No, crntaylor has it right: we're supposed to understand that James wrote what he did because it had had a better effect on the teacher in the past. That's how you can justify squeezing that one last "had" in there.
What if you created an account after being hired, or had plausible deniability to that effect? Would you be obligated to inform your employer whenever you manage other social media accounts?
The implications of this are terrifying. I'm glad that organizations like the ACLU are on this, because if corporations can set a precedent for this sort of privacy invasion, we're screwed to the nth degree.
If it is simply a screen to avoid applicants who would be massively unsuitable , membership of extreme political parties or heavily into drugs etc then perhaps not.
Otherwise you might need a form from HR for each social network you join.
The way I imagine this will play out in practice is that you will get companies who are "social reference agencies" or similar.
They will have special privileges with facebook etc and will be hired by other companies to screen applicant based on a number of factors and will produce a report for the client company that probably wouldn't contain any specific data etc but simply screen for any "red flags".
What's the issue here? Enforcement is only a problem if the laws being enforced are restrictive. If they make it illegal to be a Jew, then we have a problem with the cameras. If they're only using it to do what police officers already do (monitor traffic violations) then the only difference is that police have more resources to deal with more important crimes.
The thing is that while they come under apparently "reasonable" auspices, like automating traffic cops, they are still cameras that already have all the fundamental components of a surveillance system; it just has to be hooked up to a database somewhere and the same thing is easily implemented. They already have OCR software reading plates and printing out and mailing tickets, so if the feds, a state, or municipality were so inclined, they could without much additional effort tack on a database that tracked what-cars-were-where.
That's just one nefarious purpose and deployment, I'm sure if we thought about it more we'd come up with many others. The CCTV cameras that litter Britain were also installed under the "reasonable" auspice of catching people who stab each other. The red-light cameras are not so blatant, but the principle is the same, and as people become more and more acclimated to those, it'll be an easier sell to do Britain-like CCTV monitoring.
So it's really an issue of trust. Do you trust the government to keep their promises and never use these widely-deployed networks of cameras for evil? Do we believe that the government will only ever use these to catch those who violate traffic law? Do we expect an equitable and reasonable enforcement when we outsource to machines? If you're speeding because your wife is in labor or your grandma is dying and you get pulled over, the policeman will usually do an immediate reversal and offer an escort instead of a citation. Do we want to replace that with automated cameras so that one with a medical emergency gets 3-4 tickets from machines that detected he violated the speed limit or ran a red light on the way to the hospital?
The Constitution is proactive against the attainment of such government power because its framers knew that even though you may have one set of administrators that are pretty good and upright, the next set may be more crooked, and when the crooked people see all this unexploited potential, they're that much more likely to attempt to attain to a position that will allow them to enact uncouth practices.
> What happens if another guy with one of these locks comes along and parks his park on the same post as yours?
Presumably, if these were mass-produced, each device would have a rare or unique signal similar to car remotes.
> Also as far as I can tell this lock relies on the poles/posts being of a certain diameter
I thought of that too. There are standard light pole sizes, but they might be different in different countries. I wonder if it would work s well on wooden posts.
Same issue as "what happens if someone locks their bike next to mine and they are dumb enough to put their lock through my bike".
You'd have to assume that anyone who double parks on the same post with a lock like this probably isn't smart enough to ride the bike in the first place.
The actual question should be "what happens when there are too many people using these locks so no-one can find any places to use it?"
> You'd have to assume that anyone who double parks on the same post with a lock like this probably isn't smart enough to ride the bike in the first place.
Such thinking is exactly the sort that is guaranteed to end up with your bike stuck up a lamp post due to a double parking incident ;)
(it doesn't quite fit, but the spirit of "Foolproof systems do not take into account the ingenuity of fools" applies)
"He mentioned being able to supply the dean with a list of people with 95% confidence that everyone who cheated was on the list, with no apparent concern for any false positives."
Right after that, he said that he couldn't be sure everyone on the list had cheated. He is saying that he thinks every cheater is on the list, but not everyone on the list is a cheater.
