Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 09/23/2013 03:30 PM:
Anyway, who would audit the auditor? I think it is a scale free phenomena, i.e. your boss behind it or it could be the POTUS.
Exactly the point this situation highlights, to me. It's not about privacy so much as the ability to cherry-pick data and bias it for the consumption of others. Open everything means that only those with plenty of $$$ will be capable of defining the narrative. Roger Critchlow wrote at 09/23/2013 03:35 PM:
I think you need a different straw man for your privacy arguments, these idiots aren't in the game.
I'm not making a straw man. I'm talking about a particular, actual situation. I see 3[*] unethical behaviors: 1) the messages themselves, 2) the IT surveillance, and 3) the board's (silent) condoning of the messages. How one prioritizes the 3 sins changes the evaluation (winners/losers, long-/short-term, policy/culture, etc.). Remove any 1 of the 3 sins and the character of the situation changes dramatically. [*] As with Snowden, I haven't decided if the leak is a sin or not. I do know people who would include it and give it the heaviest weight. That type of person prefers to "handle things in house". And I can't say they're entirely wrong. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Well there is the answer on the tip of my tongue
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
