Mike Raiford wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 
>> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them. 
>> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them 
>> with being cyber terrorists.
> 
> The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking 
> pictures of butterflies on petunias.
> 
> My wife and her dad were taking pictures of a butterfly in some town 
> square shopping area type setting. A security guard approached them, and 
> demanded they sign paperwork stating they wouldn't share the pictures on 
> the internet.
> 
> They didn't sign any paperwork. :)
> 
> I so very much wish I were there. But it's probably a good thing, 
> because what I would have done would most assuredly get myself thrown in 
> jail.

Good for them!

I wouldn't have signed it either, and probably would have been too busy 
laughing at the security guard to ask him to prove that s/he could 
identify the petunia and butterfly that I was taking a picture of, and 
to prove that s/he had the authority to ask me to sign paperwork. Then I 
would have offered the butterfly a dollar to sign a model release, if 
the guard could catch it

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:37:41 +0100, Mike Raiford  
<mra### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:

> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
>> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them.  
>> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them  
>> with being cyber terrorists.
>
> The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking  
> pictures of butterflies on petunias.

On a similar note we've just had the story of someone being asked to stop  
taking photos of a kiddies paddling pool - the someone in question being  
an 82-year old women taking pictures of an empty pool.

The staff member was just rigorously following the ISRM guidelines that  
cleverly don't distinguish between a populated and unpopulated area.

-- 
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

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:48:48 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:37:41 +0100, Mike Raiford
> <mra### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>
>>> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them.
>>> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them
>>> with being cyber terrorists.
>>
>> The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking
>> pictures of butterflies on petunias.
> 
> On a similar note we've just had the story of someone being asked to
> stop taking photos of a kiddies paddling pool - the someone in question
> being an 82-year old women taking pictures of an empty pool.
> 
> The staff member was just rigorously following the ISRM guidelines that
> cleverly don't distinguish between a populated and unpopulated area.

Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lines?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:08:46 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:48:48 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:37:41 +0100, Mike Raiford
>> <mra### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>>
>>>> The businesses using it have money, so that law doesn't apply to them.
>>>> In the US, we only bust kids playing with computers and charge them
>>>> with being cyber terrorists.
>>>
>>> The "terrorist" du jour appears to be a woman and her father taking
>>> pictures of butterflies on petunias.
>>
>> On a similar note we've just had the story of someone being asked to
>> stop taking photos of a kiddies paddling pool - the someone in question
>> being an 82-year old women taking pictures of an empty pool.
>>
>> The staff member was just rigorously following the ISRM guidelines that
>> cleverly don't distinguish between a populated and unpopulated area.
>
> Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lines?

Possibly because we have a PM that's been referred to as Stalin?

As I said the problem was with the guidelines -

1. With digital cameras getting smaller and with no need for third-party  
processing the ability to misuse images increases.
2. Obviously people in changing rooms, locker rooms, swimming pools etc  
are particularly susceptible to this.
3. Therefore make a rule banning cameras from those areas.

This is the rule that the staff get told and they're certainly not paid 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.

Quote: "We have to walk a fine line between protecting the children who  
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.

-- 
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

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:41:13 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> Why is this discussion making me think "In communist Russia...." lines?
> 
> 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....

> As I said the problem was with the guidelines -
> 
> 1. With digital cameras getting smaller and with no need for third-party
> processing the ability to misuse images increases. 

Very true.  And the software isn't that hard to use, and in the hands of 
someone with a good eye, it can be quite convincing.

> 2. Obviously people
> in changing rooms, locker rooms, swimming pools etc are particularly
> susceptible to this. 

Yep.

> 3. Therefore make a rule banning cameras from those
> areas.

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 paid
> 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, the 
rule makes sense, but a Zero Tolerance approach to enforcement can take 
this to an extreme - for example, because of the proliferation of phones 
with cameras built-in, a ZT-style enforcer of a policy of "no recording 
devices" might decide to eject members who have phones with photo 
capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used.  If the member is 
an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of their employment 
and the company provides a phone with a camera built into it, that 
creates a problem.

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 very 
cheap, and second because it had no camera.  I've been to corporate 
facilities in the last 5 years where they *will* confiscate any cameras 
or recording devices, no questions asked.  There was (and is) the 
potential for me to visit government and military installations (not very 
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 being 
able to do my job.

> Quote: "We have to walk a fine line between protecting the children who
> 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 make 
one a criminal (or, more specifically, having one near a paddling pool 
doesn't make one a *paedophile*), nor even does taking pictures of kids 
having fun at the pool make one a criminal or a paedophile.  It's the 
pattern of *behaviour* that does.

But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem 
mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask questions 
later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking from 
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

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

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:25:39 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> 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-
soup--200807211110/

<shaking head>  What's the world coming to?

>> photo capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used.  If the
>> member is an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of
>> their employment 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
> the 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.

Oh, yeah, I understand why people take "the lazy way out".  There's a 
real sense that as a society, we've become lazy, particularly in the 
areas of applying common sense to things and in behaving ethically.

>> (not very 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 being able to do my job.
> 
> I'm surprised it isn't a blanket ban, how many phones without a camera
> can still record audio?

I know mine doesn't have an application for that.  It probably could with 
the right app, but I haven't had a need.

>> kids 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!".

Yeah.  It is a "society becoming lazy" thing in my mind.

>> But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem
>> mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask questions
>> later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking
>> from 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
> harassment. I assume you've read Roger MacBride Allen's Caliban dealing
> with Three Law Robots, such a robot doesn't distinguish between one
> human being attacked 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.

Yep, that is the biggest problem.  There have been stories about kids 
being expelled from school for having prescription medications because 
the ZT policy of the school is "no drugs".  We're not talking about 
minimum-wage workers making those kinds of decisions - school 
*administration* people saying "we're not going to apply common sense 
here", as if there's a difference between inhaling from an albuterol 
inhaler (for asthma) and huffing from a can of compressed air.

It's absolutely *ridiculous*.

>> (And BTW, I do subscribe to the 'premium' TRUE subscription and have
>> for years - it's a very good and often quite funny newsletter - even
>> the free 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.

Each story he does comes with a tag line - it's one of the things that 
makes it fun to read.  Another reason for the premium subscription as 
well is that you can participate in a monthly "tagline challenge" where 
the readers send in suggestions for taglines for one story.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:46:59 +0100, Jim Henderson  

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

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:25:39 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> LOL, I've actually seen a photo of Brown doctored up to make him loo
k
>>> 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-

> soup--200807211110/
>
> <shaking head>  What's the world coming to?

Hey if it means more jobs in the soup processing industry ;-)

>>> photo capabilities, even though the phone isn't being used.  If the
>>> member is an IT person who is REQUIRED to carry a phone as part of
>>> their employment and the company provides a phone with a camera buil
t
>>> 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 regardin
g
>> the 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 doi
ng
>> the right thing and that the people back at Head Office would agree; 
not
>> now.
>
> Oh, yeah, I understand why people take "the lazy way out".  There's a
> real sense that as a society, we've become lazy, particularly in the
> areas of applying common sense to things and in behaving ethically.
<snip>
>>> kids 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 thi
nk,
>> so better just to go for the option that you can't be disciplined/fir
ed
>> for "Just obeying the rules!".
>
> Yeah.  It is a "society becoming lazy" thing in my mind.

But what's the cause, is it bottom-up or top-down (or neither or both). 
 

Personally I think it's top-down - you can't perform this 2 minute job  

without filling in H&S forms 11b, 121c, and 2d and then submiting them f
or  

processing; if you just do the damn thing you will be reprimanded if  

anyone finds out because if anything happens who's held liable dum-dum-d
uh!

>>> But as a society (and I think this is a western-societial problem
>>> mostly), we are tending towards the type of "shoot first, ask questi
ons
>>> later" Zero-Tolerance policies that remove common sense and thinking

>>> from 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 thing
s -
>> water pistol = firearm, asking a boy if he likes you = sexual
>> harassment. I assume you've read Roger MacBride Allen's Caliban deali
ng
>> with Three Law Robots, such a robot doesn't distinguish between one
>> human being attacked by another and someone standing on a tall buildi
ng;
>> both are dangerous. As robots are omnipresent humans began to fail to

>> distinguish between these dangers too.
>
> Yep, that is the biggest problem.  There have been stories about kids
> being expelled from school for having prescription medications because

> the ZT policy of the school is "no drugs".

Except from the teachers point of view in this case what's to stop a  

student putting drugs in a medication container, how could they tell the
  

difference? Easier (there's that word again) just to ban the lot.

>  We're not talking about
> minimum-wage workers making those kinds of decisions - school
> *administration* people saying "we're not going to apply common sense
> here", as if there's a difference between inhaling from an albuterol
> inhaler (for asthma) and huffing from a can of compressed air.
>
> It's absolutely *ridiculous*.

Yeah that is ridiculous. I think I've still got buried somewhere in the 
 

mounds my old cap-gun an item I would now NEVER hand-down as a toy and  

cannot be bought anymore as it's modelled on a real gun. Heh crooks shou
ld  

start pimping their weaponry with plastic fins and day-glo accessories  

that way the government would have an excuse to ban anything that looked
  

like a gun.

>>> (And BTW, I do subscribe to the 'premium' TRUE subscription and have

>>> for years - it's a very good and often quite funny newsletter - even

>>> the free 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.
>
> Each story he does comes with a tag line - it's one of the things that

> makes it fun to read.  Another reason for the premium subscription as
> well is that you can participate in a monthly "tagline challenge" wher
e
> the readers send in suggestions for taglines for one story.

Well I meant "Truth is Stranger than Fiction because Fiction Has to Make
  

Sense"

-- 

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

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:37:47 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>>> We're even getting forced labour now... sort of
>>> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/unemployed-to-be-used-for-
>> soup--200807211110/
>>
>> <shaking head>  What's the world coming to?
> 
> Hey if it means more jobs in the soup processing industry ;-)

LOL

>> Yeah.  It is a "society becoming lazy" thing in my mind.
> 
> But what's the cause, is it bottom-up or top-down (or neither or both).
> Personally I think it's top-down - you can't perform this 2 minute job
> without filling in H&S forms 11b, 121c, and 2d and then submiting them
> for processing; if you just do the damn thing you will be reprimanded if
> anyone finds out because if anything happens who's held liable
> dum-dum-duh!

I think it's a little of both - I think a big part of the problem is that 
nobody is responsible for their own actions any more.  If I, say, stick a 
screwdriver in my eye, it's not my fault - it's the fault of the 
manufacturer of the tool for not including a warning that says "WARNING:  
Screwdrivers have pointy bits; do not stick them in your eye, or you are 
likely to be injured!".  So we have to have all these forms and whatnot 
that are used to disclaim responsibility.

I was reading a story the other day (have to see if it's online 
somewhere) about a guy who fell off a ladder in spite of having taken 
"ladder training" that explained that there were ways in which it was 
inappropriate to use the ladder.  He was standing on the very top 
(against the training) and was only found to be 25% at fault in the 
accident.  The result is that he'll collect something like £37,500 on his 
claim of £50,000.

Because he fell off a *ladder* that *he* was using improperly, and he'd 
been trained was improper use (and he even admitted he knew he was using 
it wrong).

>> Yep, that is the biggest problem.  There have been stories about kids
>> being expelled from school for having prescription medications because
>> the ZT policy of the school is "no drugs".
> 
> Except from the teachers point of view in this case what's to stop a
> student putting drugs in a medication container, how could they tell the
> difference? Easier (there's that word again) just to ban the lot.

Except that the student actually *needs* the medication in order to 
*live*.  I'm not talking something like being able to tell aspirin from 
cocaine - but things like insulin for diabetic students.  Apparently 
they're supposed to get insulin injections without using a syringe 
because the teachers can't tell the difference between a diabetic student 
taking necessary medication and a heroin junkie shooting up in the 
hallway.

>>  We're not talking about
>> minimum-wage workers making those kinds of decisions - school
>> *administration* people saying "we're not going to apply common sense
>> here", as if there's a difference between inhaling from an albuterol
>> inhaler (for asthma) and huffing from a can of compressed air.
>>
>> It's absolutely *ridiculous*.
> 
> Yeah that is ridiculous. I think I've still got buried somewhere in the
> mounds my old cap-gun an item I would now NEVER hand-down as a toy and
> cannot be bought anymore as it's modelled on a real gun. Heh crooks
> should start pimping their weaponry with plastic fins and day-glo
> accessories that way the government would have an excuse to ban anything
> that looked like a gun.

Heh, now that would make things interesting.....

>>> I do like the tag line.
>>
>> Each story he does comes with a tag line - it's one of the things that
>> makes it fun to read.  Another reason for the premium subscription as
>> well is that you can participate in a monthly "tagline challenge" where
>> the readers send in suggestions for taglines for one story.
> 
> Well I meant "Truth is Stranger than Fiction because Fiction Has to Make
> Sense"

Oh, yeah - that is a good one. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback wrote:
> 1-123-456-7890 

One of the investors at my current company has a cell phone number of 
987-654-3210. Which I thought was pretty cool.


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message