... I was pretty unhappy with the surveillance society up to this point but it just got a great deal worse...
Yup, now we have a surveillance society WITH a crowd-sourced anonymous secret police. What could possibly go wrong?
Here's an unpopular opinion, but all those holes cut into the tax code that were supposed to "create jobs" are exactly what will bankrupt the USA because that's exactly what was happening - bank robbery. The treasury would easily be able to have upkept the infrastructure here if it weren't for the taxes and jobs vanishing to off shore locations. Global companies thought globally, which meant getting out of tax puzzle boxes, to keep their wealth away from the systems that enabled such wealth in the first place (unsustainable thought pattern), and now, the threat of not being able to meet obligations is looming while the politicians who pushed the ideology that enabled the tax holes are putting pressure on the last vestiges or modern public society the USA has left under the banner of "moochers taking what we can't afford to give".
All while conveniently sweeping under the rug the fact that all those "deferments" and "shelters" written into the code are now coming home to roost, picking the bones of the society that enabled them in the first place.
The rest of the world isn't laughing. It's looking on in horror at the train wreck in slow motion. Similar politics are trying to take hold in Canada, but I'm glad there are many who are fighting hard to reverse this trend.
Those cynical don't all have hard reasons like the
My bet is this is going to shift some of the media coverage on the topic towards painting them in positive light, which will have a cascading effect on the ones a little further from the fence.
My distrust of this agency is absolute, manipulation of the people they're supposedly protecting is not beyond their agenda when it comes to preserving them or those they favor.
So they broadcast a common abusive partner's reaction to growing a spine - feign indignant treatment and ignorance. Those closer to the fence are more likely to turn around, change their tune, start back into the dance of the damned, as it were. The agencies are the abuser in their relationship with the public they supposedly serve.
The argument of ROI decrease is a sound one, eventually the promised throughput will vanish.
Having said that, I wonder if the TV ad argument could be taken to a study, where you're looking at age and income groups that still watch TV, and the targeting of ads played on TV. My money would be on the extremes: Young of lower to middle income (automatic babysitter), and approaching retirement and beyond of lower to middle income (low-energy past time reminiscent of their younger years).
There's a lot better targeting on the web via ads, but what the industry seems to be missing (either in rise of new companies or "revitilization" efforts of old ones) is the intrusiveness of ads compared to the target page is directly proportional to the malcontent of the receiver. In this way, the "new" "hip" way to play sounds and be the thing on the page that speaks to you, literally! is the ad that drives users to AdBlock Plus. Any of the other techniques mentioned here are also a problem. The trick is mental shock, and how to avoid it. but it seems that this factor is something ad producers are trying to increase, rather than decrease, and they're losing the battle of psychology.
There is a lot to be said for this train of thought. To someone who's knowledge is high enough, nearly anything in a given room can be used to advantage, be it exfiltration of data using a custom binary on a smart phone to read RFID cards, or psychological tricks and manipulation to get information that would normally be guarded (cousins of what evolved into phishing).
Using a popular example, admins like Edward Snowden are necessary to make the advanced systems run. With his knowledge, yes, he was always capable of doing what he eventually did, but he was essential, and was trusted. The breakdown occurred when the ethics of group didn't match the ethics of the one. He was highly skilled, and some would argue more ethical than the group he was serving, and this dichotomy drove him to use his skill and position against the group.
Corporations are similar, but lower stakes. A pivotal admin of security ops can easily wreck any organization who either handles finances or uses a distributed (work from home) workforce. They're not known for this potential because for the most part, it's a pay check and something fun in the career, but if one of these admins stumbled on message content that revealed top level institutionalized overt criminal activity? Now there may be an ethical dichotomy that they care about.
In the end, if the organization loses trust of people pivotal to their operations in such a way as to incur attempts at sabotage or espionage (regardless of success rate) as opposed to resignation? There is something deeply wrong in the human dimension of the structure, not the security dimension.
Agreed about the professionalism. Eventually your figures will speak for themselves and you'll lose the position to someone who can perform even one and a half times as well as the luke-warm corpse. Working from home does provide opportunities to flex hours, but those hours should still be made up, and the projects still completed.
Given the popularity of the propensity away from this standard, employers are generally not willing to give just anyone a chance. It's their numbers that you impact as well. Basically, if you treat working from home as a free ticket to shirk work, then you are the very reason why the option has a bad reputation. The rest of us start feeling pressure against the option that we've had experience setting up and working before because someone in their past had a shameful work ethic.
It's a valid option as far as I'm concerned for IT work, but it takes the right culture, people, and infrastructure.
Safe Zones are no more than explicit response of organized free speech and labor to protect those who would try to use the same to harm those they don't like. Trigger Warnings are no more than content warnings seen on movies and TV taken to lecture level where the audience can thereby exercise informed consent to attend. Shouting lecturers down is yet another form of the whole free speech paradigm you hold so highly. Pulling fire alarms to end speeches is no different than a democratized version of taking a speaker off-air when their opinion is unpopular with the executives of a new network, it's also a crime to falsely pull one, but it's one hell of an uphill fight to find that person.
Examining our own biases is a good exercise to ensure the principles we're trying to talk about aren't marred by our own dislikes of other people using their rights in different ways than we do ourselves.
Which is exactly why this thread has 400+ comments in an age of Slashdot where typical stories get less than 100. It's a debate of principles and biases. Ultimately whether one agrees or not, there are going to be future events like this.
Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.