“Failure to Protect”

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Bluzes said:

It's just difficult to walk your walk.... By not submitting and taking a stance could change your whole career path today.

Sure it is difficult, but it all comes down to integrity. Doing what is meaningful not what is expedient does have a price. The true test of Integrity is deciding to do the right thing even though you know you will receive negative consequencs. And the right thing for our culture is for the innocent to tell these companies who want access to our private information to blank off; and for the innocent to understand that the integrity of sweeping floors is far more noble than engaging in their professional career by sacrificing a fundamental right.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Stu

[Bluzes]

34 minutes ago, Stu said:

Sure it is difficult, but it all comes down to integrity. Doing what is meaningful not what is expedient does have a price. The true test of Integrity is deciding to do the right thing even though you know you will receive negative consequencs. And the right thing for our culture is for the innocent to tell these companies who want access to our private information to blank off; and for the innocent to understand that the integrity of sweeping floors is far more noble than engaging in their professional career by sacraficing privacy.

 

The innocent do need to speak up it is not enough to be the silent majority anymore thinking our best interests are put first. They have not been for a long time and we lost some ground. It's more than what we are willing to give up for fame and fortune. It's what we unknowingly gave up through indirect Bluetooth connectivity (one of them appalling moments). ALEXA secerty recording and storing audio files. Pretty sure Hey Google does the same. Buy a new washer/dryer and they pair with your smart meter for brownout enforcements.  New  A/C, heat, hot water units all controlled wirelessly to the smart meter. 
Smart Cars is an in-house nickname we were instructed not to use. Why was told the term will scare too many people. Don' buy one if you value privacy. Biometric steering wheels, wide-angle cameras that are wider than the display, on the driver? I worked the backhaul traffic demands that drove upgrades for the telco. The future is so bright we need to wear shades for privacy.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Bluzes

[BigW]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

No, you and I do not have the same attitude. The problem is not social media, nor a gun; those are just mere tools in which the criminals utilize.  A criminal will always find a way to perpatrate the crime. The problem is also not the companies seeking the invasion of privacy. The problem is those who allow companies or the government to invade their own private innocent life without just cause, without due process, in the name of getting a job under the guise of safety.

I'm agreeing here- I think one could also make a case that social media/modern devices has actually helped expose some of these cads. Text messages, photos, you name it. Hard evidence that the perp is stupid enough to document and put in the cloud. No he said-she said or legal gray areas.

[Bluzes]

3 minutes ago, BigW said:

I'm agreeing here- I think one could also make a case that social media/modern devices has actually helped expose some of these cads. Text messages, photos, you name it. Hard evidence that the perp is stupid enough to document and put in the cloud. No he said-she said or legal gray areas.

Do a search on internet grooming and see comments like. "The virtual door to online child sexual grooming is wide open" "A harsh reality of “contact” sexual offending is that many offenders will use various grooming techniques to enable them to commit sexual offences." Below is a study from The National Crime Agency from 2016 where they were just putting the pieces together. Dci needs to stay up to speed on this to be effective.

http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/670-emerging-new-threat-in-online-dating-initial-trends-in-internet-dating-initiated-serious-sexual-assaults/file

[BigW]

27 minutes ago, Bluzes said:

Do a search on internet grooming and see comments like. "The virtual door to online child sexual grooming is wide open" "A harsh reality of “contact” sexual offending is that many offenders will use various grooming techniques to enable them to commit sexual offences." Below is a study from The National Crime Agency from 2016 where they were just putting the pieces together. Dci needs to stay up to speed on this to be effective.

http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/670-emerging-new-threat-in-online-dating-initial-trends-in-internet-dating-initiated-serious-sexual-assaults/file

Agreed. Long story B... I can tell you after Sandusky hit Central PA, people became very aware of "grooming" to the point that timelines were shown in that case of the process and vicious cycle.

 

When Corbett was the PA AG and Governor, I know one of his priorities was to educate parents and kids about internet safety and these kinds of things and what to watch out for. Don't know how much of that material is still up or around for people to educate themselves and use. Mostly common sense things- but kids definitely need concrete things to know as well as some parents. 

[Stu]

3 hours ago, Bluzes said:

 ... I gave them my wife's FB that is clean enough to have Thanksgiving on, not that I have anything to hide but didn't have the Twitter and things to give them.

This is not a new thing for work to require this access

 

1 hour ago, Bluzes said:

The innocent do need to speak up it is not enough to be the silent majority anymore thinking our best interests are put first....

So you chose to speak up by giving your employer access to your wife's FB page?

[N.E. Brigand]

15 hours ago, Bluzes said:

A few examples: If the applicant says they don't not have any of these accounts, red flag.

Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Pinterest
LinkedIn.

I don't have any of those accounts except LinkedIn, which I haven't used since I signed up for it about 15 years ago.

I specifically didn't sign up for Facebook because I was very suspicious of its sudden popularity, which reminded me too much of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode in which a computer game is used to brainwash the crew:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

OK, maybe that was silly. But since then, The Social Network, even though a fictionalized telling, made it clear to me that Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, doesn't have everyone's best interests at heart. And news over the past two years has revealed that Facebook was sharing users' data in all sorts of ways (with Cambridge Analytica, for instance) that it didn't have their permission for.

[Bluzes]

7 hours ago, Stu said:

So you chose to speak up by giving your employer access to your wife's FB page?

Needed the work, all department heads were required to submit. 

[Bluzes]

7 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

specifically didn't sign up for Facebook because I was very suspicious of its sudden popularity, which reminded me too much of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode in which a computer game is used to brainwash the crew:

Star Trek am huge Trekkie. The show taught me management skills how they got along with inclusion and diversity so well. Looking back and seeing where we are as a society today. It seems political correctness is turning us into THE BORG (one big collective thought process). Out of all the wonderful choices in the universe we chose THE BORG.

[Stu]

11 minutes ago, Bluzes said:

Needed the work, all department heads were required to submit. 

But you are not required to work 'there'. Other jobs, other careers, are out there which do not require sacraficing your (wife's) dignity. Maybe not in the field you want, standing up for dignity sometimes does come at a price; but at least be honest in that It was 'you' who decided that your choice of career took priority.