05-15-2009, 04:50 PM
Hi,
In the first place, this was possible long before technology ('guns don't kill people . . . "). In the second place, it is about an overly moralistic society -- take what I didn't say about marijuana above and multiply it by about thousand to get my opinion on restrictions on drinking (but not on restrictions on what you are permitted to do while drinking). Third, if she was indeed under age, she needed to pay a little more attention to her chosen companions when she chooses to break the law. Finally, if she wasn't under age, she should find an ambulance chaser and sue that company out of business.
Good story, lots of issues, but technological driven loss of privacy is hardly one.
Now, pure speculation on my part, but I doubt that her "employers {were} snoopy enough to go looking". I suspect it was more along the lines of someone who knew her saw it and gossiped about it to someone else who *had* to check it out, etc., etc., 'till it finally was brought to the attention of her employers. Not technology, just good old fashioned malicious gossip.
--Pete
Quote:I cited the example of Michael Phelps, who surely thought he was indulging in private madness when he took a toke of marijuana at a private party. Someone he trusted? Perhaps not. But a betrayal nevertheless.Since I'm not familiar with the circumstances, I cannot speak to the 'privateness' of that party. If it was a few hundred 'good friends' getting together, it was hardly private -- but I don't know. What I do know is my opinion about the status of marijuana -- but that's another discussion for another thread.
Quote:I am aware of few young people who have lost jobs because of pictures on FaceBook. For example, a young lady, daughter of old friends, was a camp councillor at a day camp on weekdays. She was fired because of a photo posted of her with a beer in her hand, taken at a private party on a weekend. This photo, by the way, was not at her own FaceBook page: she was merely tagged. That means that not only were her employers snoopy enough to go looking, but also that one of her 'friends' allowed them to look.Let's boil this down to the essence. She had a beer. Someone let her employer know. Her employer fired her. You don't say, but I presume she was 'under age'.
In the first place, this was possible long before technology ('guns don't kill people . . . "). In the second place, it is about an overly moralistic society -- take what I didn't say about marijuana above and multiply it by about thousand to get my opinion on restrictions on drinking (but not on restrictions on what you are permitted to do while drinking). Third, if she was indeed under age, she needed to pay a little more attention to her chosen companions when she chooses to break the law. Finally, if she wasn't under age, she should find an ambulance chaser and sue that company out of business.
Good story, lots of issues, but technological driven loss of privacy is hardly one.
Now, pure speculation on my part, but I doubt that her "employers {were} snoopy enough to go looking". I suspect it was more along the lines of someone who knew her saw it and gossiped about it to someone else who *had* to check it out, etc., etc., 'till it finally was brought to the attention of her employers. Not technology, just good old fashioned malicious gossip.
Quote:The changes in widely spread technology have happened so fast that our culture has not evolved any ettiquette to deal with this.The golden rule covers it all well enough -- all "etiquette" is either just a codification of its implications or a collection of arbitrary rules for identifying social inferiors.
Quote:It isn't the media that worries me. It is the widespread intrusiveness with no societal customs to manage it.Fair enough. I haven't noticed it, but that doesn't mean it is not there.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?