Recently, much furor was stirred as word spread that companies were asking to see the Facebook pages of job applicants, going so far as to ask for their Facebook passwords. PC World, in an article titled “Privacy is a Sci-Fi Fantasy, ” states that “The assault on personal privacy has ramped up significantly in the past few years. From warrantless GPS tracking to ISP packet inspection, it seems that everyone wants to get in on the booming business of clandestine snooping -- even blatant prying, if you consider reports of employers demanding Facebook passwords prior to making hiring decisions...What happened? Did the rules change? What is it about digital information that's convinced some people this is OK? Maybe the right to privacy we were told so much about has simply become old-fashioned, a barrier to progress.”
This problem with employers asking for personal information goes farther back than Facebook or the proliferation of personal information being stored digitally. I put the blame squarely on the decades-long practice of companies drug testing employees, looking for illegal substance use.
Even when the job market was good, people would allow companies to drug test them for illegal substances. Whether or not the applicant had marijuana (or any other illegal drug) in their system had no bearing on the job for which they were being hired. Many companies used the excuse that if a person used illegal drugs, they would be more likely to steal from the company, or have a higher absence rate, or have behavioral problems. Sadly, I’ve worked with many people who were secret (and not so secret) alcoholics who were more damaging to the company than those that I knew who smoked an occasional joint. As alcohol isn’t illegal, the company couldn’t get away with testing for that.
Still, if a person is told that as a condition of employment is they have to be drug tested - either using the urine sample method or the hair follicle method - most submit to the test without objection. Now, isn’t taking a sample of your hair or your urine – you know, parts of your body or a byproduct of your body – a more horrific invasion of personal privacy? Yet, in 2012, drug testing as a condition for employment is still very legal and very much in practice…but many are more worried about someone looking at the Facebook page, where people willingly post the details of their personal lives.
I’m of the opinion that a prospective employer – or your current employer – has no right to drug test you, much less ask for access to your Facebook page, especially those areas that a Facebook user has designated as private. But companies get away with demanding the information because people have been willing to surrender to worse in order to get a job. It goes without saying that a person shouldn’t be handing out their Facebook password – or ANY password – to anybody, period. If we need a law to mandate that companies can’t ask for that kind of digital information, then let’s go a step further and extend a job applicant’s – or an employee’s right – not to be drug tested unless there is a specific job related need for doing so. (For example, a school bus driver should likely be drug tested, while someone working a clerical job in an office may not have need to be tested.) While I don’t have any illegal substances in my system – and never did in all my years of working and beyond – I still believe that drug testing is a major invasion of privacy. Oddly, there’s been no outrage about that over all these years. Maybe there should be.
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Cleveland Catholics Win Appeal But Will They Lose The War?
First and foremost, I should explain that I was raised in a strict Catholic family but have been a lapsed Catholic for almost 40 years. I could write volumes about all the things I think are wrong with the Catholic Church but for today, I only want to focus on one issue.
In March of 2010, I wrote an editorial titled ”Who Is Destroying Cleveland’s Catholic Churches?” about the closings of many Cleveland Catholic churches at the hand of the head of the diocese, Bishop Richard Lennon. In that editorial, I stated that Lennon “completely botched the execution of his church consolidation plan” and spoke of the ensuing protests from Clevelanders who were affected by the subsequent church closings. I also wrote that “Local Catholics have protested in many ways, some making very vocal protests at church closings and also picketing churches. A group was formed called Endangered Catholics whose intent is to get justice and equal opportunity for parishioners. Protests are also working their way up to the Vatican. Sadly, I suspect that these protests will fall on deaf ears for the most part…”
I am pleased to say that as far as my latter statement, I was completely wrong. In a shocking move – shocking because the powers that be at the Catholic Church never seem to listen to the “little people” (the church parishioners in this case) – the Vatican reversed the Bishop’s ruling on the 13 churches that appealed the process.
This is huge news in Cleveland for many reasons. Those that appealed feel like they won a big battle with the Church, a victory that has been described using words like “extraordinary,” “unprecedented,” and “unheard of.”
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Boston activist Peter Borre who was working o the appeal, said "This is very significant because it means that Lennon erred procedurally and substantively," Borre said in an email to The Plain Dealer. "If he had been reversed only procedurally, he could re-boot, start the procedure again and fix the procedural error. "But he cannot fix a substantive error [regarding canon law]." My translation – Bishop Lennon really botched it, and in a big way.
But while the affected parishioners have won this battle, the war still continues. Bishop Lennon can still appeal the appeal. The churches who have appealed were already closed by the diocese, and many objects have already been removed from the churches and either moved to other parishes within the diocese or worse yet, sold to churches far outside the Cleveland area. (In the case of my mother’s church, the church organ was removed within days of the church closing and moved to a neighboring parish that remained open, despite the fact that her parish was appealing to the Vatican). As the Cleveland Diocese has not put money into these closed churches, some are falling into disrepair. Some parishioners have moved on in various ways, such as finding other churches (even moving to other Christian faiths) or leaving the church altogether. So, while the battle was won, the war within the Cleveland Catholic Diocese still continues, and may not necessarily end in victory for the individual parishes.
But there were important lessons learned here. For church parishioners: you don’t have to take every non-dogmatic ruling by your church or diocese as “gospel.” The men that run the church (and make no mistake, the Catholic Church is a man’s world) are just that – people, and they can make mistakes. They can also be so focused on making money that they forget that it’s the people of the parishes who keep them in business (so to speak) and provide the money they need to keep functioning. The Catholic Church may have learned that their members don’t see Church leadership as being infallible when it comes to the management of a parish or diocese. We live in a day and age where parishioners have many tools available for them to mobilize and to affect changes, and the Church really needs to get with the times and begin to listen to their members.
So while I am somewhat gleeful at this local victory, I still hope for the day where real change can take place in the Catholic Church, changes that show respect to women and a woman’s ability to contribute. But I’m not holding my breath.
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
In March of 2010, I wrote an editorial titled ”Who Is Destroying Cleveland’s Catholic Churches?” about the closings of many Cleveland Catholic churches at the hand of the head of the diocese, Bishop Richard Lennon. In that editorial, I stated that Lennon “completely botched the execution of his church consolidation plan” and spoke of the ensuing protests from Clevelanders who were affected by the subsequent church closings. I also wrote that “Local Catholics have protested in many ways, some making very vocal protests at church closings and also picketing churches. A group was formed called Endangered Catholics whose intent is to get justice and equal opportunity for parishioners. Protests are also working their way up to the Vatican. Sadly, I suspect that these protests will fall on deaf ears for the most part…”
I am pleased to say that as far as my latter statement, I was completely wrong. In a shocking move – shocking because the powers that be at the Catholic Church never seem to listen to the “little people” (the church parishioners in this case) – the Vatican reversed the Bishop’s ruling on the 13 churches that appealed the process.
This is huge news in Cleveland for many reasons. Those that appealed feel like they won a big battle with the Church, a victory that has been described using words like “extraordinary,” “unprecedented,” and “unheard of.”
The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Boston activist Peter Borre who was working o the appeal, said "This is very significant because it means that Lennon erred procedurally and substantively," Borre said in an email to The Plain Dealer. "If he had been reversed only procedurally, he could re-boot, start the procedure again and fix the procedural error. "But he cannot fix a substantive error [regarding canon law]." My translation – Bishop Lennon really botched it, and in a big way.
But while the affected parishioners have won this battle, the war still continues. Bishop Lennon can still appeal the appeal. The churches who have appealed were already closed by the diocese, and many objects have already been removed from the churches and either moved to other parishes within the diocese or worse yet, sold to churches far outside the Cleveland area. (In the case of my mother’s church, the church organ was removed within days of the church closing and moved to a neighboring parish that remained open, despite the fact that her parish was appealing to the Vatican). As the Cleveland Diocese has not put money into these closed churches, some are falling into disrepair. Some parishioners have moved on in various ways, such as finding other churches (even moving to other Christian faiths) or leaving the church altogether. So, while the battle was won, the war within the Cleveland Catholic Diocese still continues, and may not necessarily end in victory for the individual parishes.
St. Casimir's, Cleveland Ohio (Now closed)
But there were important lessons learned here. For church parishioners: you don’t have to take every non-dogmatic ruling by your church or diocese as “gospel.” The men that run the church (and make no mistake, the Catholic Church is a man’s world) are just that – people, and they can make mistakes. They can also be so focused on making money that they forget that it’s the people of the parishes who keep them in business (so to speak) and provide the money they need to keep functioning. The Catholic Church may have learned that their members don’t see Church leadership as being infallible when it comes to the management of a parish or diocese. We live in a day and age where parishioners have many tools available for them to mobilize and to affect changes, and the Church really needs to get with the times and begin to listen to their members.
So while I am somewhat gleeful at this local victory, I still hope for the day where real change can take place in the Catholic Church, changes that show respect to women and a woman’s ability to contribute. But I’m not holding my breath.
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Rush Limbaugh Opens Mouth, Confirms He Is A Big Fat Idiot
A few years ago, Al Franken – before he became a Senator - wrote a book titled “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot.” Just this past week, Rush Limbaugh opened his mouth and confirmed that Franken’s observation is still true after all these years.
It all started when Sandra Fluke, a grad student, was denied the right to testify at a recent House Oversight Committee hearing on the topic of contraceptives as it related to health care law. Instead, the panel consisted of all men.
Many women across the country were appalled that women - the ones who pay the physical price (pregnancy and related health costs) for the inability to access birth control - had no say in the matter. Making the issue more complicated is the fight over whether the religious organizations can be told by the government to pay for medical coverage for contraception for its female employees. It’s important to note that the Catholic Church, the most vocal against being forced to pay for birth control coverage, is a organization run by celibate men. The Catholic Church has been out of touch for years when it comes to allowing women to have a say about anything, much less birth control. The Catholic Church also forgets that its many organizations may employ women who are not Catholic. Many women who say they are Catholic don’t follow the Catholic Church’s rules when it comes to birth control. But that is another story for another day.
Back to the idiot – er, topic – of Rush Limbaugh. When Sandra Fluke was eventually given the right to speak to the committee, her words drove Rush to spew some nasty vitriol. Here are excerpts from his radio show transcript:
“Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it. … They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!...
…What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.”
The following day, Limbaugh even makes himself sound even more idiotic (if that is even possible!) by going on to say:
“Folks, if you ask 'em - if you ask 'em - the Washington, DC, Department of Health will send you free condoms and lube. The DC Department of Health free condoms and lube if you just ask 'em for it! So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
I rest my case.
It’s been a long time since I have been so deeply appalled at one man’s attitude toward women. And make no mistake, even though he is responding to Sandra Fluke’s testimony, his comments are directed to all women.
Without mentioning Limbaugh’ name, Sandra Fluke released this statement:
“I thank the thousands of women and men, including members of Congress, Georgetown University students and faculty, and total strangers of all political stripes across the country who have offered kind words and support following recent egregious personal attacks.
“We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone is entitled to their own opinions regarding legitimate policy differences. Unfortunately, numerous commentators have gone far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse.
“No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.
“The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women’s health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.”
Yesterday, the Senate voted 51-48 to set aside the measure that would have exempted employers like Catholic hospitals, universities and charities from an Obama health care provision requiring most employers to offer free insurance coverage for women's contraceptives.
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
It all started when Sandra Fluke, a grad student, was denied the right to testify at a recent House Oversight Committee hearing on the topic of contraceptives as it related to health care law. Instead, the panel consisted of all men.
Many women across the country were appalled that women - the ones who pay the physical price (pregnancy and related health costs) for the inability to access birth control - had no say in the matter. Making the issue more complicated is the fight over whether the religious organizations can be told by the government to pay for medical coverage for contraception for its female employees. It’s important to note that the Catholic Church, the most vocal against being forced to pay for birth control coverage, is a organization run by celibate men. The Catholic Church has been out of touch for years when it comes to allowing women to have a say about anything, much less birth control. The Catholic Church also forgets that its many organizations may employ women who are not Catholic. Many women who say they are Catholic don’t follow the Catholic Church’s rules when it comes to birth control. But that is another story for another day.
Back to the idiot – er, topic – of Rush Limbaugh. When Sandra Fluke was eventually given the right to speak to the committee, her words drove Rush to spew some nasty vitriol. Here are excerpts from his radio show transcript:
“Three thousand dollars for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex — and, she wants us to pay for it. … They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!...
…What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back.”
The following day, Limbaugh even makes himself sound even more idiotic (if that is even possible!) by going on to say:
“Folks, if you ask 'em - if you ask 'em - the Washington, DC, Department of Health will send you free condoms and lube. The DC Department of Health free condoms and lube if you just ask 'em for it! So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
I rest my case.
It’s been a long time since I have been so deeply appalled at one man’s attitude toward women. And make no mistake, even though he is responding to Sandra Fluke’s testimony, his comments are directed to all women.
Without mentioning Limbaugh’ name, Sandra Fluke released this statement:
“I thank the thousands of women and men, including members of Congress, Georgetown University students and faculty, and total strangers of all political stripes across the country who have offered kind words and support following recent egregious personal attacks.
“We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone is entitled to their own opinions regarding legitimate policy differences. Unfortunately, numerous commentators have gone far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse.
“No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.
“The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women’s health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.”
Yesterday, the Senate voted 51-48 to set aside the measure that would have exempted employers like Catholic hospitals, universities and charities from an Obama health care provision requiring most employers to offer free insurance coverage for women's contraceptives.
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Facebook The Evil Empire Part 3: “Timeline” Is Not Your Friend
In early January, I wrote a follow up editorial titled Facebook: The Evil Empire Part 2” which spoke to some problems I was having with Facebook locking me out of my account plus their poor customer support in getting the issue resolved.
Facebook earns my scorn again for its impending “Timeline” which will outline and catalog every little single thing that a person does using Facebook. Many don’t realize that Timeline will also reflect everything that a person said they “liked”, every place checked into with Facebook, every photo in which a user has been tagged, and any activity done using a Facebook app. It will be very easy for anyone to track everything you’ve said, everything you’ve done, and every place you’ve been.
That is – if you let them.
I loathe Facebook, but maintain a Facebook fan page for one of my blogs (as a convenience and courtesy to my readers who use Facebook), and my main Facebook page is reserved for immediate family connections only (none of which post very much anyway). I rarely post anything on my family page, and never post any personal information on my fan page. If I need to communicate anything of real importance to family or close friends, it’s done in person, by phone, or by email. I guess I am just one of those people that doesn’t think that the minutia of my life has to be chronicled for posterity by Facebook. After all, Facebook could care less about the actual people using Facebook – Facebook simply wants all the data it can get on you so it can advertise to you and make money off your personal activities.
Before Facebook Timeline switches on for everyone – which I believe will begin in the next week or so – I suggest everyone review what they have on their Timeline and delete what they don’t want others to see. Also, check all your Facebook privacy settings to make sure you’re sharing with only those people you really want to see all your activities. Review all the Facebook apps you’re using and revisit whether you really need to use them at all. Facebook users may not see the harm in having all that data out there about themselves, but it’s for the things that Facebook hasn’t told you about OR dreamed up yet for using your personal data that should be of concern. Because after all, Facebook is really NOT YOUR FRIEND
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
SOPA – Bad for Everyone
The “Stop Online Piracy Act” – or SOPA for short – may sound like a good thing in concept, but looks can be deceiving. The act, which moves to prevent copyright infringement and intellectual property theft, is actually a bill that would make it very easy for the government to shut down any web site.
Current legislation in the form of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which protects copyrighted material, make perfect sense as it gives copyright owners the ability to have the specific infringing content removed from a web site. But SOPA goes even farther by targeting the entire web site. This is a chilling thought.
Wikipedia, along with other web sites, have gone dark today in protest. It is an interesting move as it highlights to the world what can happen if someone deems that the web site is showing any content that is copyrighted. Other web sites, such as Google, have their logo blacked out and it some cases, the content will also show black bars (but can still be accessed). Imagine if someone – ANYONE – posted content or a video where they did not own the copyright, knowingly or unknowingly, that was fed into the Google search engine. SOPA, as written, could mean Google could be shut down it its entirety. Or, imagine if someone did the same on Twitter, Facebook, etc. You get the idea. All those web sites could be shut down, and you could find yourself silenced and cut off from information.
A recent experience I had with YouTube highlights what can happen with SOPA. I had uploaded videos that were given to me with complete approval from a television network. But, YouTube’s “bots” that look for copyrighted content not only sent me an email to tell me that I uploaded copyright content, but they threatened LEGAL ACTION if I disputed the claim and the network disagreed. This was horrifying to me that my YouTube channel would be shut down, and as it is connected to my web site, my web site would go with it. This is also what could happen to anyone else, with any web site, and happen in the blink of an eye. (By the way, I removed the videos and complained to the network’s PR organization, and videos I uploaded afterwards went through with no problem.)
I understand why content owners such as movie and music creators and publishers don’t want their content stolen and/or given away for free on a mass scale. But it makes more sense to me that the content owners work the issue out with the web site and get the facts FIRST before shutting a web site down or even threatening to shut down a web site. In my case, YouTube didn’t say they would shut me down right away, but with SOPA, they would likely not only have done so, but they would have risked being shut down themselves. (By the way, I believe that if a person legally purchases music, movies, books, etc. that they should have the right to share them with whomever they want.)
We live in a digital age where content is easy to share and easy to spread. But the answer to protecting copyrighted material is not to silence everyone. A simple process to allow the content owners to file a grievance against the hosting site with a designated authority, and allowing the site to appeal the ruling or confirm that they do have the approval to use the content is all that is needed.
The entire content of the SOPA can be found here:
Library of Congress: H.R.3261 -- Stop Online Piracy Act (Introduced in House - IH)
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Current legislation in the form of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which protects copyrighted material, make perfect sense as it gives copyright owners the ability to have the specific infringing content removed from a web site. But SOPA goes even farther by targeting the entire web site. This is a chilling thought.
Wikipedia, along with other web sites, have gone dark today in protest. It is an interesting move as it highlights to the world what can happen if someone deems that the web site is showing any content that is copyrighted. Other web sites, such as Google, have their logo blacked out and it some cases, the content will also show black bars (but can still be accessed). Imagine if someone – ANYONE – posted content or a video where they did not own the copyright, knowingly or unknowingly, that was fed into the Google search engine. SOPA, as written, could mean Google could be shut down it its entirety. Or, imagine if someone did the same on Twitter, Facebook, etc. You get the idea. All those web sites could be shut down, and you could find yourself silenced and cut off from information.
A recent experience I had with YouTube highlights what can happen with SOPA. I had uploaded videos that were given to me with complete approval from a television network. But, YouTube’s “bots” that look for copyrighted content not only sent me an email to tell me that I uploaded copyright content, but they threatened LEGAL ACTION if I disputed the claim and the network disagreed. This was horrifying to me that my YouTube channel would be shut down, and as it is connected to my web site, my web site would go with it. This is also what could happen to anyone else, with any web site, and happen in the blink of an eye. (By the way, I removed the videos and complained to the network’s PR organization, and videos I uploaded afterwards went through with no problem.)
I understand why content owners such as movie and music creators and publishers don’t want their content stolen and/or given away for free on a mass scale. But it makes more sense to me that the content owners work the issue out with the web site and get the facts FIRST before shutting a web site down or even threatening to shut down a web site. In my case, YouTube didn’t say they would shut me down right away, but with SOPA, they would likely not only have done so, but they would have risked being shut down themselves. (By the way, I believe that if a person legally purchases music, movies, books, etc. that they should have the right to share them with whomever they want.)
We live in a digital age where content is easy to share and easy to spread. But the answer to protecting copyrighted material is not to silence everyone. A simple process to allow the content owners to file a grievance against the hosting site with a designated authority, and allowing the site to appeal the ruling or confirm that they do have the approval to use the content is all that is needed.
The entire content of the SOPA can be found here:
Library of Congress: H.R.3261 -- Stop Online Piracy Act (Introduced in House - IH)
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Facebook: The Evil Empire (Part 2)
In April 2010, I wrote an editorial titled “Is Facebook the New “Evil Empire”? Answer: Yes” which focused on Facebook’s game playing with privacy policies and controls. My most recent nightmare experience with Facebook deals with Facebook being too quick on the trigger for locking my account and their awful customer service.
Last week, I went to my Facebook page that I use for my collective web sites and got a pop up message saying that my account was “unavailable”. I could not log into my account but I – as well as others – could access my individual page to view it (but not post or make changes to it). The pop up message also said it was sending a code to my phone number (which was already on file from a previous verification process) so I could unlock my account. The code never came. Never. The same message gave me the option to request the code being resent, and when I did so, I got a message saying I was asking for too many codes!
After trying a few times to log in over the following few hours, I tried navigating Facebook’s help system to get an answer. Not finding an answer that addressed my specific issue, I used the option Facebook gave to send them an email to request help. I received an email within minutes – likely automated - that explained that I had to send in a scan of a government issued ID (like a driver’s license) to verify my identity. (It apparently didn’t matter that I already gave them my cell phone number under my own name months ago when they first requested it but I suppose they still didn’t think I was real.) I had my driver’s license already scanned so I was able to quickly attach it to the email and return the information to them within a few minutes.
Their response was less than immediate. I had to follow up 24 hours later pleading for a response. Meanwhile, I get the automated emails from Facebook saying “Here's some activity you may have missed on Facebook” and asking that I go to Facebook. I would have loved logging in to my page, but sadly I was still locked out. After another 24 hours, I finally get an answer from Facebook, saying that they changed my Facebook name from my web site address to my real name. Now really, why didn’t they simply ask me to do that first, rather than locking me out of my account and then making me jump through hoops? The page I had been using had been established for YEARS and frankly I have no idea why, after all that time, they could not have sent me an email in advance asking me to correct my name and/or giving me the chance to confirm my identify BEFORE they locked me out of account.
This experience is another reason why I only post links to my web sites – and not any actual content – on my Facebook page. With a Facebook lockout, users can lose all access to their own content. This is another reason why I will never store anything of any real significance in “The Cloud.” If any service that you use, such as Facebook or photo web sites like Flickr or Photobucket or Picasa, decides that you have somehow violated their lengthy and often complicated terms of service, you too can be shut out from all access to your personal content. While I do use blogger for all my web sites, I have all my content backed up so I could literally take it anywhere if the need arises. I should state that I am extremely careful with ANY service that I use not to violate their rules. And this is why Facebook’s behavior – assuming that I was somehow being dishonest and then locking me out of my account before simply asking me to clarify the situation – is what continues to make Facebook “The Evil Empire” in my eyes.
(A side note – of you are posting personal photos and videos on your Facebook page, just remember that Facebook is making money off YOUR content and you get no share of that huge revenue. Consider setting up an account with Google’s Blogger.com (the blog web sites are FREE) and also set up an account with Google’s AdSense which places ads on your blog web site. This allows YOU to make money off your own content. You won’t be able to retire on it anytime soon (unless you get a high volume of traffic) but at least it gives you a share of the bundles of money the web hosts are making on your content!)
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Driving While Distracted (DWD) - Stop The Regulation Insanity!
While I believe that texting while driving a car, truck, bus, or train is inherently dangerous as it can not only take a driver’s hands off the wheel but also their eyes for too much time, the suggestion to ban hands free cell phone devices is just plain ridiculous. Talking on a cell phone while driving and using hands free device in the process is no more distracting than driving with a passenger in the car. Granted, sometimes having a passenger (or passengers) in the car can be a distraction, but the NTSB hasn’t suggested a ban on having passengers in a car or any other motor vehicle...yet.
If banning hands free cell phones comes to pass, maybe the NTSB should look at these other behaviors that can distract drivers:
1. Eating/drinking beverages while driving: – Admit it, everyone has seen a driver weaving down the road while drinking a cup of coffee or chowing down on a sandwich.
2. Applying makeup while driving: I’ve never had the urge to do this myself, but I have seen other women apply mascara while driving. Scary.
3. Having a radio/music player in the car: In the late 1960s, some kid trying to change the channel on his radio lost control of his car and demolished my parent’s mailbox as he went off the road. Imagine if we had a law banning changing radio channels in the 1960s – this accident would have never happened (sarcasm intended).
4. Changing the heating/cooling settings while driving: Sometimes it’s hard to see the controls, and I admit I must take my eyes off the road for a second to change them. Maybe if we didn’t have the ability to heat or cool our cars, there would be no accidents! (more sarcasm)
5. Putting purses, bags, briefcases, or any non-human object in the front seat: Sometimes things shift off the seat while driving, and sometimes people lean over to pick them up. Case in point: a Miami cop drive up a utility pole when he bent over to pick up a pen. If we ban any objects in the front seat – especially pens! – accidents like this will never occur. (even more sarcasm)
6. Simply looking out the window can distract a driver. Who hasn’t had something catch their eyes while driving which takes the eyes off the road for a brief period? Maybe everyone should wear blinders?
By now, you get my point. There are many things that can distract drivers, and sometimes bad things can happen when drivers are distracted. All it takes is a few seconds with a driver’s eyes off the road and accidents, even fatalities, can occur. Texting while driving IS a big problem. But let’s not get carried away with more rules and regulations that are not practical or that are very hard to police. If there were never any distractions, we’d have far fewer accidents. But we live in a world filled with distractions, and it is virtually impossible to write laws to prevent all of them. The best course of action is to educate drivers on what is safe driving behavior, and what is not – and to hope that the person behind the wheel has enough common sense to practice safe driving.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)