to be a sociopath. People who have that logic think it's black and white where you have to be either empathic to the point it makes you so sick you kill yourself or so sociopathic that you're a predator yourself.
It doesn't work that way at all. There are skills people can learn to develop a thick skin. If you work in a field where people die around you on a regular basis, or if you work with dead bodies, I'll admit it's a difficult job, I'd say far more difficult than dealing with pictures, but you never hear of anyone saying the funeral director or hospice nurse needs psychological attention for what they have seen.
A weak mind? I'm sorry, but I'm willing to bet after watching this stuff for long enough it's going to have an effect on anybody but a sociopath. Then too, but they'd probably enjoy it.
Soldiers and police offices get PTSD. The cops who work on child porn and the like get worn down. Heck, I bet people who work in ERs get a little twigged on this stuff.
You immerse anybody in this stuff day in and day out, and I think it's safe to assume there's going to be some lasting trauma.
And I have to assume that anybody who would volunteer for this and thrive on it... well, you need to keep an eye on them because they're probably dangerous.
Anybody who thinks simply being tough-minded (as opposed to being highly twisted) is all that it would take to "man up" and get past this is likely full of crap.
And I'm willing to bet it's not. People who work at funeral homes would all be sociopaths if you were correct, as would surgeons, doctors and others who work in certain professions. Child porn? Replace that with forensic scientist, the person who has to go to crime scenes and see dead bodies and smell death and collect evidence. I would think that job is a lot harder than seeing some photos or movies of child porn on the internet don't you? Actually working in a prison with prisoners as a prison guard is also harder as you would actually see the abuse, the death, the blood, the killings.
If you're not tough minded don't take the job. You don't have to be a sociopath to develop a thick skin, you just have to learn to be professional enough not to let your empathy ruin your productivity which requires you to be logical. If your job is to deal with dead bodies, or if you're hosting a site like Rotten.com you're doing a job and nothing more than that. It doesn't have to be pleasant to look at.
I' m saying man up. If you can't do the job plenty of people would rather filter Facebook all day than be prostitutes or drug dealers or unemployed. The economy is tough so there is no sympathy for people who complain.
First, Did google not describe to the employees what exactly they would be doing? I know they said, "sensitive content" but that could mean a whole variety of things. Second, there is one thing that we all kid about and talk about and porn is one of them and I am sure that there are solid studies indicating that this does effect people in harsh ways. Its another thing to go venturing off into beheadings, beastiality and the like and not even get any kind of support from a company that has billions of cash. The least they could have done would have been to offer a support program, some take away money when leaving or *gasp* how about a full time position doing something more humane?
Why would Google hire people into these positions who aren't qualified? You got some people who can look at sick shit all day and not be affected and you got some people who would go so far as to commit suicide over it. It's not like Google has to go out of their way to hire the ones who would commit suicide over it.
This is the internet, if you go to certain websites or forums you'll see sick shit on a daily basis. It's like being a bouncer at a bar, you gotta filter the sick shit out. It's a tough job and it's not for everyone and the job description should say that clearly.
Can you imagine the lawsuits if Google DID have these guys on the payroll and, 5 years later, ONE of them went nuts-o and harmed another employee, and that employee was NOT aware of the attacker's previous job description?
The risk is not employee on employee violence, it is risk of suicide.
If suicide is the risk you don't have to hire suicidal people to do that job. Can't they psychologically profile PRIOR to hiring them? Not everyone is thin skinned or suicidal.
Here is a 2010 New York Times article on the same subject. Seems like not much has changed. Apparently a bunch of it is outsourced, which in addition to the nature of the work, leads to questions about content privacy, especially when some of the images being reviewed are non-public (e.g. stuff you've sent through Facebook messages).
I'm sure the guy who works at the morgue or the guy who shovels shit for a living cares about these complaining Facebook employees. Or what about the millions if not billions of unemployed? If the job is so tough then psychologically profile the people you hire so you don't hire psychologically unstable softies prone to having nightmares about some pictures or content they saw on the internet.
I've been on the internet now for almost 20 years, I've seen a lot of obscene shit, eventually you grow a thick skin. Be a moderator for a chatroom, or web forum, or website, you will see obscene shit all the time. It might affect you at first, but it's not real life. And if seeing obscene content keeps you from having to see that shit in real life due to living in some slum then you've got nothing to lose. Do what you gotta do as long as it's a legit living, put your game face on and do your job.
An unnamed police department in the United States had a policy for child pornography investigators:
* You could only do it for a few months then it was someone else's turn * You had mandatory psychological help
Oh, and you had to be trained ahead of time.
So if someone works in a morgue they need to have psychological attention? What about a surgeon?
Do your job, do it well, no one said it would be easy. If it's hard then pay them a bit more money.
Considering these are Google employees I have absolutely no sympathy for them, nil. They get paid more than most employees and have far more benefits than most. If they are such pussies that they cannot handle the dark side of the internet, that is on them. They are probably over paid for the job anyway as many people do that job for free on forums, chat sites, and many other lesser known companies that don't have the money to pay moderators.
This guy gets paid to do what 4chaners happily do for free and he complains about needing therapy... On the other hand, I smell a crowd source opportunity.
People who complain about having a job in a shit economy, maybe they should be replaced so others can work at Google. If you can't handle seeing terrible things on the internet, don't work for an internet company or search engine like Google.
This works out great for Firefighters, they're "on call" for 48 straight or something crazy like that - a lot of "work" for them consists of sleeping, cooking, washing the truck, etc.
On the other hand... if you apply for a job at my company (mentally taxing work) and tell me you want to work MWF 13 14 13 hours, I'll offer you 60% of the pay I'm offering a 5 day a week employee - that schedule might fly for a security guard, but unless you're a very rare individual, you're not going to be equally productive on that schedule - you're not available for consult 2 days a week, your coworkers aren't available to you over 60% of the time, and odds are that your concentration level, attention to detail, etc. is at a very low baseline level if it doesn't suffer after a day that starts at 7AM and ends at 11PM (you don't expect to be paid for lunch and dinner time, do you?)
Consider me a very rare individual. No one is productive if they are spending hours commuting to work but that counts as working time. So you actually spend more time in working time with the 5 days a week than you do with fewer days and longer hours. Also it depends on how many days back to back.
12 hours a day for a few days in a row is as much as I can do and then I need time to sleep and recover. 12+12+8 is better than 8x5. If you offered lower pay then I damn sure wouldn't want to work for an office that discriminates based on schedule.
For me the 16+16+8 schedule would be perfect provided that I get used to the 16s and perhaps they aren't back to back.
When I was in university as an undergrad I had some days where it was 12+ hours or even 16+ hours. It was school, then work.Ultimately 40 hours of work a week feels like 40 hours a work of week, the benefit of the compressed schedule is you don't have to spend all your time commuting in traffic jams and worrying about whether you'll be late for work.
Absolutely, a 16hr coding day can be productive, but you better be damn sure the coder has the day off afterwards, and possibly even beforehand.
I've done a few stints like this near crunch time where I've maybe done a 12hr day followed by 2 16hr days, but then I've fully made sure I get the following 2 working days off to give a 4 day weekend or whatever.
Effectively you can frontload (or backload) work like this with 16hr days, but what you can't do is make it a permanent thing and expect a permanent productivity boost - on the contrary, you'll see completely the opposite.
Why would you lose productivity if you're working the same amount of hours each week? I think hours each week matters far more than how you schedule those hours.
Depends on what you are doing... grinding out code for 16 hours straight, that might be productive once or twice a week, try doing it for 28 days straight and I don't think anybody is getting anything useful out of that.
Some "jobs" involve calling people up, schmoozing, doing lunch or dinner, etc. Those could be done 16 hours a day indefinitely, if you don't have a life outside work - and, if you don't have a life outside work, then why should the company pay you anything beyond your work related expenses? That's starting to sound like 18th century manual farm labor in the U.S. South...
If anybody has ever done endurance cycling (think: Tour de France, for normal human beings), there's a physical capacity of your body that runs longer than the 24 hour period. You might do a 100 mile ride in a day, but you won't likely do 5 100 mile rides in 5 consecutive days. I think that most technical/design brain work follows a similar capacity, better to do 5 consecutive 30 mile days than try for 2 100s in a row and crash.
Yeah but neither will it be useful to grind for 8 hours for 24 days straight coding. I think with coding people get into grooves where for a few days to a week at 12 hours a day everything is groovy and then they hit a wall. It doesn't matter if you do it for 12 hours or 8 hours, you still hit the wall at about the same time and it happens because you lose focus not because you work 12 hours straight.
When I'm coding or doing work I keep working on and off all day long, it could be 8 hours, or 12, it doesn't matter. But I do take breaks so that I don't completely burn out.
8 or 12 hours is preference. Productive would probably be 20 hours a week for 4 hours a day. But if I have to work 40+ hours a week I'd be better off working 12-16 hours straight than to sleep, eat, commute and waste a whole lot of time getting to work and getting in the zone.
And let the journalists worry about the government. Openleaks is better on a conceptual level, it's decentralized. The way to avoid witch-hunts is not to build a centralized leaking service and then put one guy at the top of it to be beheaded.
The way to avoid witch hunts is simply to write the code, build the concepts, do the theoretical work, and separate that work from the practical implementation which requires a completely different set of skills. Hackers don't make good journalists and don't navigate the political world very well. Hackers should focus on helping good people do good things in defense of human rights, develop the technology just like Bitcoin or Tor or whatever and let the people decide what to do with that.
Going on TV giving speeches isn't as efficient as connecting journalists to a secure Anonymous Pipeline of leaks. Create the dumb pipe.
You haven't given a valid reason why they'd need to be undercover if the goal is to actually prevent and deter assaults.
Because you've framed the problem you want to solve and have not listened to anyone else's statements. Your statement is not false, but is also unrelated to the issues everyone else was discussing.
What issues in specific? Why are undercover officers needed for this? You and others say it's a good idea, why?
What?? If your complete sentence meant, how do we know what she said actually happens - you'd find out pretty quick with some undercover female officers just dressed like other conference goers.
Do you really think a convention of hackers are going to trust/feel safe in a scenario with undercover cops to handle this?
Everyone knows that all the hacker conferences have some rather high percentage of people who are NSA, CIA, FBI, KGB, etc. etc. Just why is throwing one simple cop into the mix going to bother anyone?
That is my point also. I don't see why it would make sense to put undercover cops into such an environment for this reason because it goes against the goal of actually deterring assaults. If assaults are to be deterred then we need uniformed officers standing around keeping a watchful eye. Undercover cops are probably already there to some degree but those undercover cops are a part of Defcon while he is advocating bringing new cops in (female cops) specifically for the purpose of some sorta sting operation to catch the booty snatcher.
I'd rather take the tactic of deterring the booty snatcher from having the bravery of confidence to believe he wont get caught than to lead him to believe he wont get caught just so we can arrest him for his ignorance. I also want false accusers to get caught because in my opinion they are as bad if not worse. How do we catch the false accusers with undercover female cops?
It's going to take a community level effort to sort this out with people willing to come forward as witnesses.
We don't need policy. We need the women to turn around and slap the shit out of the assholes and the other men standing around to beat the crap out of him.
What if the man were falsely accused? Are the men supposed to apologize to that man later for being suckered into beating him up? Think.
You are the one where I defend undercover cops in an area of known offending to placing one in my home 24/7. I think you are the one not reading.
You haven't given a valid reason why they'd need to be undercover if the goal is to actually prevent and deter assaults.
Having a uniformed officer or police presence is the best way to deter crime. Undercover officers is assuming there is some sort of organized crime or mafia element (which there isn't) which is why I'm totally against the idea and think it's negative.
On the contrary, it would have the opposite effect for the reasons I've outlined. You're talking about a flag that, realistically, applies to 99% of the single people at the event. That is, most of the single, unattached, people who attend the event are going to be somewhat happy if they meet the right person, or even if they just get laid. And that applies whether they're at a con, on a bus, at a friend's party, or even at work (though the latter has awkward potential consequences which means, for logical reasons, they may keep their guards up.)
True, I still don't have a problem with being using any symbolic communication system as it's on them. I just encourage people to be more open.
So what is the flag supposed to symbolize? "I'm human"? That's not how it's going to be read. It's going to be read as "It's OK to do the kinds of things you've read are sexual harassment to me." And as for stereotypical Aspergers types (note the term "stereotypical" - leaving aside the number of geeks who'd never get that diagnosis in a million years, but use the term to apply to them because they read somewhere it means "Rude and obnoxious but really smart", this whole "Aspergers wouldn't know they're sexually harassing someone" thing is really, really, insulting to those who have the conditiion) - as for stereotypical "Aspergers" types, they'll see it as an excuse to ignore the rules of human behavior.
It can symbolize anything people want it to. I'm all for communication because there will be less misunderstandings. I think the stereotype of Aspergers Syndrome is just a label people throw at geeks and nerds in the same way ADHD was the label prior to that. I think it's a bullshit label that simply means the person isn't conforming. I don't think non-conformity is a bad trend nor do I think it's in everyone's self interest to conform because for some people the best way to survive their particular environment is to be exactly how they are. To call it a syndrome is to assume they either don't want to be how they are, or how they are is somehow hurting them in their environment. I think it's similar to complaining about sociopaths in prison, yes they are in there and in many cases they run the prison so as a result the entire prison including the people who aren't sociopaths are forced to act like sociopaths to survive the prison environment. That doesn't make the people acting anti-social due to their environment the same as people who are sociopaths who genuinely do not have the physical/neurological capability to act any other way.
I think most hackers are introverts because they choose to be. Not because they have anxiety disorder or Asperger's but because they choose to dedicate most of their life to cyber activities or to work with computers. I see nothing wrong with this because it's not like every hacker is going to be fortunate enough to be Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg and honestly most hackers at Defcon probably don't care to be.
I honestly think you'd be surprised how easy this behavior is to spot. The Readercon case, for example, involves a person who crossed at least two rather blatently obvious boundaries:
- The first was going right in, and treating the survivor as his sexual plaything right from the start. No early get-to-know-you conversation, no suggestive back and forth between the two that showed the survivor was interested in doing something. The two were strangers. Would you have done that to a stranger? I mean, forget the con which isn't even a sex party, you're at a singles bar, you see an attractive member of the compatible sex at the bar, you politely compliment them and offer a drink, but they politely turn you down. Would you physically grab the woman later, put your arm around her, and announce to her friends something that implies you're going off to have sex with her?
I see it all the time. There are creeps who aren't hackers to
I wouldn't mind a cop there any more than any other stranger. The question was never about my living room. Why are you afraid to have a cop on the corner looking for violent crimes in progress?
I'm not. I'd mind if they were all undercover though. Did you read any of my posts or do you respond to invisible interpretations only from your own mind?
If the hacker culture allows the 1% of guys who can't handle a woman they find attractive being in close proximity to behave badly, then the hacker culture as a whole is to blame, even though only 1% of the guys behave badly. If the hacker culture rejects that kind of behavior when it happens, then they are not to blame. It's really not complicated.
So if 1% of US culture allows for psychopaths, American culture is to blame for psychopaths.
Maybe it is. But I think that it reflects much more negatively on the public than wikileaks if so. I know cryptome is no honey-pot. What should alarm us more than honey-pots is our collective ineffectualness in processing the information from such sources. It's almost like all the data in the world, exquisitely tailored to our liking, would have no effect either. It seems to me like world-leaders are treating the world along with humanity as a game, and like intoxicated children we play.
I used to think the same thing but I don't think so anymore. Julian Assange is someone they probably attempted to recruit and it looks like he decided to flee instead. Any time the police want to talk to you prior to charging you it's because they want to offer you a offer you can't refuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. You'd think they would have an ongoing schedule of therapy for the screeners, available continuously while they hold the job.
Why do you want to force people into therapy? Let it be an option for people who can't take the pressure of any job not just this job but don't force it on anyone.
Wow, I figure if anybody had to do that for a year, they should be given a pension, a quiet place to get away from things, and a LOT of therapy.
I can't imagine being the poor bastard that has to look at the worst stuff on the internet. I've glimpsed enough to know that I wouldn't want to see any more of it. I'm frequently appalled at some of the things people choose to see.
I think even the law enforcement guys can get fucked up from this, and they understand the need for support systems. Your first job our of school? That would ruin you forever.
Considering how timid you are with pictures, how would you like to see, smell and touch dead bodies for a living?
Why don't you use your empathy for feel for the people who have to do the jobs much tougher than looking at pictures? Like the people who actually have to talk to rape victims (one of the toughest jobs), or people who actually have to investigate gruesome crime scenes, or people who actually have to watch people die for a living, or cut people open for a living, honestly the people who just have to view pictures and films of events have jobs far easier than a lot of people in society who actually see the same stuff only in real life where they have to interact with all 5 senses.
Everything is rooted in meaning. A person with a powerful capacity to invent personal context might be able to sustain a healthy personality for quite a while. They would need to know that human depravity has no bottom, and that what they are doing is a service to take said depravity out of the mainstream. Next, they would need to have a strong spiritual life, seeing the flesh as only meat, a vessel for the human soul, would reduce the impact of people doing terrible things to meat. Finally, they would have to have a rich and diverse personal life that fulfilled and empowered them outside of managing digital toxic waste. Without a profoundly rich personal life, they nastiness would be quickly take its toll. Think of this as a psychic decathlon. Certainly not for a timid soul.
Exposing an employee to this kind of working condition without prior consent and lengthy explanation as to the possible impact I think would qualify as an OSHA violation. Google might need to consider legal ramifications. Contrary to the corporate norm, people are not disposable,
You hit the nail on the head. It's all about context. People are willing to sacrifice for a greater good in context. People aren't willing to just sit looking at that shit for no good reason usually when they can sit and look at something innocuous for no good reason and get the same pay or greater pay. That being said if Google called me up tomorrow and gave me the job I'd probably take it just so I could put Google on my resume. I guess that makes me a psychopath?
I have to totally agree, seeing it in pictures is far different than sitting there watching it happen in real life. In that case i may not use the 'weak mind' argument.
I know personally i have been in the position of 'reviewing' internally reported sites in a large corporate environment, and it didn't effect me in the least, i knew it was just a bunch of pixels on the screen and didn't change me in the least. Also i didn't take it home with me. I also didn't hate or enjoy, it was just my job at the time. Of course by the other guy's definition, that makes me a sociopath i guess.
Exactly the point I'm trying to make here. Some people know how to compartmentalize things in their mind, it's a skill and other people never can separate themselves from their work. Sometimes a job is going to be difficult, nasty, gross, painful, but there is a greater purpose for that sacrifice.
In this case it's moderating Facebook. If you have that job you have to see that content to protect other more sensitive minds from having to see it. In essence you're a soldier on the front line managing obscene content to protect the people who can't handle to see it. Just like someone has to open up bodies for autopsy but no one says those people are sociopaths.
Anybody who thinks simply being tough-minded (as opposed to being highly twisted) is all that it would take to "man up" and get past this is likely full of crap.
So, 4chan is full of sociopaths. Then, by your logic my assessment of the human race's progress should be much different...
Note to self: update The Guide to read: "Mostly Sociopathic", or "Mostly Full of Crap"
Some people aren't fit for certain jobs. If you can't see sick shit without getting sick to your stomach or breaking into tears then there are certain jobs you can't do. That doesn't mean I can't do those jobs or other people can't do them and no it doesn't mean the people who do them have to be a sociopath. People who have that logic think it's black and white where you have to be either empathic to the point it makes you so sick you kill yourself or so sociopathic that you're a predator yourself.
It doesn't work that way at all. There are skills people can learn to develop a thick skin. If you work in a field where people die around you on a regular basis, or if you work with dead bodies, I'll admit it's a difficult job, I'd say far more difficult than dealing with pictures, but you never hear of anyone saying the funeral director or hospice nurse needs psychological attention for what they have seen.
A weak mind? I'm sorry, but I'm willing to bet after watching this stuff for long enough it's going to have an effect on anybody but a sociopath. Then too, but they'd probably enjoy it.
Soldiers and police offices get PTSD. The cops who work on child porn and the like get worn down. Heck, I bet people who work in ERs get a little twigged on this stuff.
You immerse anybody in this stuff day in and day out, and I think it's safe to assume there's going to be some lasting trauma.
And I have to assume that anybody who would volunteer for this and thrive on it ... well, you need to keep an eye on them because they're probably dangerous.
Anybody who thinks simply being tough-minded (as opposed to being highly twisted) is all that it would take to "man up" and get past this is likely full of crap.
And I'm willing to bet it's not. People who work at funeral homes would all be sociopaths if you were correct, as would surgeons, doctors and others who work in certain professions. Child porn? Replace that with forensic scientist, the person who has to go to crime scenes and see dead bodies and smell death and collect evidence. I would think that job is a lot harder than seeing some photos or movies of child porn on the internet don't you? Actually working in a prison with prisoners as a prison guard is also harder as you would actually see the abuse, the death, the blood, the killings.
If you're not tough minded don't take the job. You don't have to be a sociopath to develop a thick skin, you just have to learn to be professional enough not to let your empathy ruin your productivity which requires you to be logical. If your job is to deal with dead bodies, or if you're hosting a site like Rotten.com you're doing a job and nothing more than that. It doesn't have to be pleasant to look at.
I' m saying man up. If you can't do the job plenty of people would rather filter Facebook all day than be prostitutes or drug dealers or unemployed. The economy is tough so there is no sympathy for people who complain.
First, Did google not describe to the employees what exactly they would be doing? I know they said, "sensitive content" but that could mean a whole variety of things. Second, there is one thing that we all kid about and talk about and porn is one of them and I am sure that there are solid studies indicating that this does effect people in harsh ways. Its another thing to go venturing off into beheadings, beastiality and the like and not even get any kind of support from a company that has billions of cash. The least they could have done would have been to offer a support program, some take away money when leaving or *gasp* how about a full time position doing something more humane?
Why would Google hire people into these positions who aren't qualified? You got some people who can look at sick shit all day and not be affected and you got some people who would go so far as to commit suicide over it. It's not like Google has to go out of their way to hire the ones who would commit suicide over it.
This is the internet, if you go to certain websites or forums you'll see sick shit on a daily basis. It's like being a bouncer at a bar, you gotta filter the sick shit out. It's a tough job and it's not for everyone and the job description should say that clearly.
Can you imagine the lawsuits if Google DID have these guys on the payroll and, 5 years later, ONE of them went nuts-o and harmed another employee, and that employee was NOT aware of the attacker's previous job description?
The risk is not employee on employee violence, it is risk of suicide.
If suicide is the risk you don't have to hire suicidal people to do that job. Can't they psychologically profile PRIOR to hiring them? Not everyone is thin skinned or suicidal.
Here is a 2010 New York Times article on the same subject. Seems like not much has changed. Apparently a bunch of it is outsourced, which in addition to the nature of the work, leads to questions about content privacy, especially when some of the images being reviewed are non-public (e.g. stuff you've sent through Facebook messages).
I'm sure the guy who works at the morgue or the guy who shovels shit for a living cares about these complaining Facebook employees. Or what about the millions if not billions of unemployed? If the job is so tough then psychologically profile the people you hire so you don't hire psychologically unstable softies prone to having nightmares about some pictures or content they saw on the internet.
I've been on the internet now for almost 20 years, I've seen a lot of obscene shit, eventually you grow a thick skin. Be a moderator for a chatroom, or web forum, or website, you will see obscene shit all the time. It might affect you at first, but it's not real life. And if seeing obscene content keeps you from having to see that shit in real life due to living in some slum then you've got nothing to lose. Do what you gotta do as long as it's a legit living, put your game face on and do your job.
An unnamed police department in the United States had a policy for child pornography investigators:
* You could only do it for a few months then it was someone else's turn
* You had mandatory psychological help
Oh, and you had to be trained ahead of time.
So if someone works in a morgue they need to have psychological attention? What about a surgeon?
Do your job, do it well, no one said it would be easy. If it's hard then pay them a bit more money.
Considering these are Google employees I have absolutely no sympathy for them, nil. They get paid more than most employees and have far more benefits than most. If they are such pussies that they cannot handle the dark side of the internet, that is on them. They are probably over paid for the job anyway as many people do that job for free on forums, chat sites, and many other lesser known companies that don't have the money to pay moderators.
This guy gets paid to do what 4chaners happily do for free and he complains about needing therapy. .. On the other hand, I smell a crowd source opportunity.
People who complain about having a job in a shit economy, maybe they should be replaced so others can work at Google.
If you can't handle seeing terrible things on the internet, don't work for an internet company or search engine like Google.
The sense of entitlement amazes me.
This works out great for Firefighters, they're "on call" for 48 straight or something crazy like that - a lot of "work" for them consists of sleeping, cooking, washing the truck, etc.
On the other hand... if you apply for a job at my company (mentally taxing work) and tell me you want to work MWF 13 14 13 hours, I'll offer you 60% of the pay I'm offering a 5 day a week employee - that schedule might fly for a security guard, but unless you're a very rare individual, you're not going to be equally productive on that schedule - you're not available for consult 2 days a week, your coworkers aren't available to you over 60% of the time, and odds are that your concentration level, attention to detail, etc. is at a very low baseline level if it doesn't suffer after a day that starts at 7AM and ends at 11PM (you don't expect to be paid for lunch and dinner time, do you?)
Consider me a very rare individual. No one is productive if they are spending hours commuting to work but that counts as working time. So you actually spend more time in working time with the 5 days a week than you do with fewer days and longer hours. Also it depends on how many days back to back.
12 hours a day for a few days in a row is as much as I can do and then I need time to sleep and recover. 12+12+8 is better than 8x5. If you offered lower pay then I damn sure wouldn't want to work for an office that discriminates based on schedule.
For me the 16+16+8 schedule would be perfect provided that I get used to the 16s and perhaps they aren't back to back.
When I was in university as an undergrad I had some days where it was 12+ hours or even 16+ hours. It was school, then work.Ultimately 40 hours of work a week feels like 40 hours a work of week, the benefit of the compressed schedule is you don't have to spend all your time commuting in traffic jams and worrying about whether you'll be late for work.
Absolutely, a 16hr coding day can be productive, but you better be damn sure the coder has the day off afterwards, and possibly even beforehand.
I've done a few stints like this near crunch time where I've maybe done a 12hr day followed by 2 16hr days, but then I've fully made sure I get the following 2 working days off to give a 4 day weekend or whatever.
Effectively you can frontload (or backload) work like this with 16hr days, but what you can't do is make it a permanent thing and expect a permanent productivity boost - on the contrary, you'll see completely the opposite.
Why would you lose productivity if you're working the same amount of hours each week? I think hours each week matters far more than how you schedule those hours.
Depends on what you are doing... grinding out code for 16 hours straight, that might be productive once or twice a week, try doing it for 28 days straight and I don't think anybody is getting anything useful out of that.
Some "jobs" involve calling people up, schmoozing, doing lunch or dinner, etc. Those could be done 16 hours a day indefinitely, if you don't have a life outside work - and, if you don't have a life outside work, then why should the company pay you anything beyond your work related expenses? That's starting to sound like 18th century manual farm labor in the U.S. South...
If anybody has ever done endurance cycling (think: Tour de France, for normal human beings), there's a physical capacity of your body that runs longer than the 24 hour period. You might do a 100 mile ride in a day, but you won't likely do 5 100 mile rides in 5 consecutive days. I think that most technical/design brain work follows a similar capacity, better to do 5 consecutive 30 mile days than try for 2 100s in a row and crash.
Yeah but neither will it be useful to grind for 8 hours for 24 days straight coding. I think with coding people get into grooves where for a few days to a week at 12 hours a day everything is groovy and then they hit a wall. It doesn't matter if you do it for 12 hours or 8 hours, you still hit the wall at about the same time and it happens because you lose focus not because you work 12 hours straight.
When I'm coding or doing work I keep working on and off all day long, it could be 8 hours, or 12, it doesn't matter. But I do take breaks so that I don't completely burn out.
8 or 12 hours is preference. Productive would probably be 20 hours a week for 4 hours a day.
But if I have to work 40+ hours a week I'd be better off working 12-16 hours straight than to sleep, eat, commute and waste a whole lot of time getting to work and getting in the zone.
And let the journalists worry about the government. Openleaks is better on a conceptual level, it's decentralized.
The way to avoid witch-hunts is not to build a centralized leaking service and then put one guy at the top of it to be beheaded.
The way to avoid witch hunts is simply to write the code, build the concepts, do the theoretical work, and separate that work from the practical implementation which requires a completely different set of skills. Hackers don't make good journalists and don't navigate the political world very well. Hackers should focus on helping good people do good things in defense of human rights, develop the technology just like Bitcoin or Tor or whatever and let the people decide what to do with that.
Going on TV giving speeches isn't as efficient as connecting journalists to a secure Anonymous Pipeline of leaks. Create the dumb pipe.
You haven't given a valid reason why they'd need to be undercover if the goal is to actually prevent and deter assaults.
Because you've framed the problem you want to solve and have not listened to anyone else's statements. Your statement is not false, but is also unrelated to the issues everyone else was discussing.
What issues in specific? Why are undercover officers needed for this? You and others say it's a good idea, why?
How do we know what she said??
What?? If your complete sentence meant, how do we know what she said actually happens - you'd find out pretty quick with some undercover female officers just dressed like other conference goers.
Do you really think a convention of hackers are going to trust/feel safe in a scenario with undercover cops to handle this?
Everyone knows that all the hacker conferences have some rather high percentage of people who are NSA, CIA, FBI, KGB, etc. etc. Just why is throwing one simple cop into the mix going to bother anyone?
That is my point also. I don't see why it would make sense to put undercover cops into such an environment for this reason because it goes against the goal of actually deterring assaults. If assaults are to be deterred then we need uniformed officers standing around keeping a watchful eye. Undercover cops are probably already there to some degree but those undercover cops are a part of Defcon while he is advocating bringing new cops in (female cops) specifically for the purpose of some sorta sting operation to catch the booty snatcher.
I'd rather take the tactic of deterring the booty snatcher from having the bravery of confidence to believe he wont get caught than to lead him to believe he wont get caught just so we can arrest him for his ignorance. I also want false accusers to get caught because in my opinion they are as bad if not worse. How do we catch the false accusers with undercover female cops?
It's going to take a community level effort to sort this out with people willing to come forward as witnesses.
We don't need policy. We need the women to turn around and slap the shit out of the assholes and the other men standing around to beat the crap out of him.
What if the man were falsely accused? Are the men supposed to apologize to that man later for being suckered into beating him up? Think.
You are the one where I defend undercover cops in an area of known offending to placing one in my home 24/7. I think you are the one not reading.
You haven't given a valid reason why they'd need to be undercover if the goal is to actually prevent and deter assaults.
Having a uniformed officer or police presence is the best way to deter crime. Undercover officers is assuming there is some sort of organized crime or mafia element (which there isn't) which is why I'm totally against the idea and think it's negative.
On the contrary, it would have the opposite effect for the reasons I've outlined. You're talking about a flag that, realistically, applies to 99% of the single people at the event. That is, most of the single, unattached, people who attend the event are going to be somewhat happy if they meet the right person, or even if they just get laid. And that applies whether they're at a con, on a bus, at a friend's party, or even at work (though the latter has awkward potential consequences which means, for logical reasons, they may keep their guards up.)
True, I still don't have a problem with being using any symbolic communication system as it's on them. I just encourage people to be more open.
So what is the flag supposed to symbolize? "I'm human"? That's not how it's going to be read. It's going to be read as "It's OK to do the kinds of things you've read are sexual harassment to me." And as for stereotypical Aspergers types (note the term "stereotypical" - leaving aside the number of geeks who'd never get that diagnosis in a million years, but use the term to apply to them because they read somewhere it means "Rude and obnoxious but really smart", this whole "Aspergers wouldn't know they're sexually harassing someone" thing is really, really, insulting to those who have the conditiion) - as for stereotypical "Aspergers" types, they'll see it as an excuse to ignore the rules of human behavior.
It can symbolize anything people want it to. I'm all for communication because there will be less misunderstandings. I think the stereotype of Aspergers Syndrome is just a label people throw at geeks and nerds in the same way ADHD was the label prior to that. I think it's a bullshit label that simply means the person isn't conforming. I don't think non-conformity is a bad trend nor do I think it's in everyone's self interest to conform because for some people the best way to survive their particular environment is to be exactly how they are. To call it a syndrome is to assume they either don't want to be how they are, or how they are is somehow hurting them in their environment. I think it's similar to complaining about sociopaths in prison, yes they are in there and in many cases they run the prison so as a result the entire prison including the people who aren't sociopaths are forced to act like sociopaths to survive the prison environment. That doesn't make the people acting anti-social due to their environment the same as people who are sociopaths who genuinely do not have the physical/neurological capability to act any other way.
I think most hackers are introverts because they choose to be. Not because they have anxiety disorder or Asperger's but because they choose to dedicate most of their life to cyber activities or to work with computers. I see nothing wrong with this because it's not like every hacker is going to be fortunate enough to be Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg and honestly most hackers at Defcon probably don't care to be.
I honestly think you'd be surprised how easy this behavior is to spot. The Readercon case, for example, involves a person who crossed at least two rather blatently obvious boundaries:
- The first was going right in, and treating the survivor as his sexual plaything right from the start. No early get-to-know-you conversation, no suggestive back and forth between the two that showed the survivor was interested in doing something. The two were strangers. Would you have done that to a stranger? I mean, forget the con which isn't even a sex party, you're at a singles bar, you see an attractive member of the compatible sex at the bar, you politely compliment them and offer a drink, but they politely turn you down. Would you physically grab the woman later, put your arm around her, and announce to her friends something that implies you're going off to have sex with her?
I see it all the time. There are creeps who aren't hackers to
I wouldn't mind a cop there any more than any other stranger. The question was never about my living room. Why are you afraid to have a cop on the corner looking for violent crimes in progress?
I'm not. I'd mind if they were all undercover though. Did you read any of my posts or do you respond to invisible interpretations only from your own mind?
If the hacker culture allows the 1% of guys who can't handle a woman they find attractive being in close proximity to behave badly, then the hacker culture as a whole is to blame, even though only 1% of the guys behave badly. If the hacker culture rejects that kind of behavior when it happens, then they are not to blame. It's really not complicated.
So if 1% of US culture allows for psychopaths, American culture is to blame for psychopaths.
Maybe it is. But I think that it reflects much more negatively on the public than wikileaks if so. I know cryptome is no honey-pot. What should alarm us more than honey-pots is our collective ineffectualness in processing the information from such sources. It's almost like all the data in the world, exquisitely tailored to our liking, would have no effect either. It seems to me like world-leaders are treating the world along with humanity as a game, and like intoxicated children we play.
I used to think the same thing but I don't think so anymore. Julian Assange is someone they probably attempted to recruit and it looks like he decided to flee instead. Any time the police want to talk to you prior to charging you it's because they want to offer you a offer you can't refuse.