 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
http://www.fastcompany.com/1826121/employers-want-your-facebook-password-now
Boy the more I read stories like this, the more I'm convinced that
privacy and personal freedom is a thing of the past. Governments and now
employers seem to be marching lock step, and arm in arm all over things
that up until /were/ deemed scared. Why don't they just go ahead and
implant a chip in our necks and be done with it :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] none com> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
Fortunately, privacy laws in Finland are (still) really strict, so
here there's (still) little to worry about.
There have been many cases already where privacy-compromising acts or
laws in other countries have caused the Finnish government to start an
investigation on how it could possibly affect Finnish citizens. For
example, at one point the Swedish government wanted to enact a law that
would permit it to monitor people's private emails, and this caused
concern in Finland (because most internet traffic in Finland is routed
through Swedish servers). Likewise when it was discovered that Google
keeps track of people's IPs and search keywords, this likewise caused
concern. More prominently, when Google introduced their street view mode
of many Finnish cities in Google Maps, the Finnish government requested
a report from Google on what kind of measurements they were employing
to ensure that Finnish privacy laws were not compromised. (For instance,
it's illegal in Finland to publish comprehensive lists of photographs of
cars with their license plates visible; privacy laws are that strict
here.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2012 01:42 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
So they're talking about allowing traffic analysis. No actual data
content, just what you looked at and when.
It's rather worrying that anyone "official enough" would be able to
browse through any data they want without needing a warrant. But beyond
that, I suspect whoever suggested this doesn't quite comprehend the
volume of data we're talking about here. The daft thing is, the
technically sophisticated criminals these measures are purportedly
supposed to catch will easily get around them, so it affects only naive
innocent citizens.
I gather last time somebody proposed this, it didn't get very far due to
massive opposition. I expect the same thing to happen with this one.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
TL;DR.
> http://www.fastcompany.com/1826121/employers-want-your-facebook-password-now
Some employers are arseholes. Don't work for them.
If some employer wanted access to my personal data, I would simply
refuse. If that means they don't hire me, that's their loss, not mine, IMHO.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/01/2012 09:40 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 01:42 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
>
> So they're talking about allowing traffic analysis. No actual data
> content, just what you looked at and when.
>
> It's rather worrying that anyone "official enough" would be able to
> browse through any data they want without needing a warrant. But beyond
> that, I suspect whoever suggested this doesn't quite comprehend the
> volume of data we're talking about here. The daft thing is, the
> technically sophisticated criminals these measures are purportedly
> supposed to catch will easily get around them, so it affects only naive
> innocent citizens.
>
> I gather last time somebody proposed this, it didn't get very far due to
> massive opposition. I expect the same thing to happen with this one.
>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
>>
>
> TL;DR.
>
>> http://www.fastcompany.com/1826121/employers-want-your-facebook-password-now
All this (the apparent trend) I find troubling.
> Some employers are arseholes. Don't work for them.
>
> If some employer wanted access to my personal data, I would simply
> refuse. If that means they don't hire me, that's their loss, not mine,
> IMHO.
Recently I applied for part time work at a local grocery ... walking
distance, and hey a little extra cash right! They wanted a saliva test
for heavens sake. I declined because I thought it was a bit extreme, and
(not to mention) an invasion of my privacy. There's a BIG disconnect
going on here! Average, normal ... or whatever you want to call them
folks are getting walked all over.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I suspect whoever suggested this doesn't quite comprehend the
> volume of data we're talking about here.
If there's anything positive that can be fathomed about email spam,
it's that its sheer amount (it broke the 50% mark of all email traversing
the internet long time ago) twharts any kind of comprehensive automatic
traffic analysis of email (or at least makes it impractical and expensive).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2012 2:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 01:42 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745
>
>
> I gather last time somebody proposed this, it didn't get very far due to
> massive opposition. I expect the same thing to happen with this one.
Three hours after the article being posted there are ~ 1600 comments.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/1/2012 6:40 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> http://www.fastcompany.com/1826121/employers-want-your-facebook-password-now
>>
>
> Some employers are arseholes. Don't work for them.
>
> If some employer wanted access to my personal data, I would simply
> refuse. If that means they don't hire me, that's their loss, not mine,
> IMHO.
Sadly, like the argument that American Libertarians fail to grasp, along
with Tea Partiers, and a lot of Republicans, when it comes to economics,
business practices, regulation, and buying politicians, the
***biggest*** problem with this idea is that it only works until
most/all of them are doing it.
The example I just used today was if the government wasn't allowed to
regulate carnivals, so every carnival had prizes booths that cheated
people, and it turned out that the number of the cheating just happened
to be 100% of them. Going to a different booth isn't going to work, nor
is going to a different carnival. But, according to the morons, the
"free market", whether you are a buyer, or the guy trying to find a job,
or you are worried someone might find that you read hustler, instead of
playboy (or just read either), is supposed to somehow fix this, without
someone else stepping in to stop them doing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> Recently I applied for part time work at a local grocery ... walking
> distance, and hey a little extra cash right! They wanted a saliva test
> for heavens sake. I declined because I thought it was a bit extreme, and
> (not to mention) an invasion of my privacy. There's a BIG disconnect
> going on here! Average, normal ... or whatever you want to call them
> folks are getting walked all over.
In soviet Canuckistan, this is illegal. They can only do drug testing
ONCE you are employed and ONLY IF it pertains to your duties (e.g.
airline pilot, heavy machinery operator, etc...)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/04/2012 12:28 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> In soviet Canuckistan, this is illegal. They can only do drug testing
> ONCE you are employed and ONLY IF it pertains to your duties (e.g.
> airline pilot, heavy machinery operator, etc...)
But they are good at Curling as Jim will know. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/02/2012 09:07 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 02/04/2012 12:28 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>> In soviet Canuckistan, this is illegal. They can only do drug testing
>> ONCE you are employed and ONLY IF it pertains to your duties (e.g.
>> airline pilot, heavy machinery operator, etc...)
>
> But they are good at Curling as Jim will know. ;-)
>
LOL ... yeah! Just like shuffleboard only substitute ice and a rock ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
