Re: Should we oppose the Data Superhighway/NII?v

tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
>Freedom to associate, to pick one's friends and customers, and all
>that.
>
>Yes, I even support the radical idea that stores can refuse service to
>purple Martians, to Lesbian cats, to homeless bums, to blacks,
>whatever. We may not like it, but freedom to pick one's associates is
>as fundamental a right as one can imagine.

On that subject: my company receives substantial money from a government
agency (that prefers that we call it "DARPA" in public), to develop
technologies that are up our alley but not otherwise commercially viable.
That is, they're paying us to adapt our commercial technology to
applications that don't pay off in the market place, because they want
those non-viable applications for their own use.

As a result of this, it turns out that the government requires all
contractors and subcontractors to undergo not just financial audits,
but also Equal Opportunity Employment audits.

In preparing for an audit of that sort, we discovered that, not only
is it a Bad Thing to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc, etc,
which we all know by now, but it is also a Bad Thing to discriminate
on the basis of *personality*. To turn away an interviewee because they
would not fit into the existing group personality-wise apparently is
a Very Bad Thing Indeed.

I was flabbergasted. I had no idea that political correctness of this
extreme had been enshrined into federal policy.

On the flip side of the issue, I admit that I can see the point that
even...ah...personality-challenged people need to work so they can eat.
But still...yikes!

There go your "fundamental rights". Granted this (as far as I know) only
applies to government contractors at the moment. But what do you want to
bet but that this will soon apply to all businesses?
	Doug

Hunh.  Doug, I'm sorry to oppose you on this, but I think that the sort of
bullshit pry-into-your-personal-life stuff that companies are resorting to
these days is *exactly* the sort of stuff that cypherpunks would want
stopped!

Have you ever had to take one of these tests?  Have you seen the questions
they ask?  I have been handed a test (in an all-too-recent interview) and
after looking at the test I told them flat-out I would not take the test and
if they hired people based on it then I wouldn't work at their company.

[The questions have to do with all kinds of shit like "Have you ever had a
homosexual experience?" and "Have you ever shoplifted anything?" and "How
do you feel about XXX?".  Totally unrelated to my job skills.]

Of course, they reacted with the same sort of shock and surprise that I got
from Texas Instruments when I told *them* I wouldn't piss into their cup on
demand and that they could shove *that* job.  No one had ever even objected
to taking the test before, let alone to the fact that the company keeps the
database of all the answers of all the applicants ever.  (Unencrypted, on a
PC in the president's office, as it happened.)

It's a total load of crap and should be illegal.  I, for one, am glad the
gov't is telling its contractors NOT to do that.

Sorry this is so strident, but I see cryptography and privacy-enhancement as
technological branches of the same tree as this stuff.  Appropriate data in
appropriate places, and nothing more.

--Alan Wexelblat, Reality Hacker, Author, and Cyberspace Bard
Media Lab - Advanced Human Interface Group	wex@media.mit.edu
Voice: 617-258-9168, Pager: 617-945-1842	PUBLIC KEY available by request
Try not to have a good time ... This is supposed to be educational.

Alan Wexelblat writes:

> Hunh.  Doug, I'm sorry to oppose you on this, but I think that the sort of
> bullshit pry-into-your-personal-life stuff that companies are resorting to
> these days is *exactly* the sort of stuff that cypherpunks would want
> stopped!
> 
> Have you ever had to take one of these tests?  Have you seen the questions
> they ask?  I have been handed a test (in an all-too-recent interview) and
> after looking at the test I told them flat-out I would not take the test and
> if they hired people based on it then I wouldn't work at their company.
> 
> [The questions have to do with all kinds of shit like "Have you ever had a
> homosexual experience?" and "Have you ever shoplifted anything?" and "How
> do you feel about XXX?".  Totally unrelated to my job skills.]

Simple solution: If you don't want to take the MMPI test (*), don't
work for that company. 

(* MMPI is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index test, which
sounds like the test described here. It has a couple of thousand of
these questions. Without defending the analytical powers of this test,
let me say that the intent is psychological, not political. The
famoous questions about believing in God, having homosexual
experiences, washing one's hands, and so on, are devised by shrinks,
not designed to ferret out atheists and homos. The MMPI has been in
wide use since the 1950s, though it's use is declining as people file
lawsuits over it.)

> It's a total load of crap and should be illegal.  I, for one, am glad the
> gov't is telling its contractors NOT to do that.
> 
> Sorry this is so strident, but I see cryptography and privacy-enhancement as
> technological branches of the same tree as this stuff.  Appropriate data in
> appropriate places, and nothing more.

I can understand Alan's stridency, but if for whatever reason I ask a
potential employee to take a test--call it Tim's Multiphasic
Personality Index, the TMPI--does he really want me thrown in jail?

That's what saying that this "should be illegal" generally implies.

Most Cypherpunks I know would rather just demonstrate their competency
and tell the potential employer to screw themselves. Not surprisingly,
most employers will then get the message and drop such tests.

(The MMPI, designed in the conformist 50s and only occasionally
updated since, is a pretty crummy test of talent or ambition, in my
unprofessional opinion. A girlfriend who was an MFCC (Marriage,
Family, and Child Counselor, a shrink) agree it was flawed.)

All I'm saying is that interfering with my practices or with those of
others, to make certain things illegal, is not what most Cypherpunks
are after. 

Sorry if this is political, but Cypherpunks should not be looking for
laws and regulations to protect someone's idea of privacy.

In Britain, in case there are some of you out there who haven't heard
about this, they got concerned about corporations compiling records on
people. Sounds like a valid concern, right? Well, the result was the
Data Privacy Act (or somesuch), which outlaws such records unless the
compiler notifies _all_ of the targets _and the government_.

The result is that anyone who saves computer files--like this list,
which of course contains e-mail addresses of hundreds of people--is
technically in violation of the law. Companies are finding it tough to
go about their business. And so on.

Cypherpunks protect their own privacy, they don't depend on Big Mother
to do it for them.

--Tim

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.

> 
> Alan Wexelblat writes:
> 
> > Hunh.  Doug, I'm sorry to oppose you on this, but I think that the sort of
> > bullshit pry-into-your-personal-life stuff that companies are resorting to
> > these days is *exactly* the sort of stuff that cypherpunks would want
> > stopped!
> > 
> > Have you ever had to take one of these tests?  Have you seen the questions
> > they ask?  I have been handed a test (in an all-too-recent interview) and
> > after looking at the test I told them flat-out I would not take the test and
> > if they hired people based on it then I wouldn't work at their company.
> > 
> > [The questions have to do with all kinds of shit like "Have you ever had a
> > homosexual experience?" and "Have you ever shoplifted anything?" and "How
> > do you feel about XXX?".  Totally unrelated to my job skills.]
> 
> Simple solution: If you don't want to take the MMPI test (*), don't
> work for that company. 
> 
> (* MMPI is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Index test, which
> sounds like the test described here. It has a couple of thousand of
> these questions. Without defending the analytical powers of this test,

Tim:  the MMPI has 600 questions, with approx 4x redundancy for indicators of
deception, and *can* be manipulated to read whatever indicators (or non-
indicators) you choose.  All you need to do is visit your local medical library
and do a little homework...

 -Jim