I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails • Hacker News Board

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#141

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 4:40 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #21

You can generally do the same thing in the US for emails to/from public university addresses with a FOIA request. This seems kind of wild to me, but apparently it works.

> You can generally do the same thing in the US for emails to/from public university addresses with a FOIA request

No, you can't, because FOIA applies to federal agencies only. Some official communications of a public university might be subject to similar state sunshine laws, but not all email to and from public university email addresses (even some official communication would be protected by FERPA or other privacy laws, and therefore not disclosable under a state open records law.)

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#142

Post by SkyBelow » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

sysbin wrote: post #127

SkyBelow wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free will is an illusion and simply it doesn't exist. I'll ante with Pascal's wager and say it does exist. If I'm right, then I'm right. If I'm wrong, then the whole notion of right and wrong aren't applicable to reality, no different than CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O just being and not having a right or wrong to it. Unless there is an alternative to the options free will exists and free will does not exist, then this wa…

Pascal's wager (the original) has a flaw in it. One doesn't know and or can prove if God is evil. So I don't really know how else to respond to what you wrote.

Free will as a concept is much simpler than God as a concept, and thus the flaws in the original wager don't apply (as far as I can tell, if you can find one that does apply let me know).

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#143

Post by ericb » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #136

sysbin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm proclaiming free will doesn't exist. Neuroscience exhibits supporting evidence that we don't have free will. There hasn't been anything exhibiting that we have free will. Your rhetoric that nothing matters could have been used when people assumed the world was flat and others were challenging that popular assumption. Nonetheless, the world gets better overtime and when people have a realistic understanding…

If there's no free will, the people punishing murderers have no choice to rehabilitate instead. Choosing between punishing or rehabilitating requires free will.

No, I think the point made above is that you can still choose punishment because even with no free will involved, the future decision calculations need to observe a strong penalty to deciding yes for murder. This doesn't require free will any more than an if-then I write in code requires it.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#144

Post by GordonS » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #52

GordonS wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rights and freedoms of others", but it doesn't spell out what that means Hmm, that's unfortunate it's not at least a little more specific, but at the least I'd expect the right to lawful freedom of speech. I get that these are "work emails", but this just feels very wrong to me, and doesn't seem to fit with the intent of the GDPR.

How does this infringe on freedom of speech? You can still make the speech, but it may get back to the person you're speaking about. Which, in an employment context, is kind of necessary for procedural fairness.

I disagree; it should be possible to have private conversations regarding work, while at work.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#145

Post by syssbin » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #140

syssbin wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm writing from a cause & effect mindset. So it definitely makes sense that rehabilitation is better than punishment. To answer what you're trying to point out that has already been answered by me in another post.. Yes, everything is fated to happen. The majority consensus is how society is structured to be and yes the outcome is by fate. Everything may change in the future if fate allows enough people being educate…

My objection is with the word "should", because (and maybe I'm wrong) it implies choice. Nobody says a falling rock should avoid hitting a child - the lack of agency of the rock makes that statement meaningless. Similarly, if you posit that we have no free will, saying that humanity should rehabilitate and not punish is meaningless.

I understand your objection. Should is just a word for human expression to be shared from me to you. Maybe, not the best word. Although, I thought as a whole the post answered your original point.

Yes, we're similar as the rock because of no agency that's truly our own. We assume typically the rock has no individual conscious and for all we know panpsychism exists contrary to our assumption. Basically, we cannot know what's right or wrong and if a rock should avoid hitting a child. It all factors into fate in the end. Might be favourable for being hit by the rock or not.

One could argue, except that's a rock & a human. I think (human & human) could be treated the same as (rock & a human) but we're dealing with equation of humanity and the emotions of deeper similarity shared. The majority consensus favour our deeper similarities for connection. So the majority consensus doesn't want (human & rock) treatment to be the same like throw the rock away like a piece of trash that's been used up.

Anyway, Fate will decide in the end if we should treat all other objects equally and even while knowing cause & effect. I think cause & effect and with our humanity connection thus favours the rehabilitation modal if the majority consensus ever updates by fate.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#146

Post by btrettel » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

inetknght wrote: post #111

harryh wrote: post #21

You can generally do the same thing in the US for emails to/from public university addresses with a FOIA request. This seems kind of wild to me, but apparently it works.

Does FOIA apply to private companies? I thought it only applies to governmental institutions.

There was a recent discussion on the FOI-L listserv about when a private entity is subject to public records requests: https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=FOI-L;326b96b.190...

While the example applies only for Washington state, I imagine other states have similar laws.

Edit: Appears you need to be logged in to view the message. Here's the message:

> In Washington, we have well-established case law that allows private entities to be considered the functional equivalent of an agency, based on a four-part test established by the court in the Telford case. There’s a lot of info online about it, but here’s a concise article: http://mrsc.org/Home/Stay-Informed/MRSC-Insight/January-2017.... The factors of the test are:

> 1. Whether the entity performs a governmental function;

> 2. The extent to which government funds the entity’s activities;

> 3. The extent of government involvement in the entity’s activities; and

> 4. Whether the entity was created by the government.

> It’s been applied to entire agencies, and to individual contracts being performed on behalf of public agencies. We’ve also seen individuals be deemed the functional equivalent of a government employee for purposes of PRA compliance.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#147

Post by sysbinn » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

SkyBelow wrote: post #142

sysbin wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pascal's wager (the original) has a flaw in it. One doesn't know and or can prove if God is evil. So I don't really know how else to respond to what you wrote.

Free will as a concept is much simpler than God as a concept, and thus the flaws in the original wager don't apply (as far as I can tell, if you can find one that does apply let me know).

> Free will as a concept is much simpler than God as a concept

How so? I assume the opposite when it comes to what's simpler. A person sees creation by God as cause & effect. The free will concept doesn't even make sense if thought about. Your actions are cause & effect from the summation of all events experienced.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#148

Post by traderjane » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #136

sysbin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm proclaiming free will doesn't exist. Neuroscience exhibits supporting evidence that we don't have free will. There hasn't been anything exhibiting that we have free will. Your rhetoric that nothing matters could have been used when people assumed the world was flat and others were challenging that popular assumption. Nonetheless, the world gets better overtime and when people have a realistic understanding…

If there's no free will, the people punishing murderers have no choice to rehabilitate instead. Choosing between punishing or rehabilitating requires free will.

Yes, the argument would be that someone was forced by circumstance to rehabilitate.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#149

Post by bena » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

sysbin wrote: post #125

bena wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the paradox is that it doesn't matter one bit whether free will exists or not. Because either it does and we are making conscious choices and everything that normally follows with that. Or it doesn't and everything we say, do, and think is predetermined. However, if that's the case, then you are predetermined to be someone to be swayed by certain arguments. You are predetermined to either believe or not in free…

Well, I'm proclaiming free will doesn't exist. Neuroscience exhibits supporting evidence that we don't have free will. There hasn't been anything exhibiting that we have free will. Your rhetoric that nothing matters could have been used when people assumed the world was flat and others were challenging that popular assumption. Nonetheless, the world gets better overtime and when people have a realistic understanding…

And then, if free will does not exist, you are predetermined to believe that murderers should be rehabilitated.

You took one snippet out of context. The point of the statement wasn't that "murderers should be punished".

The point of the post was to highlight that if free will does not exist, then agency is not something that exists. You don't get the choice. Morality does not exist because like someone else's rock example, you don't ascribe motive to the rock. So if our actions are entirely preprogrammed, and all of our reasoning is post-hoc rationalizations, then you can't really ascribe motive to us either. Because none of us have any real control.

We're either people who do A or people who don't do A. And no matter how much your belief that murderers can rehabilitated, there will be a segment who are just predetermined to not be swayed by such arguments.

You can't simultaneously say free will does not exist and say that we have any kind of control.

Re: I thought I was being ‘blacklisted’, so I demanded to see colleagues’ emails

#150

Post by GordonS » Thu, Jul 25, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #46

icebraining wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDPR does say "the right to obtain a copy (...) shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others", but it doesn't spell out what that means. Still, your work email account can be monitored by your employer (though in the EU they have to provide notice of that monitoring), so you don't have the same protection as in a private account. OTOH, it could be a violation of privacy / data-protection for the a…

>though in the EU they have to provide notice of that monitoring There is an interesting exception; if private usage of your work mail account is banned, it should not contain private data and therefore, it's free to be monitored. Same for internet usage. This is usually coded into your contract when you sign.

Work emails can easily contain private data too. I might send an email to my manager asking for time off for deeply personal reasons, or informing them about very personal circumstances (e.g. health). There are of course numerous less impactful examples.

An employer monitoring Internet usage is a very different case - in almost all cases it will be fully automated, and the logs only available to HR on request; not just any employee can request your logs.