And lo on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:34:24 +0100, Jim Henderson  

<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:41:13 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lin
es?
>>
>> Possibly because we have a PM that's been referred to as Stalin?
>
> LOL, I've actually seen a photo of Brown doctored up to make him look
> like Stalin.  I think it was on The Daily Show....

We're even getting forced labour now... sort of
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/unemployed-to-be-used-for-sou
p--200807211110/

> Our gym is like this - no recording devices of any kind without
> management approval.
>
>> This is the rule that the staff get told and they're certainly not pa
id
>> to think (and would no doubt be reprimanded if they did) so the fact
>> that the reason for the rule existing does not apply in these
>> circumstances has no bearing on the application of the rule.
>
> Also true.  Unfortunately, in cases like changing rooms and whatnot, t
he
> rule makes sense, but a Zero Tolerance approach to enforcement can tak
e
> this to an extreme - for example, because of the proliferation of phon
es
> with cameras built-in, a ZT-style enforcer of a policy of "no recordin
g
> devices" might decide to eject members who have phones with photo
> capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used.  If the member i
s
> an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of their employm
ent
> and the company provides a phone with a camera built into it, that
> creates a problem.

It's an attitude shift "I'm not being paid enough to deal with the  

applications of this rule I'm just going to enforce it" instead of  

jobsworth perhaps rulesworth? Pratchettism from Going Postal regarding t
he  

ability to cripple the 'clacks' system - In the old days the head of the
  

tower would strip the message from the list knowing they were doing the 
 

right thing and that the people back at Head Office would agree; not now
.

> When I was looking for a new phone, I settled on the Blackberry 8700.
> First because I was able to pick an unused-but-previously-owned one ve
ry
> cheap, and second because it had no camera.  I've been to corporate
> facilities in the last 5 years where they *will* confiscate any camera
s
> or recording devices, no questions asked.  There was (and is) the
> potential for me to visit government and military installations (not v
ery
> likely now, but that could change) and I didn't want to have to make a

> choice between being able to be contacted if it was necessary and bein
g
> able to do my job.

I'm surprised it isn't a blanket ban, how many phones without a camera c
an  

still record audio?

>> Quote: "We have to walk a fine line between protecting the children w
ho
>> use this popular paddling pool and the interests of the community as 
a
>> whole. A lot of people are more concerned about the safety of their
>> children these days so it is appropriate that our staff are aware of 
who
>> is taking photos in the area."
>>
>> Not a hint that the guidelines might need tweaking.
>
> Yeah, and that's sad.  The possession of a recording device doesn't ma
ke
> one a criminal (or, more specifically, having one near a paddling pool

> doesn't make one a *paedophile*), nor even does taking pictures of kid
s
> having fun at the pool make one a criminal or a paedophile.  It's the
> pattern of *behaviour* that does.

But patterns are hard to discern and as per above I'm not paid to think,
  

so better just to go for the option that you can't be disciplined/fired 
 

for "Just obeying the rules!".

> But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem
> mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask question
s
> later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking f
rom
> the process.
>
> For an excellent essay on ZT problems, if you haven't seen it, have a
> look over at http://www.thisistrue.com/zt.html

Bloody hellski. The trouble with such 'laws' is how they equate things -
  

water pistol = firearm, asking a boy if he likes you = sexual harass
ment.  

I assume you've read Roger MacBride Allen's Caliban dealing with Three L
aw  

Robots, such a robot doesn't distinguish between one human being attacke
d  

by another and someone standing on a tall building; both are dangerous. 
As  

robots are omnipresent humans began to fail to distinguish between these
  

dangers too.

> (And BTW, I do subscribe to the 'premium' TRUE subscription and have f
or
> years - it's a very good and often quite funny newsletter - even the f
ree
> one is quite good, but I like the additional stories in the premium
> edition as well.  I think you'd enjoy it, Phil)

I do like the tag line.

-- 

Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message