Google's CEO Warns Kids Will Have to Change Names to Escape "Cyber Past" 706
Google's Eric Schmidt says that people's private lives are so well documented now that the young will have to change their names when reaching adulthood to avoid their youthful indiscretions. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal Schmidt says: "I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time." A fresh start from the stupid things you did as a kid seems like a good thing. Now we just need a way to get rid of the dreaded family photo album.
Or (Score:3, Interesting)
people will stop acting like trash because there will be more consequences and the world will be a better place to live in.
Also, get over yourself, google.
Or maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of planning on changing your name when you grow up you can choose be responsible instead.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Either that (Score:5, Interesting)
Or Felons, You get popped for any small infraction, (It's amazing what is a felony these days.) and you are screwed for a very long time after your sentence is over, and for some things, forever.
I did 8 months for firecrackers (That weren't actually illegal, but the lying feds convinced a jury that they were.) because I pissed of a sheriff who stood by and let some children die (Sheriff Stone of Columbine) and ten years later, I still can't get a decent job, and I will never again work in the two fields I'm best at. Computer Security and Firearms training. and in many states, can't even vote for change or reform, or ever hold public office. All because I stood up for what was right.
So much for getting to move on...
Big Village (Score:1, Interesting)
Thousands of years ago, we'd be hard-pressed to move outside our tribe and start a new life for ourselves. Then technology and large populations come along and we're able to "start over" basically anywhere we like. Now we're back again to our tribe, albeit of 7 billion, where everyone can know our past again. Interesting.
Re:Just give your kids a famous name (Score:4, Interesting)
How well will that work when Google (or any search engine, for that matter) successfully implements:
Did you mean: ${NAME} (date of birth: ${DATE}), ${NAME} (date of birth: ${DATE}) or ${SLIGHTLY_DIFFERENT_SPELLING_OF_NAME} ?
Re:Scary (Score:1, Interesting)
It's just a speculation into what motivates people to do searches, and I think he's right. Most people using google for problem-solving (as opposed to research) work like this: 1. experience problem; 2. think up keywords; 3. search for them. He just wants to remove step 2., and search for solutions from the problem directly which seems reasonable; e.g. a google-agent watching the user fail at excel pivot tables for a few minutes and then suggesting an "I'm Feeling Lucky" page for it. Good luck with that though.
He has to say "Google" instead of "a search engine" because he works there. It does sound pretty creepy though.
Re:Either that (Score:2, Interesting)
...and that once you know everybody's peculiar habits, it doesn't really matter anymore. Telling this generation to stop what they're doing or your future life will be over before it starts because of facebook status updates is something similar to tilting at drug induced windmills while riding a flying elephant. This generation will eventually be in charge, and they just aren't going to care.
So long as Mary comes to work on time, and Billy doesn't steal company secrets, nobody will give a fart if they like to party together and play "games." IMHO, they are probably going to bring about a level of independence greater than the sexual revolution of the 70s. Quite frankly, in 30 years, your dirty little secrets just aren't going to matter in a world where all skeletons are a simple Boolean search away. Imagine political elections about something other than who slept with who, or didn't sleep with who? Where frivolous issues don't blot the news about the latest teeny-bopper to have some kind of personal and embarrassing crisis?
Why do I say this? Simple, experience. Anybody whose done confidential-type work and needed a clearance knows full well that the whole process is designed to discover your secrets so nothing your/their enemies come up with can be used to turn you. For example, if you used to sell drugs and like to wear ladies underwear, the FEDs want you to know that they know, so now you have no reason to try and hide that secret. Well, if we got not secrets, you can't exactly be embarrassed and used... society can finally move on!
Re:Either that (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah especially if they are one of the unlucky ones who are only on the registry for public urination and the local yahoos like you go and kill them without ever knowing the circumstances.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Interesting)
So you're saying that people who've been victims of sex crimes would be better off if they committed suicide?
I think AC is saying that it would be better for the sex offender if they killed their victims, not that the victims killed themselves. From the sex offender's perspective anyway.
Re:Either that (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Either that (Score:5, Interesting)
He hung himself in a closet.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll take the antisocial guy. Then again, I'm the IT manager for my company and I know how to spot the good geeks when I see them. I'd rather have the guy who sits at home and does productive things in his spare time than the frat boy who loves to go out and party.
I'd rather have the guy I know can perform at work regardless of what happens in his personal life. If my best employee wants to go out drinking every night he can, as long as he can do what's expected of him in the morning.
My company hires many people with criminal records (read: almost unemployable) and our policy is simply that your personal life doesn't follow you to work. What I find interesting is that you get a good team dynamic because so many of them have that common experience to rely on and they're motivated to work because they want a good reference.
Re:Call me a extremist if you want (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly tossing a rock through a neighbors window is barely a crime especially when the child ends up having to pay to replace the window. How in the world did you go from that to burning down an orphanage?
Ok, do me a favor and get off your fucking high horse. I have a criminal record and I spent time in jail because of it (among other consequences). There are very few crimes that should follow someone around for their whole life - sexual offenses and first degree murder spring to mind - others are usually just people doing stupid shit without thinking at the time. Should I really be turned down for a job because I got into a fight 10 years ago in college but have kept my nose clean since then? That is kind of like dooming someone to a career of wishing windows for writing down a wrong answer on an exam in 5th grade. Actions should have consequence but they should fit the crime.
The only people who never did stupid shit are those who have never done anything. Those of us with criminal records were just stupid enough to get caught and charged for doing it.
Re:Either that (Score:5, Interesting)
... or we will have the apocalyptic end so many seem to desire.
The zealots will refuse to "loosen up", and the rest of us will refuse to be zealots.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Interesting)
The teaching was that masturbation is not a sin, but if you do it will viewing pornography, then the pornography is akin to fornication. Their logic was that masturbation while not viewing sinful material was fine.
Of course that takes all the fun out of it, but at least that seems a more plausible explanation to me.
Re:Criminal records (Score:2, Interesting)
I make that calculation every time I apply for a job.
I was arrested for DWI, a crime. Due to MADD gone wild, I blew a .08, which only months prior would have been a violation (.08-.10 was a violation like a speeding ticket at the time, .10+ a DUI), and the cop would have driven me home. The new law said a .08 was a full blown DWI, involving a night in jail in a holding pen next to nice fellows who showed me how to sneak crack into jail (they apparently don't check the gap between your molars and cheeks) and discussed how they were facing armed robbery and possession charges.
Anyway, I was arrested, and since I had no record prior, the charges were knocked down to a violation (aka the equivalent of a speeding ticket) and some fines. A violation is not a crime.
So I read that box carefully. Some ask very specifically if you have been arrested for a crime, others asked if you have been convicted of a crime. The rub is that you look dishonest if you answer no to being convicted of a crime, and it comes back that you were arrested for a DWI and a conviction of some sort came from it (that's how it looks on background checks). Answering yes may throw you out of the pool unnecessarily. At my last job, I answered "NO" to being convicted of a crime, and later received a lot of hell for it. It took a lot of explaining and documentation to prove that I was not being dishonest, and HR made it clear that they would fire me if I lied on the application.
Fun world I live in. FYI, this occurred over 7 years ago now and the DWI happened when I was 23. At one point when I was getting frustrated at HR requiring tons of documents, I asked "And what if I actually did get convicted of a DWI and even ran over a grandmother? How does that have anything to do with my ability to perform my job today?"
Re:Either that (Score:5, Interesting)
Amen. First, your comment about how horrible it is to tell a child that God hates them for any reason is spot on. Second, I am so glad that there is another Christian that understands that Sex is a beautiful gift from God and is something to be reveled in (of course I believe that for numerous sociological reasons, in addition to common sense and biblical teaching, it is best when between two consenting married adults who have had no others, and has negative consequences when done outside of a solid marriage relationship... With no one to compare to, your significant other is the best for you for now and for always!).
Christ was all about love and Paul was all about loving one another, serving one another, and marriage (though he honestly points out that marriage can be a distraction for many in the ministry, and he's right, it does distract, but for most people, that trade off is worth it).
Christians need to realize that teaching fear of sex to children is creating maladjusted sexual beings who will never fully be able to enjoy guilt free sex with their spouse.
Oh, and let's get rid of that ancient (and wrong) notion that Men should dominate women in the marriage, please? "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Ephesians 5:22.
So the wife should treat her husband as the church treats Christ, with respect, awe, adoration, and love, but be careful all you guys who say "aha!" because the men are then told that in marriage the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and give himself up for her. Men, our wives are expected to respect, love, and adore us, but in return, we are to sacrifice everything (even if it means death) to show our wives love. Now that's religion that is good for the soul, and that's the foundation of a good marriage, a solid community, and a good life.
And a face transplant (Score:2, Interesting)
With the advances in face recognition changing your name will not do. And there are lots of other clues to link your new id to your old one, like the position in your social network. It would only work if you quit the internet entirely after getting your new id.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to get too far off topic, but Christianity doesn't say too much about whether or not it's a sin to have oral sex, mutual masturbation, and other things along those lines that are NOT sexual intercourse. So are they sin or not? I know the 'usual' treatment is that if it leads you into temptation, it's a sin. But some, heck most, of these things are what you want as a teenager who isn't ready to go 'all the way'. So, is getting sexual relief - without actual sex - a sin or not?
Re:Hope? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, don't we wish, but in reality, it'll become a contest of "My youthful indiscretion wasn't as bad as your youthful indiscretion". You know, "I might have posted something mean on the facebook page of another kid from my school, but *YOU* got drunk at a party when you were 16 and flashed your tits at a webcam".
Re:Scary (Score:3, Interesting)
Facebook: We know what you did last summer
Microsoft: Where do you want to go today?
Google: This is where you need to go today
Apple: This is where you can't go today
Gosling was right. Microsoft hasn't changed... everybody else has just out-evil'ed them in the meantime.
Re:what happens (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but there's also a larger context on which you will be judged, and that can change. A couple of generations ago, your gender was all that many people needed to know in order to judge whether or not you were qualified for a particular job. Today that is significantly less prevalent, although we still have a ways to go. The same can be said (to various degress) about race and sexual orientation. Anybody who's judging you on the stupid stuff you did when you were a kid is only able to do so because they're able to ignore/forget all the stupid stuff that they did when they were that age. If the internet makes that stuff unforgettable, then the larger context of what society is willing to accept will change. There will always be holier-than-thou asholes, just like there will always be sexist assholes, but our culture in general is constantly shifting its standards based on what's going on in the world.
Re:Either that (Score:1, Interesting)
it is best when between two consenting married adults who have had no others, and has negative consequences when done outside of a solid marriage relationship...
Are you sure, have you ever tried it with three?
Re:Either that (Score:3, Interesting)
Largely correct, but I should add that, in the language of the streetwise, a murder will still bring down a lot more heat than a rape, even when there's a living witness in the latter case. That is, they throw more resources at a case when someone's dead or gone missing than if someone comes in claiming to have undergone a horrific rape. So, more of the possible evidence proving your guilt will be found for a murder.
This doesn't refute the general point, but it does show that the incentives don't always favor killing the victim when the sentences are equal, even assuming a purely self-interested criminal.
Re:Either that (Score:3, Interesting)
Not those who went to a prostitute, urinated behind a tree in a park, got accused of something with no proof except some ten year old saying so, people named as rapists by some teenage girl who got caught by her father at a party she wasn't supposed to be at, naked and covered in two guys' semen, and made up the story to try and get out of trouble...
The last time I came across a rant like this on Slashdot, I had a long look at my county's public registry of sex offenders.
361 in all. 359 male.
75 Level 3 - High Risk. 130 Level 2 - Moderate Risk.
No one made the list because they were caught urinating in a public park.
There are three to be found within 2 miles of where I live, all male, all Level 1 - considered low-risk in New York.
Sexual abuse in the second degree. (12 yr old Girl) (2 blocks)
Sexual abuse in the first degree. (5 yr old Girl)
Sexual misconduct. (27 yr old Woman)
Low risk of recidivism does not mean that original charge was trivial. You can be convicted of first degree sexual abuse of a five year old, marked by the use of force and coercion and still be Level 1.
These registries are not an easy read - but they will in one half hour erase everything Slashdot has taught you to believe about sex crimes and child pornography.
Felons should not lose the right to vote. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't want felons to vote then ask yourself, if felons could vote, what bad thing would happen?
You want to know what bad thing can happen when you keep felons from voting? You can have a political party take people out of the voting pool by making felons out of them.
Re:Either that (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Call me a extremist if you want (Score:1, Interesting)
"The only people who never did stupid shit are those who have never done anything."
I've done plenty of stupid shit in my life, because I'm human and humans sometimes do stupid things. But there's a difference -- a big difference -- between doing something innocuously stupid and willingly doing something that hurts someone else. You sir, are someone who fundamentally -- at least at one point in your life -- cared not for others. And that is the very foundation of "crime."
Re:Call me a extremist if you want (Score:3, Interesting)
Last year someone through a rock through my front window (actually a potato from a potato gun).
My 6 month old son was sitting next to the window as he used to do every morning enjoying looking out at the front yard and cars going by. The blinds were shredded from the glass which thank god took the velocity out of the flying shards, if not for those blinds being a quarter closed it would have been him that was shredded, I came running out to see glass all over and around him, my other half almost hysterical.
The young men were caught after I chased them down the road (filled with a rage that I later learned comes with fatherhood when one's young are placed in physical danger - dangerous thing it is). The young men ended up hiding in a ladies backyard begging her to call the police. I too called the police as I didn't want to go jumping fences as they did. They were taken away by the police.
In any case I thought I'd never see them again, but over then next few nights each of the three came to the door to apologise to us. They paid to fix the window and generally did the right thing.
They had to front up to me and endure a lecture from about how quickly a stupid thing like firing a potato gun at a house can spiral into them hiding in a backyard afraid for their safety as a 6'4, 105kg slightly crazed individual tries to catch them - with every intention of hurting them. I told them how relieved I was that I *hadn't* caught them as my life would have been drastically altered as well. That they were now know to the police and as one already had a juvenile record this stupidity meant he may spend some time in Juvenile hall. And that if those blinds hadn't protected my son that they would all A) Be up on serious criminal charges and B) Would have to live knowing that they had caused major suffering to a baby. All from the stupid childish decision to just smash some shit up.
Anyway the police rang later to ask what I'd like to do and I said we all did stupid things as teenagers, I think they've had enough to which he agreed and that was that no charges laid.
I'm not sure what the moral of the story is to this site, possibly a real world anti-dote to the ravings of some of the posters here that seem to think they live in a dystopian police state where the slightest infraction in western countries ruins ones life.
Generally not, the police are generally pretty good and so are the courts and your neighbours.
And to your post that it's hardly a crime when a "child" (teenagers ain't children) when you decide to step outside of the bounds of the Law (and I'm talking real law here intentionally destroying peoples physical property) you step over a line and into world where *anything* can happen such as a beating from an enraged father or the risk of damaging a human in the process of your pointless destructive behaviour. Laws like that are there for two reasons: one to serve as a warning to foolish young men who make an immature decision mistake, two to enable prosecution of people who repeatedly and maliciously do destroy someone elses property.
Re:Either that (Score:4, Interesting)
In our society, we tend to think of the commandment against adultery as being one of those antiquated, old-fashioned things, but talk to a kid who's parent's are getting divorced because of infidelity and tell me again how good adultery is.
Are you asking? Because my parents divorced over adultery, and I'm fine with it. Honestly, they were miserable, and their relationship was beyond repair. They needed something shocking like that one unfortunate little slip to break the stony silence and get things finished. If not that, I can easily imagine it being a suicide attempt a few years down the line... So adultery is absolutely fine by me - if you're at the point of cheating on your spouse, there are already far, far, more important things the two of you should deal with than a bit of sex.
And for the "stay together for the children!" crowd: fuck off. The year of misery that followed the divorce is well worth the normal moved-on-with-our-lives people that continued raising me thereafter, especially since the alternative would have been another twelve or so years of being practically ignored by people who silently (but obviously) despise each other. I mean talk about setting a bad example for impressionable minds...
I have a few close friends who's parents also divorced over similar issues. They say largely the same thing. Anecdotal, yes, but worth consideration.
From my point of view that commandment (and all the other "what god has joined together..." bullshit) has nothing to do with preserving the stability of marriages and everything to do with providing the priesthood with a steady stream of neurotic angry people in dire need of counselling services.