Googled, 2012
Just want to say congratulations on coming through training week with flying colours! Gerry says you're learning quickly and I've had several comments from your co-workers about how likable you are. You've passed the drug test, your references were glowing... Personally, I'm convinced. Now there's just the tiny formality of your background check before Chris can put you on payroll.
Everything looks pretty normal here. We have some chat logs from 2009 that got a bit out of hand, and there's the MySpace account you kept for 3 months in 2005. The one where you called yourself Red Herring? Not a bad read, although a little liberal for my tastes. But I did notice a few things we do need to cover. No, there's no need to sit down. This'll just take a second.
It says here you've had over 20 email accounts in the past 10 years. Many of them, you used once and then never again. You'll need to account for these addresses, as well as what you were using them for. Get a standard H27 form from Chris at reception.
Also, in 2011 you were online but undocumented for a few hours. Probably just a glitch, but it could also indicate that you went outside the national filter, so you'll need to account for that time. Chris can walk you through the process. It'll only take a few minutes.
Now, this concerns me a little more. In 2010, you used a free email account to disparage your boss. You called him a, let's see here, a "cuntfaced fuckbucket." A "prep school punk." And you indicated that he gave promotions based on whether or not you'd fellatiate him. I hope you understand that the image we project here is one of respect, honesty and interpersonal trust. If you act on any urge to express yourself like this in the future, you'll be unemployed in seconds. Are we clear?
One last thing we need to cover. You posted multiple Craigslist ads in 2007, and I see from your resume that's the same year you moved to the city? No, no problem there. We all get lonely. Unfortunately, one of your ads solicits females to engage in a rather explicit bondage fantasy. No! No need to explain! While the details are disturbing, I've read far worse and it's easily fixed: you just need to discuss it with the office councilor. So, when you leave here, head on down and make an appointment to talk with Andrea in supplies.
Other than that, you're squeaky. The job is yours, if you still want it.
Wasn't sure what section of the forum this might belong to (it's not art, not a rant, and not particularly discordian as far as I can tell).
Criticism would be very appreciated.
I enjoyed it, the creepy not far fetched enough feel worked well to make it seem potentially real.
I was a bit confused about the differentiation between boards in my newer days. I posted a few things that fell flat because they were in the wrong area. This is probably more Or Kill Me territory. Now that I know the place better, I can let my stuff fall flat for lack of sparking interest rather than going in the wrong place.
I'm glad you liked it. :) And thanks much for the board advice.
I like it! I like how it examines your life through the lens of bureaucracy. "We understand that humans are chaotic, we just need to account for that chaos." This is some spooky sci-fi, no? If only because it's so realistic
also I love that the person you have to see about your lesbian bondage fantasy is "Andrea in supplies." :lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on June 01, 2010, 10:57:11 PM
also I love that the person you have to see about your lesbian bondage fantasy is "Andrea in supplies." :lulz:
:lol:
tbh, I hadn't imagined myself as the interviewee (have to try that next time), but it is funnier that way. And I liked your insight about bureaucracy-logic. I'm kind of obsessed with it.
Off-topic, but just for clarity (and in case anyone's interested), panopticommodity is a term coined by David Lyon. One of those words that sounds exactly like what it's meant to describe, but here's a rough definition from an old(er) paper of mine:
QuoteFor example, in this seeming age of transparency, a taken-for-granted truism exists that giving up personal information to marketing companies and/or governments is a toll for the use of ICT communication, which creates a trade function of exposure for access. This is what Mark Andrejevic describes as the "justification and domestication of surveillance" (2004) and David Lyon terms "panopticommodity" (2006: 6): an exposure of the self as a normalized price to pay for access, or the "commodification of privacy" (Campbell & Carlson, 2002).
Thank you both for the feedback. I haven't written anything that wasn't an essay or a kind of paint-by-numbers mimicry in about a decade. Short of that is: much appreciated.
:mittens:
That would be funny, if it wasn't a direct view of the future.
This is great! I laughed out loud at "cuntface fuckbucket".
thx for the mittens, professor. And I'm glad you got a laugh out of it, Alty. :)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 02, 2010, 03:33:33 AM
That would be funny, if it wasn't a direct view of the future.
I do think it's where we're headed. Already got Family Friendly software selling kids' chat logs to marketers, national filters, schools turning students into unwitting camwhores, and on. My dystopia is all that governmental/marketing shit getting centralized. Not surprisingly, there's a sizable chunk of people who want it done last year.
Don't forget GPS functions in family phones. Why trust your kid when you can track them via sattelite?
Exactly. Then there's the job that requires you to have a cell phone and keep it on when you're not at work. And ads for "apps for that" where you can locate your friends wherever they happen to be.
It's the mix of extreme and banal surveillance, access and control that freaks me out sometimes. But then I just sound like a crazy person.
Quote from: Nurse Rhizome on June 02, 2010, 06:39:51 AM
Exactly. Then there's the job that requires you to have a cell phone and keep it on when you're not at work. And ads for "apps for that" where you can locate your friends wherever they happen to be.
It's the mix of extreme and banal surveillance, access and control that freaks me out sometimes. But then I just sound like a crazy person.
I saw an OnStar ad where they remotely shut down a car that had been hijacked for a high speed chase. I immediately decided I would never own a car with OnStar in it. When do they decide to use that when I'm overdue for an inspection sticker, or a few days late on my insurance payment? No thanks.
Why can't i laugh about this?
Fucking fuck it, i'm going to try harder to become selfsufficient.
I'll become a recluse living of what i can grow on my own land.
Then i won't need a job so i won't be as susceptible to this kind of shit.
Do you mind if i spread this around a bit?
I love it, nurse!
And yeah, this is probably what we're heading for, except it will be different. Not better, probably, but just different.
And there is a glimmer of hope getting people better privacy. There are some interesting foundations and parties working over here, at least. Unfortunately, the Dutch Pirate Party turns out to be a bunch of nerds that don't really do the political blah very well IRL. But they do have a lot of support. If not this election [next week], maybe the next one.
One way I can think of to counter the surveillance state...
become an exhibitionist!
create a fake identity for yourself which involves lots of nude pix and sloppy sex with public pictures.
apply for jobs and wait for them to google you
get off on the feeling of being observed
if we had thousands of people doing this, maybe our bosses would be more hesitant to google
or way more eager
...I guess that could backfire pretty easily
Quote from: Regret on June 02, 2010, 09:56:35 AM
Why can't i laugh about this?
Fucking fuck it, i'm going to try harder to become selfsufficient.
I'll become a recluse living of what i can grow on my own land.
Then i won't need a job so i won't be as susceptible to this kind of shit.
Do you mind if i spread this around a bit?
Do what you like with it. (bizarrely flattered and don't know what to say)
The recluse idea is attractive sometimes.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 02, 2010, 01:24:52 PM
I love it, nurse!
And yeah, this is probably what we're heading for, except it will be different. Not better, probably, but just different.
Thank you. :) I agree with you (the 'not better, but different' thing). If I had to guess, buckets of dataveillance stuff will continue to go the way of the blacklist: ex. more people 'flagged,' name misspellings and so on, and it'll be just as difficult to get yourself un-flagged or correct information as it is now; more govt workers and employers with access, but no idea how the systems work, etc.
Pirate Party Nerds FTW! If they're anything like Privacy International, they're thorough, sharp, care deeply about what they're doing... and have no idea how to talk to the press.
@ Cramulus - "Empowering Exhibitionism" :lol:
I like very much.
I like the general attitude of the interviewer, like, it's all good, we all get lonely. Understanding but also totally disinterested, other than to fill in the blanks.
Thanks, Twid! That's exactly what I was going for (similar to what Cramulus said about accounting for chaos). I also wanted it to be the last part of the interviewee's training, like a low-level hostility ultimatum: Will you take this shit, no questions asked? Yes? You're hired. (The kind of employer that emails you at midnight just to see if you'll write back before regular work hours in the morning. But that was just personal stuff.)
.............................................
Just want to say thanks again for all the kind and interesting feedback! There's a lot to think with in this thread. My apologies for putting it in the wrong section.
I was planning on keeping this thread to post other info-for-access-related scenarios, but if I come up with anything else, I'll start a new one in Or Kill Me (thanks, EoC).
Very nice, Nurse! Creepy and that interviewer was kind of distressingly perky.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on June 02, 2010, 05:54:48 AM
Don't forget GPS functions in family phones. Why trust your kid when you can track them via sattelite?
We have this on our family's phones, because the middle sister is a proven liar and prone to disappearing for hours (and they can't just apply it to her phone and leave everyone else's alone). There are legit uses for it, honestly.
Quote from: Hover Cat on June 04, 2010, 01:34:04 AM
Very nice, Nurse! Creepy and that interviewer was kind of distressingly perky.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on June 02, 2010, 05:54:48 AM
Don't forget GPS functions in family phones. Why trust your kid when you can track them via sattelite?
We have this on our family's phones, because the middle sister is a proven liar and prone to disappearing for hours (and they can't just apply it to her phone and leave everyone else's alone). There are legit uses for it, honestly.
You gotta admit though, the commercials for it were creepy...
Never seen 'em. I rarely watch TV (why would I when I have the internet?) so I must have missed it.
Quote from: Hover Cat on June 04, 2010, 05:41:51 AM
Never seen 'em. I rarely watch TV (why would I when I have the internet?) so I must have missed it.
It was basically like, mom leaves daughter with friends in the mall. They wave goodbye to each other all mother and daughter like, and then mother gets on the iPhone and tracks her location.
Yeah, there's an app for that too.
No different from a lot of inventions - they get invented for all the right reasons and then all the wrong people work out how to use them for all the wrong purposes.
Not saying a lot of inventions aren't necessarily insidious to begin with but I suspect the majority aren't.
This story gives me the willies in the most comical of ways. I like it :)
Quote from: Hover Cat on June 04, 2010, 01:34:04 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on June 02, 2010, 05:54:48 AM
Don't forget GPS functions in family phones. Why trust your kid when you can track them via sattelite?
We have this on our family's phones, because the middle sister is a proven liar and prone to disappearing for hours (and they can't just apply it to her phone and leave everyone else's alone). There are legit uses for it, honestly.
I can't imagine any scenario save maybe Alzheimer's or some other medical condition where this would be excusable. I think it perpetuates distrust and in the end only serves to exacerbate the problem. Quite frankly this is only going to make the child a better liar. I'm not here to tell anyone how to raise their kinds but just imagine this same mentality on a societal level.
'People (or even THESE people) have been proven to lie in the past. They should be tracked to make sure they're not up to no good'
Quote from: noir on June 04, 2010, 06:01:09 PM
This story gives me the willies in the most comical of ways. I like it :)
Quote from: Hover Cat on June 04, 2010, 01:34:04 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on June 02, 2010, 05:54:48 AM
Don't forget GPS functions in family phones. Why trust your kid when you can track them via sattelite?
We have this on our family's phones, because the middle sister is a proven liar and prone to disappearing for hours (and they can't just apply it to her phone and leave everyone else's alone). There are legit uses for it, honestly.
I can't imagine any scenario save maybe Alzheimer's or some other medical condition where this would be excusable. I think it perpetuates distrust and in the end only serves to exacerbate the problem. Quite frankly this is only going to make the child a better liar. I'm not here to tell anyone how to raise their kinds but just imagine this same mentality on a societal level.
'People (or even THESE people) have been proven to lie in the past. They should be tracked to make sure they're not up to no good'
She's of an age where my parents' ability to get her to behave is starting to become limited, so they have to trade some freedom off for some control. And yeah, I know. Turn it off, leave it at home, etc. Fortunately, she hasn't done that yet.
I would say I don't think this would fly on a societal level, but I'd be wrong. :/
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 04, 2010, 05:44:35 AM
Quote from: Hover Cat on June 04, 2010, 05:41:51 AM
Never seen 'em. I rarely watch TV (why would I when I have the internet?) so I must have missed it.
It was basically like, mom leaves daughter with friends in the mall. They wave goodbye to each other all mother and daughter like, and then mother gets on the iPhone and tracks her location.
Yeah, there's an app for that too.
Oh creepy.
Quote from: Hover Cat on June 04, 2010, 01:34:04 AM
Very nice, Nurse! Creepy and that interviewer was kind of distressingly perky.
Thanks, Hover Cat! (Off topic, but I fukkin love staring at your avatar).
btw, here's a parody of the 'app for that' commercials, just so you know what we're referring to: istalker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnm-Zxh7hiQ&feature=related)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 04, 2010, 12:11:32 PM
No different from a lot of inventions - they get invented for all the right reasons and then all the wrong people work out how to use them for all the wrong purposes.
Not saying a lot of inventions aren't necessarily insidious to begin with but I suspect the majority aren't.
It's the fault of the machines, damnabit! :lol: Really good point - there's definitely a tendency to blame behaviour that doesn't seem alright on the technology enabling it.
The line's so subjective though: What's 'legitimate use' and what's not? What seems innocent or sinister?
Quote from: noir on June 04, 2010, 06:01:09 PM
This story gives me the willies in the most comical of ways. I like it :)
Thanks, noir! And from one n00b to another, welcome. :)
Surveillance reinforces criminalization, for sure. Makes me wonder what the real differences are between getting grounded for a year (parental surveillance circa 1992, in my case) and getting chipped? Kids are already targets.
Getting away from the GPS phone thing for a minute...
For me, differences are in the scale of surveillance, who's doing it, how transparent or covert it is, whether the surveiller is a peer, authority figure or a program, how long records are kept, how are the records put together and so on. But what freaks me out is how these things seem to reflect and amplify, legitimate and normalize each other. The "creep" of them, for lack of a better word.
A group called the Surveillance Society in the UK was hired in 2006 by the Information Commissioner to do a study on the different institutions collecting personal data, and they used a phrase to describe what they ended up looking at: the database state. An accountability system run on a mess of mostly unregulated aggregation (ex. where consumer data was lumped in with health, criminal, and other records). One problem is an assumed right to what I think is invasive access. Another is incompetence. The shiny-factor can't be ruled out either ("there's an app for that" on a state-scale).
Now I'm rambling and have no point. Just thinking out loud.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 02, 2010, 02:24:29 PM
One way I can think of to counter the surveillance state...
become an exhibitionist!
create a fake identity for yourself which involves lots of nude pix and sloppy sex with public pictures.
apply for jobs and wait for them to google you
get off on the feeling of being observed
if we had thousands of people doing this, maybe our bosses would be more hesitant to google
or way more eager
...I guess that could backfire pretty easily
I not only enjoy this idea I plan on doing it.
This was fucking excellent! :mittens:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on June 06, 2010, 02:37:23 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 02, 2010, 02:24:29 PM
One way I can think of to counter the surveillance state...
become an exhibitionist!
create a fake identity for yourself which involves lots of nude pix and sloppy sex with public pictures.
apply for jobs and wait for them to google you
get off on the feeling of being observed
if we had thousands of people doing this, maybe our bosses would be more hesitant to google
or way more eager
...I guess that could backfire pretty easily
I not only enjoy this idea I plan on doing it.
:lol:
@ Nigel - Glad you enjoyed it!
bump