it isn't unusual for government jobs to require background checks.

It wasn't usual for employers to refuse to hire people because of their race either. If we really care about rights, then we're going to have to constrain the behavior of not only government, but private entities. And "don't work there if you don't like it" won't solve the problem. What do you do when all employers impose such intrusive conditions of employment? Piss testing, polygraphs, what next? Most of the unaccountable power that we face on a daily basis comes from private business. At some point, though, enough is enough, and there's nothing wrong with passing laws to prevent them from such abusive practices.

Of course it is going to fail if you're trying to hit a moving target.

But it's surprising and somewhat depressing how few consultants are willing to give their management that kind of tough love.

Look, the main thing is we forgot that terrorism is a tactic, and let ourselves get swept up in Fear.

First, who is the "we" in that sentence? For example, I'm not afraid, and the government certainly isn't listening to me or representing me in any way... though I am very concerned that the government will do something idiotic that will mess up my life in some way.

Second, I am not at all convinced that fear is the motivation for many of the government's actions. It's more likely that it's an excuse, or a tactic that they use, in order to get more power or to enrich certain insiders. I don't think they're afraid either. Or rather, they're more afraid of us finding out what they're doing than they are of terrorists.

So the problem isn't that we are afraid. The problem is that we need to put our so-called leaders back in their place. In many cases that place will be a non-leadership position, and in a few cases, a federal prison.

Why do you think foreigners and young people in that situation in France riot? Is it because they are happy with the laws that keep them unemployable?

No, it's generally because of racism or because a cop has murdered another kid.

And your whole "freedom-to-be-exploited" argument is similarly off-target.

It seems IP doesn't only belong to the company- but also at least to some degree to the person who actually developed said IP.

Most employment contracts say differently. Unless your employer is less slimy than most, they claim sole ownership of everything you create for the term of your employment. I redlined my contract to say explicitly that what I create outside working hours, and not using company resources, belongs to me and me only. My main motivation for that was being able to contribute to open-source projects on my own nickel. Their legal department looked it over and they still hired me. But every time there's a revision to the terms of employment, we go through the same redline dance.

If this rebellion against copyright comes to pass, nobody will create anything as polished as what we see and hear today.

Meaning we'll have to settle for Shakespeare and do without Britney? May as well bring on the apocalypse.

I think the same should be true for the software field.

When that happens, we'll know for sure that the field is completely brain-dead.

The majority of so-called "professions" that require certifications do so precisely because they require no particularly rare skills, therefore they need further barriers to entry to protect the incumbents from competition. In the case of software, you can usually find out very quickly who's a bullshitter.