Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 202 posts

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

#151

Post by dependenttypes »

pwinnski wrote: post #87
mistermann wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real world is crazy. It's quite amazing how large the gap is between the way the world is described to us through various mediums, versus the clearly observable reality of it. FTA: > I approached the individuals and the institutions concerned about the content of my Subject Access Request. They all refused to discuss the matter with me, so I can only speculate as to what was going on. Of course, these people we…

The leak of Sony emails a while back revealed that high-level Sony execs seemed to emailing at the emotional maturity level of middle-schoolers.

Do you have a link?

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

#152

Post by harryh »

dragonwriter wrote: post #141
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…

OK, you're correct that it's not the federal FOIA law that is the issue, but most states have similar state laws that have been used in the past for this sort of thing.

See, for example: https://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/P...

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

#153

Post by sysbinn »

bena wrote: post #149
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…

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 ex…

Yes, like I said fate decides. I'm not saying we have control and I wrote responses but they're dead. I think they're still good responses and even if fate decided.

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

#154

Post by Silhouette »

Dayshine wrote: post #132
Silhouette wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But neither of those is necessarily sufficient for the sorts of situations I'm talking about here.

In what kind of situation would a month of delay and complete redaction of any information given in confidence by other people? The GDPR requires you to balance the rights of all involved parties.

In what kind of situation would a month of delay and complete redaction of any information given in confidence by other people?

Almost anything involving potentially criminal conduct where you need to collect robust evidence without tipping off the suspect might qualify, for example.

Or anything where the suspected misconduct happens regularly but at less frequent intervals, such as theft from a monthly or quarterly supply delivery.

Also, who says you get to completely redact other relevant information just because someone thought they gave it in confidence? There is no blanket protection under GDPR for such confidences, and each case will need evaluating individually, probably with guidance from a lawyer.

The GDPR requires you to balance the rights of all involved parties.

Which, like all the other aspects of the GDPR that impose ambiguous rules with no guidance on how to apply them in practice, is not particularly helpful.

And of course the GDPR is very far from the only relevant law if we're talking about disciplinary procedures.

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

#155

Post by Silhouette »

Grue3 wrote: post #133
awinder wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that this would only apply in the contexts of business dealings -- anything you produce from a business you work for should not be considered your private anything, it's work material you produced for that employer, and the actions became the employer's actions after executed.

Even in business context this can be weaponised. For example two executives in a company discuss some sort of business strategy and mention the competitor's CEO by name (also the competitor's company happens to be named after its CEO so it's impossible to discuss it without saying his or her name). The competitor's CEO GDPRs the emails and learns of the secret business plan as a result.

Even in business context this can be weaponised.

Indeed. Just imagine the fall-out if someone started a movement where everyone who got turned down for a job they applied for then submitted a SAR for all of the internal commentary and communications about them. Suddenly every business that hires staff has an extra overhead, even small businesses need industrial-scale HR/legal mechanics for the application process, and the number of lawsuits for every conceivable type of discrimination skyrockets.

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

#156

Post by silveroriole »

crb002 wrote: post #118

Victim of nasty blacklisting myself. My advise is to be way nicer and make far more friends in the industry than the blacklister. Especially if you are autistic spectrum, you need a good support network.

In other words, the solution to someone thinking you’re unlikeable and hard to work with is to become more likeable? Who could have guessed ;)

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

#157

Post by DanBC »

jsty wrote: post #7
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what? Someone's negative opinion of them?

The UK has famously strict libel laws, and notably the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the truth of their defamatory speech. https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/libel-and-slan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

The author of the article would have to be able to show that the comments caused serious harm, that they were published, and that they were defamatory.

The respondent would then have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the comments were either true, or fair comment, or privileged.

Defamation cases are very expensive to bring and a good outcome is not at all certain.

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

#158

Post by tssva »

mistermann wrote: post #59
wallace_f wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real world is crazy. The amount of bullying, stalking and attacks I've gotten after getting a series of promotions in a rotten workplace with a few bad apples is unbelievable. If I knew better, I'd have paid attention to the above comment.

> The real world is crazy. It's quite amazing how large the gap is between the way the world is described to us through various mediums, versus the clearly observable reality of it. FTA: > I approached the individuals and the institutions concerned about the content of my Subject Access Request. They all refused to discuss the matter with me, so I can only speculate as to what was going on. Of course, these people we…

Or it could be that the individual is as they described and they saw no benefit but a potential of actual harm in further engagement with them.

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

#159

Post by bena »

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).

It's impossible to actually know whether or not we have anything approaching free will.

We could be a simulation, there could be an omnipotent deity, we could be the product of a bunch of processes unique to ourselves.

None of it matters.

We can only act on the world as we perceive it.

If the world is controlled by some outside force that can manipulate it at will, including our perception and memory of events, there is nothing we can do about that. We are merely constructs under something else's control. If we were ever capable of "piercing the veil" so to speak, the controller could just roll us back to when we didn't know. If gravity was too much, they could change it. Etc.

However, we're going to do our best to understand the world as perceived. And that's the best we can do. We have to operate as if the universe is not being arbitrarily modified according to unknowable rules.

And it's not like any sort of record will prove that it's not. Because the capability of creating this universe also includes the capability of altering the past as well as the present and future.

Similar with free will. Like I explained elsewhere, if free will does not exist, then you can either be persuaded by an argument or not. For any position. Maybe you're predestined to like Joe Dirt. No matter what anyone says about it. You don't get the choice.

Same thing regarding the concept of free will. If it does not exist, you don't actually have a choice in whether you can accept that it doesn't. Either you're predestined to believe in it or not. Because all of your actions are the results of the forces that act upon you, all of which are also the results of actions, etc, etc, all the way to the initial big bang. That one moment essentially wrote it's own epitaph as everything goes back to that moment. Without free will, me writing this and you reading it isn't a chance or coincidence, it's just the result of the forces from the big bang.

So. If free will doesn't exist, it doesn't change anything. Because we cannot change the path we're on. We have no choice. Even if you say, "Yeah, well, I'm going to do X and save the world". Well. You were going to say that in response to this post. I didn't convince you anymore than any other object in motion "convinces" any other object it collides with to change direction. It's what always was going to happen.

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

#160

Post by Silhouette »

Dayshine wrote: post #124
Grue3 wrote: post #82

>I was able to ask my PhD college, and several other institutions, to see all emails in which my name appeared in either the subject line or the body of the email. The scariest part is that this is apparently possible in countries under the jurisdiction of GDPR now (and possibly even outside of it). Your private emails talking about a third party might be exposed at the request of the said third party. Does no one el…

From the UK's ICO on the GDPR: > Domestic purposes – personal data processed in the course of a purely personal or household activity, with no connection to a professional or commercial activity, is outside the GDPR’s scope. This means that if you only use personal data for such things as writing to friends and family or taking pictures for your own enjoyment, you are not subject to the GDPR. "Your private emails" ar…

"Your private emails" are therefore not covered by the GDPR.

But as soon as a commercial third party mail service is involved, as will very often be the case, the picture is not so clear, particularly if they are also processing the data for any other purpose.

Post reply on HN