If my Community College can get away with forcing (it is actually required you use it) all students and faculty to use Hotmail, which works properly on precisely zero of my three main computers, I don't see how Gmail warrants a shitfit for any reason other than some MS bribery.
Yeah. Clearly we should let the monkeys free. Those cages could be used for bankers and politicians who, unlike this story, have proven they have no ability to think ahead.
If it is in liquid form and goes on your skin without injection, there is a solvent that removes it. End of story. If you're committed enough to cheat an election, you can afford a jug of MEK.
"Since when is "don't post pictures of your balls and / or tits on Facebook" 'living in fear'?"
Since the most extreme case is not the only case. Translation: because the straw man wasn't alive to begin with.
How about seeing pictures of you at a political rally? Seeing you seem to know a lot of Muslims? Seeing you like some sort of objectionable media? Especially when you consider this is pretty much going to happen if you do those things. You're not the only person able to reveal what you're up to and short of excommunicating anyone with loose lips, people are going to know you have done objectionable activities. The option is basically live perfectly in accordance to what you want everyone to know (which I'd call living in fear, personally, since it is what drives that kind of life), or deal with the fact people are going to see objectionable facts about you.
I see this more as a generational issue. People on both sides are going to have to grow up and accept that what you do on your own time is your own life, because the number of squeaky-clean job applicants is nowhere near large enough to fill even just the CEO positions of the world. That doesn't change that a company has no business at all asking for access to my private accounts - no matter how precariously so they might be - and that needs enshrined in law.
So your solution is don't use social media and you won't have to hide it - even though as I said that will not work because they will rightly assume you're probably lying (it is simply not the common case), yet you also don't have anything to hide, so you really wouldn't know. Kind of circular. I am not really sure if you're arguing "if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide" or just generally "do nothing potentially objectionable". I don't like either, of course, but the second seems to be the gist of it - which goes back to what I said about living in fear.
The end point of this is that almost everyone now uses social media and huge numbers of those people post things that conventional wisdom says they shouldn't. My guess? Conventional wisdom will change and that will be good for society at large. That still doesn't mean anyone gets a password to anything I have, from my personal servers to my facebook account. I see it less a matter of privacy and more a matter of forcing me to give unwarranted access to my own reputation; after all, if they have a password to my facebook account, little stops them from making me look like an ass.
"You're free to make your decisions - I'm free to make mine."
No, you're not. Not if it is illegal to do so, which is what this law is about. I consider it simply a question of this: do they do the job? If they do, then shut the fuck up. If they do not, you have no need for other reasons to not hire/fire them. That means you have no right to decide what they do in their personal lives just because they work for you some of the time. But I suppose it is easy to believe you do when YOU are not the one who is being scrutinized by someone with the power to rip away your livelihood if you do or say something potentially objectionable. I don't consider that freedom and I doubt any sane person would, either.
If that's true, why do they want passwords to begin with? Perhaps from a purely absolute perspective nothing is private, but there are relative levels of it.
"Just don't use social media and you won't have to hide from your employer"
And when you tell them this, they believe you are lying and don't hire you. Or hell, consider that a personality flaw and don't hire you for being anti-social.
"Or.. Gasp... Be careful and keep it safe for work at all times. "
Because living in fear is exactly what we should all aspire to, right?
"One really should not put anything online that you would not want EVERYBODY to be able to read."
Bit of a difference between, say, posting on a blog, and being pressed into giving someone else a password to your private accounts. Would you be against letting them scan your hard drive for anything they might find objectionable? After all, what's the difference? Your computer is connected to the internet.
"Everything you put online, pictures, comments, blogs, chats etc. is going to be public information forever, or at least it CAN end up out living you. Remember that every time you are tempted to post."
Does that apply to spineless pro-corporate shilling on slashdot?
I kind of see this all as a non-issue. In some ways the loss of privacy is a bad thing... in other ways it is good. We didn't see much motion in the gay rights movement until people started to come out. I think the same is going to start to happen in other parts of society - the petty prejudices aren't going to hold up so well in an age where everyone is more open. Not to say I am for invasions of privacy, but it is going to happen, and it isn't all bad. I also can see being closed off as becoming something itself considered undesirable and I think rightly so.
That's why it is illegal to ask a large number of questions that are not directly relevant to the job; it is an unjustifiable source of potential bias. This law really isn't needed, what we need is a more general one outlining ALL cases to this effect, rather than several laws trying to specific specific things you cannot ask.
Not going to happen. However, this will push more people to piracy, and sow more suspicions about the whole system of copyright. Only a matter of time until the legal myth propping these media companies up is questioned.
They'll certainly be helpless if we start censoring and preventing research on it and, potentially, other forms of virology. Hell, you seem to be advocating no research be done UNTIL there has been an outbreak, with your little "their have been biological out breaks from secured environments". If that's your concern (not that bad people repeat the experiment), then you're not complaining about the same thing. You're complaining the science was done. That's even sadder than complaining about it being published.
Of course the giveaway about your opinions might be the bit about "a track record of killing more people than anything short of communism". Really? You can't think of anything that killed more people than "communism"? Sounds like you have a pretty big political axe to grind, so much so it is now derailing your other arguments. If we're talking about vague concepts, might as well include gunpowder. That's a lot less vague than communism... and wow, it falls under chemistry! Suddenly, what I said makes sense. Maybe.
Yet the same court decided money is speech, so every company can anonymously bribe politicans, to practice their freedom of speech.
You expect me or anyone else to buy the excuse "it's constitutional because the Supreme Court says so"? Because it is utterly, flat-out, and dangerously false.
This state has no clue how to run a government of any sort. Every level of state and local government is layered with such bureaucracy it can barely function. Even when it somehow manages to get and retain people who actually want to help you, the system strangles them and makes it impossible.
What makes this worse is their happiness to include you, as a visitor/student/just citizen into the bureaucracy itself. I have examples. Go to any of the NC state park websites, look at their list of rules and regulations. It practically takes a law degree to understand what is and isn't allowed.
It extends to universities. I was forced to sit out a semester between my community college and NCSU because of their inability to figure out how to transfer me properly until after I graduated the community college, despite my extremely high GPA, membership in the honors program, etc.. Even their head of admissions admitted it was absurd, but could do nothing. When I finally could apply, they lost my transcript, which I handed to them in person.
The police in the town here will simply sit at intersections in neighborhoods and wait for someone to do absolutely anything illegal. The best part is, if you pull up behind them, trying to actually use the intersection in the direction they have blocked, they will ignore you and sit there.
Go read Wake country "sanitation department" inspections for restaurants. Lose 3 points for putting something in a fridge with the lid on too soon; lose 1 for cockroaches in the kitchen.
I could go on all day. It simply does not surprise me at all that this is occurring here. I have no idea how the state government manages to function on a day to day basis at all, yet it doesn't come as a shock it feels the freedom to violate the first amendment while failing utterly to accomplish its stated goals. The state government needs to be totally trashed, on every level, and tried again from scratch.
I, on the other hand, find the perpetual witch hunt to blame people not getting vaccines for every conceivable problem unnerving. Really. Look at the insane level of hyperbole on this topic and tell me there isn't something fundamentally and horribly wrong with the mindset of both sides.
Slashdot Mirror
If my Community College can get away with forcing (it is actually required you use it) all students and faculty to use Hotmail, which works properly on precisely zero of my three main computers, I don't see how Gmail warrants a shitfit for any reason other than some MS bribery.
Yeah. Clearly we should let the monkeys free. Those cages could be used for bankers and politicians who, unlike this story, have proven they have no ability to think ahead.
Wait, what? "It's the law, so shut your mouth, citizen"? If you're British, your country has more issues than I thought...
Don't blame me, I voted for Roslin!
If it is in liquid form and goes on your skin without injection, there is a solvent that removes it. End of story. If you're committed enough to cheat an election, you can afford a jug of MEK.
"Since when is "don't post pictures of your balls and / or tits on Facebook" 'living in fear'?"
Since the most extreme case is not the only case. Translation: because the straw man wasn't alive to begin with.
How about seeing pictures of you at a political rally? Seeing you seem to know a lot of Muslims? Seeing you like some sort of objectionable media? Especially when you consider this is pretty much going to happen if you do those things. You're not the only person able to reveal what you're up to and short of excommunicating anyone with loose lips, people are going to know you have done objectionable activities. The option is basically live perfectly in accordance to what you want everyone to know (which I'd call living in fear, personally, since it is what drives that kind of life), or deal with the fact people are going to see objectionable facts about you.
I see this more as a generational issue. People on both sides are going to have to grow up and accept that what you do on your own time is your own life, because the number of squeaky-clean job applicants is nowhere near large enough to fill even just the CEO positions of the world. That doesn't change that a company has no business at all asking for access to my private accounts - no matter how precariously so they might be - and that needs enshrined in law.
So your solution is don't use social media and you won't have to hide it - even though as I said that will not work because they will rightly assume you're probably lying (it is simply not the common case), yet you also don't have anything to hide, so you really wouldn't know. Kind of circular. I am not really sure if you're arguing "if you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide" or just generally "do nothing potentially objectionable". I don't like either, of course, but the second seems to be the gist of it - which goes back to what I said about living in fear.
The end point of this is that almost everyone now uses social media and huge numbers of those people post things that conventional wisdom says they shouldn't. My guess? Conventional wisdom will change and that will be good for society at large. That still doesn't mean anyone gets a password to anything I have, from my personal servers to my facebook account. I see it less a matter of privacy and more a matter of forcing me to give unwarranted access to my own reputation; after all, if they have a password to my facebook account, little stops them from making me look like an ass.
"You're free to make your decisions - I'm free to make mine."
No, you're not. Not if it is illegal to do so, which is what this law is about. I consider it simply a question of this: do they do the job? If they do, then shut the fuck up. If they do not, you have no need for other reasons to not hire/fire them. That means you have no right to decide what they do in their personal lives just because they work for you some of the time. But I suppose it is easy to believe you do when YOU are not the one who is being scrutinized by someone with the power to rip away your livelihood if you do or say something potentially objectionable. I don't consider that freedom and I doubt any sane person would, either.
If that's true, why do they want passwords to begin with? Perhaps from a purely absolute perspective nothing is private, but there are relative levels of it.
"Just don't use social media and you won't have to hide from your employer"
And when you tell them this, they believe you are lying and don't hire you. Or hell, consider that a personality flaw and don't hire you for being anti-social.
"Or.. Gasp... Be careful and keep it safe for work at all times. "
Because living in fear is exactly what we should all aspire to, right?
"One really should not put anything online that you would not want EVERYBODY to be able to read."
Bit of a difference between, say, posting on a blog, and being pressed into giving someone else a password to your private accounts. Would you be against letting them scan your hard drive for anything they might find objectionable? After all, what's the difference? Your computer is connected to the internet.
"Everything you put online, pictures, comments, blogs, chats etc. is going to be public information forever, or at least it CAN end up out living you. Remember that every time you are tempted to post."
Does that apply to spineless pro-corporate shilling on slashdot?
I kind of see this all as a non-issue. In some ways the loss of privacy is a bad thing... in other ways it is good. We didn't see much motion in the gay rights movement until people started to come out. I think the same is going to start to happen in other parts of society - the petty prejudices aren't going to hold up so well in an age where everyone is more open. Not to say I am for invasions of privacy, but it is going to happen, and it isn't all bad. I also can see being closed off as becoming something itself considered undesirable and I think rightly so.
That's why it is illegal to ask a large number of questions that are not directly relevant to the job; it is an unjustifiable source of potential bias. This law really isn't needed, what we need is a more general one outlining ALL cases to this effect, rather than several laws trying to specific specific things you cannot ask.
Not going to happen. However, this will push more people to piracy, and sow more suspicions about the whole system of copyright. Only a matter of time until the legal myth propping these media companies up is questioned.
Hitler was so evil, it was like he worked for the RIAA!
They'll certainly be helpless if we start censoring and preventing research on it and, potentially, other forms of virology. Hell, you seem to be advocating no research be done UNTIL there has been an outbreak, with your little "their have been biological out breaks from secured environments". If that's your concern (not that bad people repeat the experiment), then you're not complaining about the same thing. You're complaining the science was done. That's even sadder than complaining about it being published.
Of course the giveaway about your opinions might be the bit about "a track record of killing more people than anything short of communism". Really? You can't think of anything that killed more people than "communism"? Sounds like you have a pretty big political axe to grind, so much so it is now derailing your other arguments. If we're talking about vague concepts, might as well include gunpowder. That's a lot less vague than communism... and wow, it falls under chemistry! Suddenly, what I said makes sense. Maybe.
So scientific research potentially dangerous is OK to be censored? Oh boy, that is going to set back chemistry a bit.
That "religion" is why Linux and all its surrounding components exist.
Yet the same court decided money is speech, so every company can anonymously bribe politicans, to practice their freedom of speech.
You expect me or anyone else to buy the excuse "it's constitutional because the Supreme Court says so"? Because it is utterly, flat-out, and dangerously false.
And have lived many other places...
This state has no clue how to run a government of any sort. Every level of state and local government is layered with such bureaucracy it can barely function. Even when it somehow manages to get and retain people who actually want to help you, the system strangles them and makes it impossible.
What makes this worse is their happiness to include you, as a visitor/student/just citizen into the bureaucracy itself. I have examples. Go to any of the NC state park websites, look at their list of rules and regulations. It practically takes a law degree to understand what is and isn't allowed.
It extends to universities. I was forced to sit out a semester between my community college and NCSU because of their inability to figure out how to transfer me properly until after I graduated the community college, despite my extremely high GPA, membership in the honors program, etc.. Even their head of admissions admitted it was absurd, but could do nothing. When I finally could apply, they lost my transcript, which I handed to them in person.
The police in the town here will simply sit at intersections in neighborhoods and wait for someone to do absolutely anything illegal. The best part is, if you pull up behind them, trying to actually use the intersection in the direction they have blocked, they will ignore you and sit there.
Go read Wake country "sanitation department" inspections for restaurants. Lose 3 points for putting something in a fridge with the lid on too soon; lose 1 for cockroaches in the kitchen.
I could go on all day. It simply does not surprise me at all that this is occurring here. I have no idea how the state government manages to function on a day to day basis at all, yet it doesn't come as a shock it feels the freedom to violate the first amendment while failing utterly to accomplish its stated goals. The state government needs to be totally trashed, on every level, and tried again from scratch.
Neutrinos, anyone?
!em dnatsrednu yllanif lliw elpoep won ,swen taerg si sihT
I, on the other hand, find the perpetual witch hunt to blame people not getting vaccines for every conceivable problem unnerving. Really. Look at the insane level of hyperbole on this topic and tell me there isn't something fundamentally and horribly wrong with the mindset of both sides.
OOP programmers are supposed to like black boxes!
"The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time by the state you live in."
The use of the internet is a privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time by the state you live in.
Maybe they'll inspire the British to grow a spine and stand up for their rights.
Simply put, it only takes £250,000 to bribe the prime minister. Somebody start a collection!