andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2012-03-07 11:00 am
andrewducker) wrote2012-03-07 11:00 am
Entry tags:
- adhd,
- advertising,
- amazon,
- censorship,
- child_abuse,
- children,
- diagnosis,
- employment,
- facebook,
- freedom,
- gilliananderson,
- housing,
- humour,
- income,
- independence,
- jews,
- law,
- links,
- lubricant,
- money,
- neilgaiman,
- offensive,
- politics,
- privacy,
- scotland,
- secrecy,
- security_theatre,
- simpsons,
- society,
- tax,
- tv,
- uk,
- usa,
- voting,
- writing,
- x-files
Interesting Links for 07-03-2012
- Ken Clarke defends secret courts. I, of course, think they're an awful idea.
- 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying
- Jews in Scotland may be disenfranchised by a Saturday vote.
Is there a reason why voting has to happen on one day? Give people a week to vote, with daily updates on the ongoing count!
- Kids born later in the year more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD
- Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords. (And they can, frankly, fuck off)
- Dammit, I find myself largely in agreement with esr on Hollywood, piracy and the internet
- A man who informed police when he found child abuse images on his computer has not been allowed to be alone with his daughter for four months.
- How I became Amazon’s pitchman for a 55-gallon drum of personal lubricant on Facebook
- On Writers Block
- I hadn't realised that Gillian Anderson stood on a box for The X-Files
- Either be offensive, or don't be offensive. Being offensive and then pretending you weren't is just dumb.
- Rather than a mansion tax we should be sorting out council tax
- Romney vs Mr Burns - can you tell which quote belongs to which one?
no subject
Off the top of my head, reasons why it's a disaster include:
* Decreases security by training people to give out their passwords
* Reduces accountability. "How did that questionable stuff get on your facebook account?" "Well, you can't prove it's me, maybe the coach did it, after all, he has my password."
* Even worse, will be a giant legal clusterfuck if they ever admitted something illegal on facebook. "It wasn't me, it was my coach." "My coach leaked my facebook password and someone ruined my reputation, I'm suing for damages."
* Randomly breaches the privacy of everyone who foolishly friends one of the students. I assume they don't come with warnings "Full name Joe Dobbs (spied upon by UoA, DHS, etc, etc)". May there be legal problems with the coach (in effect) posing as one of their sudents on facebook.
Notice that these are problem with giving up the password. Being required to friend someone in authority is problematic as several of the problems still apply, but avoids the worst ones.
It's like saying "We need to tap your phones to make sure you don't bring the university into disrepute. In order to do so, we need your social security number, birth certificate, and a copy of your passport doctored to show your coach's face instead of your own to make the arrangements with the phone company." Even if you accept the spying is necessary, can you see the potential pitfalls in giving your coach control over your identity like that? I mean, I'm sure universities DO do that sort of thing, but I think they should find a non-stupid way of doing it instead.
(Or, preferably, not at all. And preferably give up the charade of college sports :))
no subject
no subject
After all, maybe most students are too stupid to make illegal deals on a different social networking platform, but some may not be.
Off the top of my head, other possible solutions would be:
* Install spyware on the student's computer, so you can _see_ what they do, but not by default impersonate them
* Require passwords, but have a well-thought-out policy in place under what circumstances they can be used, and what oversight there is.
* Put pressure on facebook et al to have a "supervision" mode usable by parents and some employers/schools, where someone can give someone else read-only access to their account
I mean, the thing is, to me, "spying on email" is like "spying on phone calls". We have specific laws that you're not allowed to spy on someone's personal phone calls (unless they use your phone to do it?) regardless of whether you have a really, really good reason, honest, unless you get a court order.
I think those laws are a good idea, and should apply to email and so on similarly.
I can see an argument for "some people have to give up their right to privacy for their job", although I _hope_ there's a better way. But it seems bizarrely inconsistent to say "you have an absolute right to privacy on phones, no right to privacy on facebook, and people can sp on you on LJ but they just don't bother." Surely there's no possible way ALL of those can be right?
no subject
After all, they could simply pick a school that won't ask for their Facebook password. Hell, maybe some schools could use that as a recruiting tactic!
I really don't think the coaches will be looking through to see what comments the players are making. I think they'll mostly be looking to make sure there isn't a picture of the kid standing next to a Ferrari.
no subject
I wrote a long post and deleted it because I started rambling, but I think "it's ok to give people readily abusable power because you trust them never to take advantage of it, even if nothing's stopping them" and "it's ok, if people want it, the free market will provide it" are arguments that seem insidiously reasonable, but don't actually work in real life...?
no subject
Would you trust an 18 year old not to fuck up your $20 million a year sports program without oversight?
no subject
And it seems like, to me, getting a social networking password is like the phone tap, not like acting professional. But I think many people assume it is a little thing that doesn't matter much. So to be persuaded I don't need fifty-seven million arguments why "assuming it's a little thing that's obviously helpful and doesn't matter, isn't it fair to require it", I need an argument why it's a little thing, rather than a circumvension of anti-wiretapping laws...?
no subject
I don't think that the phone tap or the facebook passwords are little things. I do, however, think, that universities have the right to protect themselves and if you give a giant amount of money to someone they can sign away their general rights - if they want to - in exchange for the cash.
Obviously they should understand this before they take the $100k - but if you take a hundred thousand dollars in exchange for letting your facebook be monitored I think you've made a good deal.
Fuck it, if someone wanted to pay me $100k to monitor my facebook for four years I'd take the money.
no subject
Which is why some people got upset when it came out that in a math class that only the athletes could take on the final exam - which was multiple choice - was the question: "How many points does a three-point field goal account for?"
Even better, all of the classes for the athletes were taught by the same teacher who was paid $250,000 a year to design the curriculum and "teach" the students.