Comment Re:Why does SV exist anymore? (Score 1) 432
In other words, middle school games played by so-called adults.
Real adults would put practicality first. They're not supposed to be there for a fashion show.
In other words, middle school games played by so-called adults.
Real adults would put practicality first. They're not supposed to be there for a fashion show.
Well hold on here. I wasn't talking about someone using a firearm to threaten or to attack. I am talking about people that are just being stupid with firearms (open carrying, what have you).
A bullet doesn't care if it was discharged intentionally or accidentally. If a firearm is being handled in an unsafe manner, someone can be maimed or killed.
And note that open carrying is perfectly legal in many states, so calling the police wouldn't accomplish anything there regardless.
The point I am trying to make is that this app has nothing to do with stopping criminal behavior, but the only meaningful purpose of it is to harass gun owners.
So empowering people to avoid showing up on this list isn't a "meaningful purpose?"
The courts are supposed to be public. The people are the final check on the courts. That's why trials are public and transcripts are a matter of public record.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away
All the more reason to have a publicly-available list of dangerous gun-owners rather than rely on police enforcement of (lax) gun regulations, is it not? It would seem better to rely on avoidance and shunning of such dangerous people and situations than rely on calling police after the fact.
What about the right to a public trial?
Because its not like you couldn't call the police if people are doing unsafe things with guns. In a lot of places there are laws about the safe handling of weapons.
And yet the "you can just call the police" argument somehow becomes unacceptable when used to justify banning firearms outright.
Let's say that the PRISM program managed to stop X number of terrorist attacks.
Yeah, and let's also assume X monkeys can fly out of my butt. If you start with such an implausible supposition, it's no wonder you reach such farfetched conclusions.
Well, that's perfectly plausible if you first assume that your monkeys are frictionless spheres...
Because securing employee social security numbers and bank account numbers is an evil nefarious act, and we should hope some brave freedom fighter comes along and liberates said information and sells it to such white knights as the Russian mob.
If you're worried about USB or any other device access you've already lost. Anyone who can SEE the screen can snap a pic of the screen. Or a few hundred screen pics. And even if you strip everyone naked as they enter the building, and you scan them for hidden devices hidden inside body orifices, the fundamental issue is that information can be carried out in someone's memory, and that person is capable of talking.
Compartmentalizing who can access what may limit the range of what any particular insider can release, and reduce the number of insiders able to release any particular thing, but fundamentally people need to see the information to do their job.
Threat of prosecution can keep people's moths shut to some extent, but if you're engaging in illegal or immoral activity then sooner or later some insider is likely to decide to "do the right thing" even if it means huge self sacrifice.
As others have indicated, maintain goodwill and loyalty. At a minimum maintain some level of respectability for organization, and some level of respect for your employees. That is the *only* thing that can protect you against the threat of a self-sacrificing insider trying to "do the right thing".
-
Old programmers never die, they just become managers.
