Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Of course.... I am suggesting that society has created the infrustructure that allows such views to flourish.... we try and protect people from abuse, but in so doing, we may stop people from being able to recognize such abuse when it actually happens (because they are so protected from it), and in turn be able to tell the difference between actual abuse and what is going on with this software project.
It's less that the people who are offended are being immature than that they are just reacting in the manner that modern society has programmed them to behave.
Agreed, but in practice there will always exist a confidence level somewhere below 100% where the confidence still outweighs any concerns they have about their security. Requiring me to have a backdoor in my computers or network for *ANYONE* that I do not personally administrate would put my confidence level somewhere in the vicinity of 0.
100% confidence in all circumstances is not required... and as you point out, it is actually useless. Anything that simply approaches 100% for all practical purposes is actually entirely sufficient.
I'll really start to worry if or when I am legally required to install a backdoor onto my network and computers in order to get any online connectivity at all.
Let's extend that argument a little bit, shall we?
People who are offended by their supervisors sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace can always just quit and go find a different employer... they are free to boycott the company... they are *not* free to to use legal recourse to force such clearly immature persons into behaving as they believe they ought to./
Now do you see where it comes from? Still think they are being immature? Or does the fault lie much deeper?
If I signed a contract stating that I was supposed to name my next child "Bob", they could try and sue me for violating that contract as well.... that doesn't mean that I'd actually end up owing them anything. A contract that requires you to do things that a company is not legally allowed to ask you to do is not enforceable. It should go without saying, even though it is usually made explicit in a non-compete contract and is true anyways even if you never sign one, is that you are not allowed to disclose any confidential knowledge or proprietary information to other parties, and in places where such contracts are actually legally enforceable, an actual non-compete can at most only prohibit you from utilizing your former position in the company to harm the company, where it is important to realize that hypothetical harm does not actually amount to harm... the fact that you could face civil damages for doing so is going to generally going to be understood by a judge as incentive for you to not do such a thing, and in absence of any evidence that they may have which suggests that you did (which they would not have if you did not do so), they would not be able to convince a judge that you owed them anything... the fact that you may have lied about the detail in the contract gives them no more legal claim to damages than it would be, again, if they had required you to name your next child after your boss and you didn't.
That said, I'll certainly agree that it's sort of pointless to sign contracts you don't intend to abide by, even if aspects of the contract are not enforceable, because doing so can still potentially damage your credibility, if that is worth anything to you... but in my experience with non-competes, it will never be worth a company's time to ever even go after you just because you might happen to work for a competitor unless you have actually used your former position in that company to harm your previous company in some way (which in many cases, depending upon your former position with the company, you may be able to accomplish with equal efficacy without having any employer afterwards at all, since they cannot generally prohibit you from simply communicating with whomever you like when you are not within the company, unless said communication would also entail a violation of criminal law in some way, which may be entirely theoretically possible, and would not just carry civil penalties anyways, and if such were the case, then it would be equally true even if you had not signed the non-compete at all).
Your old employment contract also contains clauses about you having to report your employment status for the duration of the non-compete.
As far as I know, the only organization that you are obligated to make any kind of regular report of your employment status to is the revenue branch of the regional government. What would the company do if you didn't report in? Hire a private eye to track you down? How likely is it going to be even worth their time to pursue you unless you have actually misappopriated some of their intellectual property, or else otherwise used your former position in the other company to unfairly manipulate circumstances to be measurably disadvantageous to them?
It really seems that the only utility that noncompetes accomplish is to protect trade secrets or confidential information, but such information or property is already protected by civil or sometimes even criminal law, whether you sign such an agreement or not. If, in your new job, you are not disclosing any such trade secrets or confidential information about your previous company, then your previous employer would never have any practical reason to care who you work for beyond the concern that you *MIGHT* do or say something that you really aren't supposed to, but of course if you do that, then they can actually file charges against you... and depending on the cost to the company, you can even go to jail, so it's not in your best interests to disclose such information anyways. Arguing that you *MIGHT* do something to harm them may be grounds for them to file a lawsuit, but ultimately the onus would still be upon them to prove any actual damages to a judge before you would ever owe them anything. As I pointed out above, you have good incentive to *NOT* disclose such secrets or information, so in the absence of any evidence that you ever did such a thing, a judge would probably be inclined to not award any such damages.
Point 1 is solved by basing it on their gross yearly income, not their net taxable income. If they hide that, then they are quite blatantly guilty of tax fraud, which carries other penalties.
Point 2 is a non-problem
Point 3 isn't a problem in general because the most frequent infringers are typically wealthy people who feel they can afford to pay the fines if they get caught.
Else, why hire some ex-con when there's 100s battling to get that job?
What about the possibility that the employer just didn't happen to like any of the others that he interviewed? You might get hundreds of applicants, but will probably interview only a dozen or so... what if the one with a criminal record happened to still leave the best overall impression?
They will probably pass a law saying you cannot discriminate against prior convictions or something unless you can demonstrate some need for security that requires it.
How about the fact that knowledge of it might make the employer uncomfortable? Or is the law allowed to dictate which people we are and are not allowed to dislike? At best, all they can do is say that the employer is not allowed to ask about such convictions.
Since such discrimination is illegalCitation? There's plenty of places that won't disciminate for such reasons, even very good and profitable careers... but I can't see how it could ever be actually illegal to discriminate against somebody because of something they have done in the past.