Re: Reputation based hiring (was REQUESTING INFORMATION)

At 01:02 ìì 19/11/1996 -0500, Clay Olbon II wrote:

>I won't comment on who I will or won't hire.  I will state that I believe
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that what a person posts is a relevant issue when it comes time to make a
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>hiring decision.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Very important admission here: WATCH out what you say, folks, from now
on. Say it _real_ nice, or else you WON'T GET HIRED!!! No "abuse", from
now on... :-)

aha, aha, aha! NOW I understand the insecurity and the fear of young
*unemployed* Americans. NOW I understand... :-)



>If someone thinks that another should not be hired for
>whatever reason, I support their right to hold that belief and even to
>publicize it.  

Likewise. But ONLY publicly, in contrast to you (hiding it)...


><rant against cypherpunks deleted>
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There was NO rant "against cypherpunks" as such.
You could label my text a 'rant', by all means, but I note with interest
your attempt to turn it "against cypherpunks" (Setting a new target to what
was only a... friendly-clay-bullet, dear Clay). :-)


I would never hire you. What I need is people with a VISION;
NOT people with IMPAIRED VISION, distorting things so unreliably.

I need TRUE VISIONARIES able to work creatively in High Technology.
People like Philip Kahn (Hurrah) and Richard Branson (Hurrah, Bravo);
even Bill Gates himself, were SELF-MADE visionaries.

In contrast... people "threatening others with unemployability files",
are CLAY MEDIOCRITIES.

Your reputation is correct, given the kind of people you are 'selling'.
(Slaves in fact, just like in the SLAVE TRADE times... -High I.Q. slaves).

I would suggest, Clay, that you are indeed doing a good Job. But if you
are a... "Cypherpunk" then... I am the Emperor of Mars! :-)




>I won't follow you into the gutter on this one.  That horse has been dead
                             ^^^^^^
>for days (and it is beginning to smell really bad).
>        Clay                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You know Clay, if only you knew what TREASURE you have giveth me today :-)
I never even knew this existed locked up inside a... Smelly Clay Gutter...

Many thanks anyway
George

P.S. (deleted)


********************* CORPORATE GUTTER FOLLOWS: ***********************

>I would say you are a decent, honest, fearless man trying to do a job which

RANT DELETED


>with _serious_ issues of 'unemployability'., FURTHERMORE people are NEVER
>guilty before PROVEN so. Guilt or Innocence is NOT a matter of 'opinion',

RANT DELETED


>the guy's back. WHAT is going on? I've been harrassed and threatended TOO,
>just because of defending him or supporting people's rights to a fair trial?

RANT DELETED


>I have no disagreement with your down-to-earth explanations. But...
>Sooner or later your 'sheep-leader' Mr. Gilmore will start blocking access
>to MORE geniouses (other than Voulis, who I think _could_ be one) to your
>list, and then encryption will be entrusted to morons who can at ANY moment
>have their coding systems BROKEN!!!

RANT DELETED


>unemployability (as indeed happened in the letter quoted below) it's an
>alarming sign that the _criteria_ for employability are no longer your
>own decent down-to-earth criteria (honesty, intelligence, trust-worthiness)

RANT DELETED


>It's only recently that the type of fascist harrassment like "We'll put
>you on our U-list", has reached such ABUSE, MISUSE, and ALARMING FREQUENCY.

RANT DELETED



>You are, most probably, a real person with very real responsibilites.
>In this case, I appreciate you a lot, and hopefully my complaints have
>reached the right man's ear.


RANT DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDELETED.


huh?

George A. Stathis wrote:
> I would never hire you. What I need is people with a VISION;
> NOT people with IMPAIRED VISION, distorting things so unreliably.
> 
> I need TRUE VISIONARIES able to work creatively in High Technology.
> People like Philip Kahn (Hurrah) and Richard Branson (Hurrah, Bravo);
> even Bill Gates himself, were SELF-MADE visionaries.
> 
> In contrast... people "threatening others with unemployability files",
> are CLAY MEDIOCRITIES.

You do not want "visionaries" who will steal your files and ruin your
business. There are many persons who are very smart and creative, and
yet one can expect to have a net loss from hiring them. Intelligence and
any other factor cannot be the sole determinants of employments.

Reputations are very important economically: since everyone knows that
their reputations, and not only current contracts, are on the line, they
avoid incurring losses to their employers for a short-term illicit gain.
That prevents a lot of theft, for example, among other things.

Also, employers have their own gain by discriminating between employees
with an expected loss and employees with expected profit. Employees,
likewise, can gain by having good references from previous employers.

If you, in your "pro-freedom" rage, somehow manage to make employers to
ignore reputations when they make hiring decisions, you will immediately
create incentives for an economically damaging behavior. As a result, 
there would be a net loss in the economy. People will also trust others
less because cheating will not be punished as seriously as it is now.
Lack of trust would force them to waste more money on lawyers.

George, if you calmed down a little bit, you would have thought about
the following: just as people have the right to speak on, say,
cypherpunks mailing list, people have exactly the same right to speak on
"hiring-punks" discussion list. There is not a whole lot of difference.
Limitations to one right (like rules by list owners) are exactly
the same. It is illogical to defend one right and to deny another.

Another issue is, whom should we trust in their "DON'T HIRE ..." 
recommendations? You could insist, for example, that a certain list
made by a certain person should be ignored because that person was
not fit to make hiring recommendations. I do not view such activity
as economically damaging. 

If you, however, fought with the very notion of "unemployability
lists", you would in fact create an economic loss. Of course you are
still free to speak against these lists, but your position is not
sound.

Another issue: can employers base their decisions on the content of
applicant's USENET posts and other public messages? Why not?  Just as
"DON'T HIRE" lists, this is an issue of freedom: employers should be
free to seek whatever information they can find.

I may be completely mistaken, but I think that some of the
freedom-knights misunderstand what freedom of speech means. It is not a
positive right that someone (John Gilmore or Dave Hayes or the
government in form of free subsudized broadcast) should provide. There
is no "right to broadcast". Rather, this is something that the
government cannot regulate and take away. In the broadcast example,
no one should be forbidden by law to broadcast anything. That's it.

Of course, different people can disagree on whether kicking various
persons out of mailing lists and not allowing certain persons to
subscribe to certain mailing lists is a good idea, BUT this is not the
issue of freedom of speech as a constitutional right.

	- Igor.

> At 01:02 =EC=EC 19/11/1996 -0500, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> >with _serious_ issues of 'unemployability'., FURTHERMORE people are NEVER
> >guilty before PROVEN so. Guilt or Innocence is NOT a matter of 'opinion',

    Huh? People are most certainly guilty before "proven" so, the government
just isn't allowed to _assume_ their guilt, or to _act_ like they are guilty.

     If you purchase LSD in America, you are guilty of a felony--Drug 
trafficing. Wether the court _finds_ you guilty or not is another story. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

At 1:36 AM -0600 11/20/96, snow wrote:
>> At 01:02 =EC=EC 19/11/1996 -0500, Clay Olbon II wrote:
>> >with _serious_ issues of 'unemployability'., FURTHERMORE people are NEVER
>> >guilty before PROVEN so. Guilt or Innocence is NOT a matter of 'opinion',
>
>    Huh? People are most certainly guilty before "proven" so, the government
>just isn't allowed to _assume_ their guilt, or to _act_ like they are guilty.
>
>     If you purchase LSD in America, you are guilty of a felony--Drug
>trafficing. Wether the court _finds_ you guilty or not is another story.

In this case, the putative crime is "drug trafficking" or "possession,"
depending. One is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. To wit, the
state must prove its case.

I rather suspect that any prosecutors or defense lawyers on this list will
confirm that an LSD case is hardly a case of "guilty until proven innocent."


--Tim May

"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 1:36 AM -0600 11/20/96, snow wrote:
> >> At 01:02 =EC=EC 19/11/1996 -0500, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> >> >with _serious_ issues of 'unemployability'., FURTHERMORE people are NEVER
> >> >guilty before PROVEN so. Guilt or Innocence is NOT a matter of 'opinion',
> >
> >    Huh? People are most certainly guilty before "proven" so, the government
> >just isn't allowed to _assume_ their guilt, or to _act_ like they are guilty.
> >
> >     If you purchase LSD in America, you are guilty of a felony--Drug
> >trafficing. Wether the court _finds_ you guilty or not is another story.
> 
> In this case, the putative crime is "drug trafficking" or "possession,"
> depending. One is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. To wit, the
> state must prove its case.
> 
> I rather suspect that any prosecutors or defense lawyers on this list will
> confirm that an LSD case is hardly a case of "guilty until proven innocent."
> 

Whether you're _presumed_ innocent or not isn't the point he was making.
If you commit a crime, you are guilty of that crime, proven or not.  You
might not be _proven guilty_ in court, which you have to be in order to be
convicted, and you are still _presumed_ innocent.  But you're still guilty
of the crime.

 --Deviant
Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.
		-- Friedrich Nietzsche


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMpOdcTCdEh3oIPAVAQGICgf+Nblm9lfworbBpqHp1xqnKKBqJj9EZNIA
W17r/RY7TcYJmsVZY3h5jwShvdyZt+Ou04TrQK7t9ZjPqgYyWd5y/P0+tg71dCZn
C/H1IVMLLFn3LR8noXMDznV4NSK0edlYvkgha2DeJGFVpQ2vMg+ck911/oLM3jFK
t7guwVc4/lDahQXtm03/SwBT3H8e7Np74k7X8k2Zge3wbJoqTiLnykTQOKIuAC9Q
+CqJPBoUSkIaYYbn+S5ZCFjNRvwJyGAiEqLeghVY/fRB1ufZT8m7/0wHsmQJPULS
B7mNRZqtYUwGABmfZ5OzlyDag+DFSD56/xhaB3977c8APOVU5sj0Yg==
=Zwdy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> 
> At 1:36 AM -0600 11/20/96, snow wrote:
> >> At 01:02 =EC=EC 19/11/1996 -0500, Clay Olbon II wrote:
> >> >with _serious_ issues of 'unemployability'., FURTHERMORE people are NEVER
> >> >guilty before PROVEN so. Guilt or Innocence is NOT a matter of 'opinion',
> >    Huh? People are most certainly guilty before "proven" so, the government
> >just isn't allowed to _assume_ their guilt, or to _act_ like they are guilty.
> >     If you purchase LSD in America, you are guilty of a felony--Drug
> >trafficing. Wether the court _finds_ you guilty or not is another story.
> 
> In this case, the putative crime is "drug trafficking" or "possession,"
> depending. One is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. To wit, the
                          ^^^^^^^^
> state must prove its case.
> I rather suspect that any prosecutors or defense lawyers on this list will
> confirm that an LSD case is hardly a case of "guilty until proven innocent."

      Let me put it this way. Do you really believe that Mr. Simpson is "not
guilty" of murder, even tho' the courts found him so? 

      If I purchase LSD, I am guilty of BOTH trafficing and possession,
I _did_ it. After all, you were the one with the "felon" in your .signature. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com