Interesting Links for 07-03-2012

[andrewducker]

• Ken Clarke defends secret courts. I, of course, think they're an awful idea.
  (tags: law secrecy security_theatre uk )
• 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying
  (tags: money income society )
• 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!
  (tags: voting uk scotland independence jews )
• Kids born later in the year more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD
  (tags: adhd diagnosis children )
• Govt. agencies, colleges demand applicants' Facebook passwords. (And they can, frankly, fuck off)
  (tags: facebook privacy employment usa )
• Dammit, I find myself largely in agreement with esr on Hollywood, piracy and the internet
  (tags: censorship politics freedom )
• 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.
  (tags: uk Child_abuse )
• How I became Amazon’s pitchman for a 55-gallon drum of personal lubricant on Facebook
  (tags: lubricant facebook amazon advertising )
• On Writers Block
  (tags: neilgaiman writing )
• I hadn't realised that Gillian Anderson stood on a box for The X-Files
  (tags: GillianAnderson x-files tv )
• Either be offensive, or don't be offensive. Being offensive and then pretending you weren't is just dumb.
  (tags: humour offensive )
• Rather than a mansion tax we should be sorting out council tax
  (tags: tax uk housing )
• Romney vs Mr Burns - can you tell which quote belongs to which one?
  (tags: simpsons politics usa )

Comments

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

I do see the problem - but see no other solution other than giving up college sports and/or changing NCAA regulations.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Well, other solutions would be difficult and probably involve thinking and spending money. It looks to me like the current "la la la I assume the problems in privacy violation only affect other people not me so I'll stick with it" attitude is worse in the long run, but since I don't know the problems I may well be wrong.

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?

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

The thing is if the athletes were actual students at the school for the purpose of learning and had been enrolled in a normal process I'd be against anyone at the school looking at their Facebook. but, since they are essentially employees (and well paid ones at that!)they have the right to sign away their privacy.

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.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I almost certainly am being too idealistic here, but I don't think it's ok for employers either.

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...?

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

I think if you offer someone something of value worth well over $100k, you have the right to ask them for something in return - particularly if their fuck ups could cost your organization millions and millions of dollars.

Would you trust an 18 year old not to fuck up your $20 million a year sports program without oversight?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I think I know what you're saying, but it seems to me there's some things you'd usually want (eg. "acting in an an ethical and professional manner, even at events only tangently related to your employment") and some things that are usually offensive and unethical to ask for (eg. "a permanent tap on your home phone with no accountability over who listens to it").

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...?

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

At the end of the day if I was giving someone $100,000 in free money while knowing that if they fucked up I could lose $20 million in money if they did something stupid I'd want to tap their phones, read their facebooks, give them bodyguards who could report back to me, etc...

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.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

The other thing is that the facebook monitoring won't stop the schools from creating specialized classes for these kids that are bribes in an of themselves. A degree from Georgetown University, for example has a huge value for a kid when he graduates and enters the job market. Part of this is that, in general, Georgetown is a difficult university to graduate from because for most students the classes are difficult.

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.