How come no one even bothered to remove his full address and ssn from the records?.. On the other hand, even the very names of people who approved and drafted the documents are removed.
I’m not sure about his address, but social security numbers of all deceased people are made public by the government in the Social Security Death Index, presumably to prevent identity fraud.
Effective immediately, the FOIA provides no protection at all to deceased individuals. However, HIPAA is precisely the opposite in that the records are immediately sealed and the right to open it passes with the rest of the estate. I should note, I am not a lawyer and you should not take this as legal advice.
It could mean something to their families, though. That may not be enough for it to be law, but I'm sure a lot of families would prefer that if something troubling came up after their loved one died, no one else would have to find out.
If it pleases living people to think that they will have a right to privacy after they die, or to force other people to not pry into their dead relatives secrets, living people could easily craft a right to privacy for the deceased.
> I want to see you use those legendary bodies and that legendary strength and that legendary courage and the tenderness that you say you have in behalf of women; and that means against the rapists, against the pimps, and against the pornographers. It means something more than a personal renunciation. It means a systematic, political, active, public attack. And there has been very little of that.
> BECAUSE you have government sticking its nose where it shouldn't (I'd say, it shouldn't stick its nose anywhere, but that's another story). Comcast is the second largest lobbyist in Washington.
Your argument, even though it reads like liberal laissez-faire stuff, actually is: the government is being controlled by corporations.
So, your solution of "stop regulation" is offtopic. Come up with something relevant to your own argument first. Like, hmm, "stop corporations from dictating governance". That'll work.
I actually think it's both ways. Both corporations and government control consumers. That's what it's about. The solution should be such that it is easier to administer it. You can fight numerous evil corporations to no luck. Or you could focus on one entity without which all those evil things wouldn't be possible.
> It also records details about visits to a popular internet journal for Linux operating system users called "the Linux Journal - the Original Magazine of the Linux Community", and calls it an "extremist forum". [1]
Hush puppy, it's okay to call absurd that which is absurd. It won't bite you.
> These sexual harassment cases do more to hurt women than help them IMHO. It reinforces the viewpoint that women are seen as a liability.
Let me translate what you just said: if someone harasses you at your workplace and elsewhere, and as such causes harm to you, and do so also by deploying systematically dissipated stereotypes (yes, they are social weapons), you shall not press charges, because if you do, you would be a petty little girl who is causing harm to your company.
> The only place I have encountered any willingness to set aside a conspiracy of wide-spread, omnipresent male power that ruthlessly exploits female powerlessness is the Men’s Rights Movement.
The author should think about taking some classes. The "omnipresent male power" argument is a staple of myths around radical feminism.
Most contemporary feminisms take into account historicity and contingency in power relationships, as do almost all of critical theory and queer theory. People need to get their asses off of their heads and of the myths that are injected into poorly formulated beginner-level feminist arguments.
Interesting - got any pointers? Because I've never seen any feminist who didn't assume omnipresent male power. Feminism's filled with activists who argue, for example, that men don't get to complain about gender-related issues because other men are running the country, or who refuse to listen to men's experiences because the patriarchy has already told them how men experience the world. No feminist ever seems to challenge them on this.
I've even seen various feminists argue that because "the patriarchy hurts men too", anyone who calls out feminists who help perpetuate said patriarchal ideas is a concern troll trying to discredit feminists - who by definition are the ones really trying to help men. No feminist questions that either.
> The H1Bs aren't being hired by A-list companies.
H1B is a type of visa, it cannot be hired.
> They're getting hired by old, slow, cheap, mostly non-tech corporations who won't compete on either quality of work or wages.
Foreigner = Evil. On the other hand, you get an H1B if you are shown to be more qualified than u.s. citizens who applied to the job. If anything, it's a great way to bring in skilled laborers and keep them in check (since, if you get fired, you get deported too).
Qualified isn't the problem. Willing isn't the problem. When some old non-tech company needs a network engineer to work in some crusty old industrial town in the middle of nowhere for 2/3 what a qualified person would make in actual civilization, they cannot get one. Even if they paid market rates, which they find appalling, they couldn't get anyone to move into the boonies in an environment with little opportunity for professional advancement.
So they import someone on an H1B visa, work them for a few years, and send them home. They've solved the kind of labor shortage that causes immigration, without actually giving them the chance to become Americans.
Whites are 78% of the US population, so being 70% of Google's population is a pretty fair representation. Asians are over-represented though. What exactly do you think is "fair"? I'm guessing having fewer than 50% whites at Google.
Because "diversity" is code for "there's too many white people here." I highly doubt anyone would complain about diversity if Google were 61% black (just like no one complains about the NFL and NBA's appalling lack of diversity).
Either way, to boost non-Asian minority percentages you've got to take away from the white or Asian percentages. Hmm... who do you think's gonna be on the receiving end of that rebalancing?
The point is that in reality Google is not 61% Black. If it were, you'd have a point.
And people do complain about lack of diversity in the NFL/NBA, on both sides.
These are such small percentages that you wouldn't even need to reduce head count to increase representation, just hire a few more workers. But even if they did have to replace, why are you so focused on saving every last White or Asian soul to the detriment of addressing the problem?
Well, minorities take offense at having a 2-5% rate of employment in a 37% non-White country so you can pick your problem, but don't just assume your personal concerns trump all others.
> Before decrying lack of diversity in field X, demonstrate presence of one in the pool of qualified candidates.
No, after identifying the lack of diversity in field X (or, in the case, Company G), finding the lack of diversity in the pool of qualified candidates tells you where you need to work if you care about diversity. But it doesn't mean "there's no problem to do anything about" -- as Google recognizes, hence whey they point to the steps they are taking to address the problems of lack of diversity in the pool of qualified candidates.
Your comment presumes that diversity is something that is axiomatically desired. I don't - just like I don't order my bookshelf based on gender/race of the authors and decry lack of diversity there.
I personally only care about it as far as principle of fairness. Ie if one can show that company X discriminates against persons Y (by demonstrating that sufficient number of qualified candidates Y are turned away) - then it would register on my radar. Otherwise I consider 'diversity' as a tool to push through quotas that I personally detest.
No, it doesn't presume that diversity is axiomatically desired. It has as an explicit condition ("if you care about...") that it is desired, but whether such desire is axiomatic or a consequence of an a posteriori conclusion about instrumental utility of diversity makes no difference.)
And, while your statement of your personal biases about quotas are, I suppose, revealing of just that - your personal biases - I am not sure what you think they add to the discussion. Certainly, you can't think that a statement of what you consider diversity to be an a secret code word for unaccompanied by either evidence or logic justifying that consideration says anything about anything other than your own bias.
