Maybe you shouldn't do any of those stupid things. You don't have to go to parties and act stupid and if you decide to go to parties and act stupid then you live with the consequences.
I think you're missing the point. Alot of things can be taken out of context or you could be discriminated against just for the way you live. I could be the most productive person in the world and also spend every night at a rave, why does it matter to my employer if im a lush outside of work if I do my work well?
This just highlights how corporations are moving in on areas they should have absolutely no say in. Between this and FICO scores determining who is hire-able, we're on the road to causing long term harm to people's livelihoods over a simple mistake, misunderstanding, or simply someone not liking you.
This trend scares me. Alot.
So stop living like a moron and you wont be discriminated against. Live your job.
OK, so never drink around other human beings under any circumstances, never socialize outside the most prudish and formal situations possible, basically never ever do anything with anyone who might potentially be entertaining unless it's inside closed doors and you've already searched everyone and forced them to keep their phones and cameras locked away?
Seems like a reasonable option, there.
Drink in a bar in the proper fashion with class. Don't act like a fool and expect it not to catch up with you. And don't get drunk in public no matter what!
I was merely pointing out that just because someone broke a law, that doesn't necessarily mean that they did the 'wrong' thing. If it presents a huge risk to the company to have them, then I guess it would be okay not to hire them. But, really, I can't see the "huge risk" part happening.
Right and wrong depend entirely on cost/benefit analysis. You might want to parse the situation to determine whether or not they did what was in their self interest, if you have enough information to properly do that, but usually a convict is a convict, and the rational way to live is to never make oneself a convict even if it means following the law.
You're either far more cynical than I am, or far more naive. You're post leaves both as possiblities.
It's possible that you're terribly cynical, and that you feel like you should not, nor should you be able to, communicate ideas and thoughts which might lead to negative workspace repurcussions -- regardless of whether or not those thoughts are well thought out, rational, and in your own (or your classes) self interests. I.e. you feel that there is no need or merit to stand up to private power.
Or your hopelessly naive, in that you think that this is a positive and harmless development because, after all, these companies are justy looking for hopelessly destructive and anti-social behavior, and this sort of thing is in no way a burden and restriction on your freedom of speech, especially not your freedom to analyze the power structure of America, or to in some way attack the interests of the corporate and wealthy elite.
Which is it?
Anything you say can and will be used against you, and not necessary just by the police. I don't care about class this or class that. I only care about how much money I can make or can't make and whether or not I'm following the law. We work to make our bosses and our company look good.
We fail at that and then we are being irrational. It does not matter what you think personally, if you say it under the company name, (your name is the company name if you are an employee), then you are representing the company at all times. If you have something to say then say it under another name.
This is why anonymity on the internet is essential.
those people who don't protect their name, their reputation, as they would protect their company -1.
Even many educated, intelligent, digitally-connected people don't know to do this. Even many who have considered it don't have any idea HOW to do it. There is no crime in having a similar, or even identical, name on-line as someone else. For example, someone posts here as Squigly. Who or what stops someone else from posting elsewhere as Squigly and possibly tarnishing the original's rep, or maybe making it better accidentally? There are a lot of names that are quite popular as well, leading to easy confusion. So how, exactly, does one 'protect their reputation' on-line?
And it's rational to follow it if the costs of not following it outweigh the benefit. Most drug use laws you wont get prison time for breaking. Drug dealing and trafficking are a completely different story.
Everyone has broken the law before, either because they didn't know the law existed or because they were young, or because they did a calculation where following the law was of a great immediate cost.
Maybe you shouldn't do any of those stupid things. You don't have to go to parties and act stupid and if you decide to go to parties and act stupid then you live with the consequences.
The purpose of social networking sites is to create and get a glimpse of your social fingerprint. This is a lot cheaper than hiring private investigators and doing a real backround examination.
If a company is so restrictive and intrusive that they can't take a couple crazy, sleep-deprived 3 am posts maybe they're not the best place to work?
From the company's point of view, any information they can gather on a potential employee is helpful. I just hope who ever uses that type of service is wise enough to not take it too, too seriously.
If you are smart you wont have to worry about it even if they take it absolutely seriously.
Now if they started looking and judging us by the music we listen to or the politics we talk about, then I would say there is a problem. But lets be honest, who wants to hire a complete irrational moron? They have to be smart enough not to strip naked on facebook and talk BS on twitter.
These sorts of tests should be called idiot detection testing. The point of the test is to filter out the irrational type people who can bring down the honor and reputation of any business. A business is represented by the behavior of it's employees. A business has the right not to hire employees who have irrational or just plain stupid behavior.
It's better than the "IQ" test if it predicts behavior.
It's better than the "drug" testing because not every drug user is a drug addict.
It's highly focused on what actually matters.
If you are rational you won't go online saying and doing stupid things in a way in which it's linked to your workplace persona. If you are irrational and completely lack self control then you might, but then you might be like that Barksdale Google engineer and I'd rather people like that guy be filtered out than to continue with hiring irrational but brilliant.
That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time, but those people who are at work using their work computer to search for pornography -1, those people who are spouting idiocy under their real name -1, those people who don't protect their name, their reputation, as they would protect their company -1.
That wasn't my point. My point is that they aren't going to pin their hopes on American made high tech gadgets for anything critical. It's not like they don't get trained.
True enough, but my point was that as smart as they may be, they're not "all there" because they believe that committing suicide to further their cause is a "good idea".
Their professional "terrorist" is a suicidal profession to begin with. They aren't very reasonable else they'd be trying to make money.
It's not so much just about the cipher you use but also about your computers ability to generate random numbers. A backdoor or exploit in the random number generator and all the keys will be predictable.
If the terrorists really are this stupid, and they aren't...
You're talking about a group of people that intentionally blow themselves up to make their point.
After they're dead, what do they care about what the world really thinks?
That wasn't my point. My point is that they aren't going to pin their hopes on American made high tech gadgets for anything critical. It's not like they don't get trained.
If it's a national security concern the NSA already can crack the encryption
I would not bet on that one. Maybe the NSA has a quantum computer sitting in a basement in Ft. Meade, but I doubt that too. The NSA is advanced, but they are not deities.
It doesn't take a quantum computer to crack 99% of the encryption out there. Most people aren't using 256bit AES. SSL can be cracked rather easily, most algorithms have weaknesses, even AES in certain forms may contain weaknesses. The encryption is good but it's definitely crackable by the NSA, and even if it weren't the NSA has other ways to get what they want without a wiretap. Wiretaps are to help the local police, not the NSA or national security.
National security if it really is about national security, they'd use drones, satellites, all kinds of means, not to mention they can just hack into the computers in question or plant bugs, keyloggers etc. Wiretaps are so they can basically watch everybody in the entire country,. This is more political than anything else.
The terrorists will develop their own encryption schemes so using wiretaps would be completely worthless anyway. The mafia is smart enough to outsmart this, street gangs are smart enough, terrorists are smart enough. This is to watch the civilian population like you and me.
They assume the terrorists wont write their own? Terrorists aren't dumb enough to come to the USA and trust an American software company to encrypt their terrorist communication. And even if it's a foreign company, what terrorist group would need to go to outsiders when they probably have their own programmers?
If the terrorists really are this stupid, and they aren't, but if we want to pretend like they are, then just arrest them already and get it over with.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you shouldn't do any of those stupid things. You don't have to go to parties and act stupid and if you decide to go to parties and act stupid then you live with the consequences.
I think you're missing the point. Alot of things can be taken out of context or you could be discriminated against just for the way you live. I could be the most productive person in the world and also spend every night at a rave, why does it matter to my employer if im a lush outside of work if I do my work well?
This just highlights how corporations are moving in on areas they should have absolutely no say in. Between this and FICO scores determining who is hire-able, we're on the road to causing long term harm to people's livelihoods over a simple mistake, misunderstanding, or simply someone not liking you.
This trend scares me. Alot.
So stop living like a moron and you wont be discriminated against. Live your job.
OK, so never drink around other human beings under any circumstances, never socialize outside the most prudish and formal situations possible, basically never ever do anything with anyone who might potentially be entertaining unless it's inside closed doors and you've already searched everyone and forced them to keep their phones and cameras locked away?
Seems like a reasonable option, there.
Drink in a bar in the proper fashion with class. Don't act like a fool and expect it not to catch up with you. And don't get drunk in public no matter what!
I was merely pointing out that just because someone broke a law, that doesn't necessarily mean that they did the 'wrong' thing. If it presents a huge risk to the company to have them, then I guess it would be okay not to hire them. But, really, I can't see the "huge risk" part happening.
Right and wrong depend entirely on cost/benefit analysis. You might want to parse the situation to determine whether or not they did what was in their self interest, if you have enough information to properly do that, but usually a convict is a convict, and the rational way to live is to never make oneself a convict even if it means following the law.
You're either far more cynical than I am, or far more naive. You're post leaves both as possiblities.
It's possible that you're terribly cynical, and that you feel like you should not, nor should you be able to, communicate ideas and thoughts which might lead to negative workspace repurcussions -- regardless of whether or not those thoughts are well thought out, rational, and in your own (or your classes) self interests. I.e. you feel that there is no need or merit to stand up to private power.
Or your hopelessly naive, in that you think that this is a positive and harmless development because, after all, these companies are justy looking for hopelessly destructive and anti-social behavior, and this sort of thing is in no way a burden and restriction on your freedom of speech, especially not your freedom to analyze the power structure of America, or to in some way attack the interests of the corporate and wealthy elite.
Which is it?
Anything you say can and will be used against you, and not necessary just by the police. I don't care about class this or class that. I only care about how much money I can make or can't make and whether or not I'm following the law. We work to make our bosses and our company look good.
We fail at that and then we are being irrational. It does not matter what you think personally, if you say it under the company name, (your name is the company name if you are an employee), then you are representing the company at all times.
If you have something to say then say it under another name.
This is why anonymity on the internet is essential.
Even many educated, intelligent, digitally-connected people don't know to do this. Even many who have considered it don't have any idea HOW to do it. There is no crime in having a similar, or even identical, name on-line as someone else. For example, someone posts here as Squigly. Who or what stops someone else from posting elsewhere as Squigly and possibly tarnishing the original's rep, or maybe making it better accidentally? There are a lot of names that are quite popular as well, leading to easy confusion. So how, exactly, does one 'protect their reputation' on-line?
Hire an online reputation management consultant.
Maybe if we stopped hiring average people for critical positions we wont have so many problems.
Thats exactly the kind of company I want to start.
And it's rational to follow it if the costs of not following it outweigh the benefit. Most drug use laws you wont get prison time for breaking. Drug dealing and trafficking are a completely different story.
Everyone has broken the law before, either because they didn't know the law existed or because they were young, or because they did a calculation where following the law was of a great immediate cost.
Maybe you shouldn't do any of those stupid things. You don't have to go to parties and act stupid and if you decide to go to parties and act stupid then you live with the consequences.
The purpose of social networking sites is to create and get a glimpse of your social fingerprint. This is a lot cheaper than hiring private investigators and doing a real backround examination.
If a company is so restrictive and intrusive that they can't take a couple crazy, sleep-deprived 3 am posts maybe they're not the best place to work?
From the company's point of view, any information they can gather on a potential employee is helpful. I just hope who ever uses that type of service is wise enough to not take it too, too seriously.
If you are smart you wont have to worry about it even if they take it absolutely seriously.
Now if they started looking and judging us by the music we listen to or the politics we talk about, then I would say there is a problem. But lets be honest, who wants to hire a complete irrational moron? They have to be smart enough not to strip naked on facebook and talk BS on twitter.
These sorts of tests should be called idiot detection testing. The point of the test is to filter out the irrational type people who can bring down the honor and reputation of any business. A business is represented by the behavior of it's employees. A business has the right not to hire employees who have irrational or just plain stupid behavior.
It's better than the "IQ" test if it predicts behavior.
It's better than the "drug" testing because not every drug user is a drug addict.
It's highly focused on what actually matters.
If you are rational you won't go online saying and doing stupid things in a way in which it's linked to your workplace persona. If you are irrational and completely lack self control then you might, but then you might be like that Barksdale Google engineer and I'd rather people like that guy be filtered out than to continue with hiring irrational but brilliant.
That being said nobody is rational 100% of the time, but those people who are at work using their work computer to search for pornography -1, those people who are spouting idiocy under their real name -1, those people who don't protect their name, their reputation, as they would protect their company -1.
Now porn companies can protect their intellectual property? Maybe now is the time for me to get involved in the porn business.
That wasn't my point. My point is that they aren't going to pin their hopes on American made high tech gadgets for anything critical. It's not like they don't get trained.
True enough, but my point was that as smart as they may be, they're not "all there" because they believe that committing suicide to further their cause is a "good idea".
Their professional "terrorist" is a suicidal profession to begin with. They aren't very reasonable else they'd be trying to make money.
and if this were implemented, it *would* amount to an "attempt to achieve broader wiretap authority" -- of truly Orwellian proportions.
Epic quote!
It's not the algorithm, it's the implementation.
Aussie gov won't help with cyber attacks? What is the Aussie gov's stance on Wikileaks?
It's not so much just about the cipher you use but also about your computers ability to generate random numbers. A backdoor or exploit in the random number generator and all the keys will be predictable.
Because you don't work for the government, you aren't one of them, you are a threat to them and must be neutralized by any means necessary.
If the terrorists really are this stupid, and they aren't...
You're talking about a group of people that intentionally blow themselves up to make their point.
After they're dead, what do they care about what the world really thinks?
That wasn't my point. My point is that they aren't going to pin their hopes on American made high tech gadgets for anything critical. It's not like they don't get trained.
If it's a national security concern the NSA already can crack the encryption
I would not bet on that one. Maybe the NSA has a quantum computer sitting in a basement in Ft. Meade, but I doubt that too. The NSA is advanced, but they are not deities.
It doesn't take a quantum computer to crack 99% of the encryption out there. Most people aren't using 256bit AES. SSL can be cracked rather easily, most algorithms have weaknesses, even AES in certain forms may contain weaknesses. The encryption is good but it's definitely crackable by the NSA, and even if it weren't the NSA has other ways to get what they want without a wiretap. Wiretaps are to help the local police, not the NSA or national security.
National security if it really is about national security, they'd use drones, satellites, all kinds of means, not to mention they can just hack into the computers in question or plant bugs, keyloggers etc. Wiretaps are so they can basically watch everybody in the entire country,. This is more political than anything else.
To follow along similar path. Who is our government protecting us against?
The government protecting itself from people like you.
The terrorists will develop their own encryption schemes so using wiretaps would be completely worthless anyway. The mafia is smart enough to outsmart this, street gangs are smart enough, terrorists are smart enough. This is to watch the civilian population like you and me.
They assume the terrorists wont write their own? Terrorists aren't dumb enough to come to the USA and trust an American software company to encrypt their terrorist communication. And even if it's a foreign company, what terrorist group would need to go to outsiders when they probably have their own programmers?
If the terrorists really are this stupid, and they aren't, but if we want to pretend like they are, then just arrest them already and get it over with.