Carlton sack Josh Bootsma

[stui magpie]

More than a decent read, proof that anyone who thinks that anything they do on the internet is 'private' has reality issues.

[David]

[Bucks5]

I have said all along that the guys running snapchat can easily be storing all the nude selfies they want. How can anyone be sure that their images are removed from the Snapchat servers?

[stui magpie]

I'm not sure I do believe in a right to privacy. What is that other than saying that you do stuff you're scared or ashamed of having others know about.?

If you're doing anything that you wouldn't want made public knowledge, the question is:

a) why are you doing it, or
b) why do you care who knows?

[David]

I think the short answer is that we don't live in a world where things are treated sensibly and proportionally.

The longer answer is this. Let's start with a hypothetical (oh boy!). You're a red-blooded heterosexual male; I expect you've been guilty of watching the odd pornographic video from time to time. If so, it goes without saying that a few of them might have entailed a bit of exploitation—not all of these clips are made in ethical conditions—and in some of the older videos, some of the women (unbeknownst to you) may not even have all have over 18. Now, let's imagine that you're moderately famous for some reason and a News Limited paparazzo has hacked into your computer, recovered all the files you've ever watched and dumped the file online for everyone to read.

Next morning, you wake up to the headline: "public servant's sick obsession". In the article, they mention where you work and, in the most cynical fashion possible, imply that there are vulnerable people in your care who are at risk. You get called into the office to explain yourself and get fired for inappropriate use of new media and bringing the company name into disrepute. When you get home, it's been graffitied with threatening messages by some hero because the newspaper printed your photo and address (remember, no privacy!). If you look for a job in future, your prospective employer will google your name and see the news story. You're out of a job, unlikely to get another one and living in fear of vigilante justice.

That may seem a far-fetched scenario, but only insomuch as the response is extreme. The fact is that, in the very near future, the public at large may have access to a capsule of every website we've ever looked at, every conversation we've ever had and everything you've ever done in the privacy of your own home. Perhaps you've once gotten into a fight with your spouse and said something abusive. Perhaps you've once told a racist joke. Perhaps you've once kicked a dog in frustration. Perhaps you've once slapped a kid across the face. All this could in the future be on record somewhere. We're not just talking breaking the law here, we're talking 'moral' transgressions; thoughtcrimes.

Now, I find all that a little scary; but I also suspect that it's more or less inevitable. Evidently, there are people out there already who shrug their shoulders at the idea of a right to privacy. "If you've got nothing to hide, why worry?". With that attitude, who's going to fight against a bit more data-mining, phone surveillance or CCTV? Well, my point is this: perhaps the concept of privacy will soon be history, and perhaps there's nothing we can do about that. But if that is so, and our entire lives are potentially on public record, then we need employers and media outlets to react to that reality in a mature, reasonable fashion. Not just because they're nice guys—many aren't—but because the law says that they must. Because none of us are perfect; we're all flawed individuals who've done things that we're ashamed of. It doesn't make us bad people, and it shouldn't stop us from being productive members of society. It is much too easy for our livelihoods to be destroyed by one incident being twisted out of proportion, and the inevitable result is an entire population living in fear and inhibition lest they be seen to do, say or think anything that could be viewed as subversive or immoral. If employers, the media and society at large can't take a more restrained approach to these things, then we may as well just pack up and go live in North Korea, because it couldn't be much worse.

[Wokko]

Or you could make a racial comment in the 'privacy' of your own home and end up having to sell the LA Clippers. You'd better believe in dystopian future stories David, you're in one.

[David]

Or have your private SMSs read out in parliament in a bid to assassinate your character and drive you out of the speaker's chair. I agree with you about the status quo and where it's headed, Wokko, but I don't think it's too late to fight back.

[stui magpie]

Nothing in that hypothetical can't happen now.

Depending on what the material was and how big the public hue and cry was, I'd discuss with my employer the situation. If they decided to sack me as a means to deal with the public reaction, so be it. I then take various legal action against the journo who hacked my computer, the inaccurate reporting and my employer and settle for enough money to retire on.

I've read perspectives from a libertarian that once people actually get over the notion of privacy, technology will be able to make some wonderful things happen, basically abolish crime and create a better future for all.

[David]

But hang on, what grounds would you have to sue in a society without a right to privacy? Without a right to privacy, what fundamental principle would that hacker have contravened? "If he didn't want the public to know he looked at hardcore pornography, your honour, he shouldn't have been doing it in the first place." As for the news story, nobody said you were defamed—they just chose a selective way of presenting the facts. I'm not sure you'd win your case.

If you're following the Murdoch phone hacking case over in the UK, the right to privacy is pretty much at the centre. Throw that out the window and you've pretty much given journalists the freedom to spy and muckrake to their heart's content.

[stui magpie]

The hypothetical doesn't give me a lot of scope to really flesh out the laws, you'd have to think that the reporter by hacking into your system would have breached some law. That's a different scenario than someone disclosing things I'd sent to them.




However in re-reading the hypothetical you've made a mistake of opinion in that you say that the law would have to require employers to act in a reasonable and mature way. The law already requires that. There are unfair and unlawful dismissal provisions. Just because you disagree with how they work doesn't mean they don't exist.

[David]

Well, I guess it comes down to how we define "reasonable and mature". I know that there are laws regarding unfair dismissal, but obviously I think the scope ought to be widened. That's not a mistake, just a difference of opinion.

[Brenny]

The unfair dismissal laws, well, I don't know much about them.

But once you are employed somewhere and other than breaching company policy (in this scenario, we will say during work hours in the workplace (to make it easy)), then it's not too easy to get dismissed. If you rock up every day and do your job to your KPI's, don't abuse anybody or hit anybody then it's not too easy to get rid of you.

If you get dismissed then it's generally something worthy of a dismissal.

*as I said, in this case we are using on company time things as what's gotten you dismissed*

Other than being made redundant, you really need to screw up to be sacked. Though if I go on the FB or the Twitter and bad mouth the company or it's employees, then I'll be dismissed too (fair enough). If I go to jail then well fair enough I'm sacked too.

Whilst I agree maybe the dismissal laws need to be widened for say private life stuff, other than that it's not too easy to get rid of you.

[think positive]

in the words of Brian Cadd,

if it hurts to say his name,

baby let go!!!

[Piethagoras' Theorem]

[stui magpie]

Missed opportunity there mate, self marketing never goes astray.