Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do you think its ok for goverment to be allowed to check our email?

85 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#61

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:01 AM

I'm not sure what you're getting at.. I'm curious though as to whether you approve or disapprove of government being able to sift through their own citizens personal emails and track their phone calls all without probable cause or a warrant?

 

My point was more that a great deal of what's been unearthed by the likes of The Guardian in the reports Snowdon leaked discusses capability. I was making the point that capability itself does not necessarily imply action, and asking at what point something would, in your view, actually constitute spying? Would it be at the collection of information- and no-one is doubting that the US has engaged in legally questionable data collection against citizens without probable cause. In my view, and in the view of most people I know who are schooled on the operations of SIGINT agencies like the NSA and GCHQ, it doesn't constitute spying until there's an active attempt made to exploit information held in the data- the mere act of it passing through taps, or existing in the background noise of Big Data projects, doesn't constitute spying even though it is constitutionally questionable.

 

I disapprove of the unnecessary collection of personal information but accept that emails aren't the property of the individual whose inbox it is, but of the service provider. Have a look at the T&C for something like Hotmail/Outlook and you'll realise that Microsoft can do whatever they want with your data. I also question whether the "sifting through" mail data actually takes place warrantlessly given that part of the whole debacle has been the secretive disclosure of email data by technology companies to the government, with most of those involved saying that there is a legal precedence and requirements to be met before they disclose customer data. My other point was that, if the NSA could conduct large-scale man-in-the-middle attacks against the SSL and TLS cryptography implementations used by email providers in their user interactions (which is one of the main arguments people have made on the issue) then why would they need to consult with the service providers at all given that they can just read everything, in plaintext, silently and without anyone ever knowing it was decrypted.

 

I'm not sure of the legal status of telecommunications contracts in the US, but I imagine that a similar arrangement exists for your metadata at least, which would include tracking information. 


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#62

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:25 AM

My point was more that a great deal of what's been unearthed by the likes of The Guardian in the reports Snowdon leaked discusses capability. I was making the point that capability itself does not necessarily imply action, and asking at what point something would, in your view, actually constitute spying? Would it be at the collection of information- and no-one is doubting that the US has engaged in legally questionable data collection against citizens without probable cause. In my view, and in the view of most people I know who are schooled on the operations of SIGINT agencies like the NSA and GCHQ, it doesn't constitute spying until there's an active attempt made to exploit information held in the data- the mere act of it passing through taps, or existing in the background noise of Big Data projects, doesn't constitute spying even though it is constitutionally questionable.

Wait, so spying is only spying when you use the material towards some end? So if I take pictures of a woman getting out of the shower, she should be precluded from getting upset until I'm actively fapping to them? 

 

Capability is reason enough to be upset. Whether or not government employees know about our poop fetishes and that we plan orgies via email, they have the capability to find out, and it could be "leaked" were you to run for public office or something. We have a right to privacy; we should be able to tell our friends details of our personal lives without anyone else finding out.

 

Back to the question of whether the contents of your email are legally the property of your email provider, again, I find it highly suspect. If I asked you to sign a 10,000 word contract that more or less negates your legal rights (ie "this carnival ride adheres to no safety regulations whatsoever and you'll probably die, sign here to give me permission to risk your life") that I also change every month without asking you to sign it again or even notifying you at all, I'd be thrown in jail.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#63

Posted 18 November 2013 - 08:24 AM

My point was more that a great deal of what's been unearthed by the likes of The Guardian in the reports Snowdon leaked discusses capability. I was making the point that capability itself does not necessarily imply action, and asking at what point something would, in your view, actually constitute spying? Would it be at the collection of information- and no-one is doubting that the US has engaged in legally questionable data collection against citizens without probable cause. In my view, and in the view of most people I know who are schooled on the operations of SIGINT agencies like the NSA and GCHQ, it doesn't constitute spying until there's an active attempt made to exploit information held in the data- the mere act of it passing through taps, or existing in the background noise of Big Data projects, doesn't constitute spying even though it is constitutionally questionable.

 
Wait, so spying is only spying when you use the material towards some end? So if I take pictures of a woman getting out of the shower, she should be precluded from getting upset until I'm actively fapping to them?


The analogy doesn't really work because the implication is that the data is actually private, which isn't necessarily the case. A better analogy would be filming in the street and happening to catch someone in the shot. It's also worth pointing out that the intelligence apparatus of nations have the lawful permission to conduct surveillance above and beyond what would be legal of lay citizens, but knowing your personal views on it I'm fairly certain you deem the basic principles immoral dark arts. It's hard to describe but the data that flows past the taps isn't as straightforward or black and white as the example you use- it's jumbled nonsense that can only be reassembled using complex algorithms or in-depth analysis. It's possible to filter a large degree of the unnecessary chaff from the system before it ever crosses into the realm of the analyst so your example isn't really equivilant.

Capability is reason enough to be upset. Whether or not government employees know about our poop fetishes and that we plan orgies via email, they have the capability to find out, and it could be "leaked" were you to run for public office or something. We have a right to privacy; we should be able to tell our friends details of our personal lives without anyone else finding out.


I agree in principle, but this is a slippery slope fallacy. The government has numerous potential capabilities, such as killing all blonde haired, blue eyed children, or reinstating racial segregation, or forcing everyone to wear the colour purple. The very existence of the capability and tools to perform a role is not evidence of the intent to do so, especially when that capability is primarily focused on something else totally unrelated; you've got to ask yourself if and why that information would be exploited. Hell, the government has the capability and probably the tools to fit listening devices in every home, but that's not evidence that they are or a reason to be angry about it.

People are entitled to privacy, but good luck finding it on the internet. Between the ISPs, service providers, oversight authorities, malicious actors and individual sites, there's effectively no part of the experience where the data that people deem as been "private" isn't accessible or malleable by someone else.
 

Back to the question of whether the contents of your email are legally the property of your email provider, again, I find it highly suspect. If I asked you to sign a 10,000 word contract that more or less negates your legal rights (ie "this carnival ride adheres to no safety regulations whatsoever and you'll probably die, sign here to give me permission to risk your life") that I also change every month without asking you to sign it again or even notifying you at all, I'd be thrown in jail.


False analogy. Contract law precludes contracts being made which technically break the law. A contract that risked someone's life due to the waiving of safety regulations would be legally void due to this. It's the same reason why you couldn't sue a hitman for breach of contract. Therefore no contract can negate the legal rights of a person without being void.

As I've said before, most of these contracts aren't legally enforceable in Europe due to very stringent requirements they must meet. There have been several test cases of contracts of this nature being rendered void in the various European courts, including ones involving both Facebook and Google, in recent years. But in the US it's different- the attitude there could be effectively summed up as "unless the contract breaks the law it's binding, regardless of whether you read it at all".

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#64

Posted 19 November 2013 - 01:03 AM Edited by Irviding, 19 November 2013 - 01:03 AM.

I think the problem we have with surveillance is the lack of oversight, at least here in the US. There is no oversight anymore with regard to surveilling people if there is any remote possibility they are a terrorist or somehow related to a hostile foreign government. The FISA court has become a complete joke since 9/11. Its own judges won't even defend it anymore - current and former people who sat on the FISC say that the thing has no adversarial component and they have absolutely no way to look further into what the government is doing. So if I, an FBI agent, go to a FISC and say so and so is a terrorist we need to surveil them - the judges on that court have no way to substantiate what I say other than with the documentation (or lack thereof) I provide them. I have no problem with monitoring people/surveillance - but when it's just this "trust us, we got you covered" attitude where even judges on the most secret court in the country can't check up on it, something's gotta change.


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#65

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:46 AM

Here's a thought for discussion.

Do you feel that your internet browsing history should be allowed to be used as evidence of character in a court case, perhaps when you're accused of rape and your use of pornography is highlighted, is this right? I disagree, read my emails, go ahead, but you can't possibly use evidence from this, would it hold up in court at all?


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#66

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:59 AM

Here's a thought for discussion.

Do you feel that your internet browsing history should be allowed to be used as evidence of character in a court case, perhaps when you're accused of rape and your use of pornography is highlighted, is this right? I disagree, read my emails, go ahead, but you can't possibly use evidence from this, would it hold up in court at all?

Well generally in a court case your private possessions are allowed to be used as evidence and checked by courts to build a case. I don't see why browsing history should be an exception. If not then why should any of your private property be used as evidence? Why should the police be allowed to use that bloody hammer with brain matter on in he infamous 'brain-hammer murderer' case. Or better yet, why should the diary that you kept, written in your own sh*t, semen and victims blood be used as evidence in your case?


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#67

Posted 25 January 2014 - 12:03 PM

 

Here's a thought for discussion.

Do you feel that your internet browsing history should be allowed to be used as evidence of character in a court case, perhaps when you're accused of rape and your use of pornography is highlighted, is this right? I disagree, read my emails, go ahead, but you can't possibly use evidence from this, would it hold up in court at all?

Well generally in a court case your private possessions are allowed to be used as evidence and checked by courts to build a case. I don't see why browsing history should be an exception. If not then why should any of your private property be used as evidence? Why should the police be allowed to use that bloody hammer with brain matter on in he infamous 'brain-hammer murderer' case. Or better yet, why should the diary that you kept, written in your own sh*t, semen and victims blood be used as evidence in your case?

 

Exactly, that's what I'm saying, the hammer thing, what if browsing history actually isn't owned by you, what if it's owned by a third party? How come cops can possess your computer? How come i've read some stories (albeit from dodgy sites) that search history HAS been used against people.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    Lucky 38

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#68

Posted 25 January 2014 - 12:12 PM Edited by Nale Dixon, 25 January 2014 - 12:13 PM.

 

 

Here's a thought for discussion.

Do you feel that your internet browsing history should be allowed to be used as evidence of character in a court case, perhaps when you're accused of rape and your use of pornography is highlighted, is this right? I disagree, read my emails, go ahead, but you can't possibly use evidence from this, would it hold up in court at all?

Well generally in a court case your private possessions are allowed to be used as evidence and checked by courts to build a case. I don't see why browsing history should be an exception. If not then why should any of your private property be used as evidence? Why should the police be allowed to use that bloody hammer with brain matter on in he infamous 'brain-hammer murderer' case. Or better yet, why should the diary that you kept, written in your own sh*t, semen and victims blood be used as evidence in your case?

 

Exactly, that's what I'm saying, the hammer thing, what if browsing history actually isn't owned by you, what if it's owned by a third party? How come cops can possess your computer? How come i've read some stories (albeit from dodgy sites) that search history HAS been used against people.

 

Oh right. Well it's something created by you, and used by you, so yeah it should be and I'm pretty sure is used in a court of law. There are discrepancies though. For example, a thumbnail of what appears to be child porn from a well known porn site can be excused as being an auto downloaded cookie, a continued browsing of deep web child porn sites cannot. I don't think using search history as evidence is a secret government plot, it's pretty a standard thing in the wonderous age of technology.

 

Something being owned by someone else is also fine to be seized by the police if they have reasonable doubt that it relates to the case, Say for example the hammer used was a neighbour's, or was stolen from a store. The property rights of anything that may have use in a court case is irrelevant. 


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#69

Posted 25 January 2014 - 12:17 PM

 

 

 

Here's a thought for discussion.

Do you feel that your internet browsing history should be allowed to be used as evidence of character in a court case, perhaps when you're accused of rape and your use of pornography is highlighted, is this right? I disagree, read my emails, go ahead, but you can't possibly use evidence from this, would it hold up in court at all?

Well generally in a court case your private possessions are allowed to be used as evidence and checked by courts to build a case. I don't see why browsing history should be an exception. If not then why should any of your private property be used as evidence? Why should the police be allowed to use that bloody hammer with brain matter on in he infamous 'brain-hammer murderer' case. Or better yet, why should the diary that you kept, written in your own sh*t, semen and victims blood be used as evidence in your case?

 

Exactly, that's what I'm saying, the hammer thing, what if browsing history actually isn't owned by you, what if it's owned by a third party? How come cops can possess your computer? How come i've read some stories (albeit from dodgy sites) that search history HAS been used against people.

 

Oh right. Well it's something created by you, and used by you, so yeah it should be and I'm pretty sure is used in a court of law. There are discrepancies though. For example, a thumbnail of what appears to be child porn from a well known porn site can be excused as being an auto downloaded cookie, a continued browsing of deep web child porn sites cannot. I don't think using search history as evidence is a secret government plot, it's pretty a standard thing in the wonderous age of technology.

 

Something being owned by someone else is also fine to be seized by the police if they have reasonable doubt that it relates to the case, Say for example the hammer used was a neighbour's, or was stolen from a store. The property rights of anything that may have use in a court case is irrelevant. 

 

I guess it would all stay reasonably relevant, the law isn't perfect, but there are smart people in there running the show at least.


D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#70

Posted 26 January 2014 - 09:39 AM

Yeah, google searches and browsing history can be used as evidence, and have been used to disprove alibis and witness statements. Even the act of deleting your history can be pretty strong circumstantial evidence if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you were the person who did it. Incriminating google searches can indicate pre-meditation, especially with corroborative evidence from either an expert or possibly just a person who swears under oath that they saw your history. They can also undermine any possible defence, by showing that you had knowledge at the time that you have since denied having (one example would be if you were to run someone over and kill them, then go home and google "hit and run defence," and then claim that you never realised you'd hit anyone).

 

Regarding the rape example in your first post finn, it would entirely depend on the context. If you were to be accused of rape and your use of 'normal' porn is brought up (I would define normal as anything that appears completely consensual and legal -- so no heavy bondage, rape simulation, humiliation, etc. Basically the more morally acceptable porn in the eyes of a neutral, unaroused observer.) then it would be a reasonable defence to claim that your porn usage is just equivalent to that of a typical man of your age and that the prosecution are just grasping at straws to slander your reputation.

 

If, however, the porn is rough/humiliating in nature, or bears a marked similarity to the details of the crime (words used, positions/holds used, gestures made), or if there is evidence that your usage is significantly beyond that of a normal guy (to levels approaching an addiction), then that would be very relevant to the case at hand. 

 

Hopefully I've cleared up a few things :)

  • Irviding and Ari Gold like this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#71

Posted 07 February 2014 - 07:00 AM

 

 

Here's a thought for discussion.

Do you feel that your internet browsing history should be allowed to be used as evidence of character in a court case, perhaps when you're accused of rape and your use of pornography is highlighted, is this right? I disagree, read my emails, go ahead, but you can't possibly use evidence from this, would it hold up in court at all?

Well generally in a court case your private possessions are allowed to be used as evidence and checked by courts to build a case. I don't see why browsing history should be an exception. If not then why should any of your private property be used as evidence? Why should the police be allowed to use that bloody hammer with brain matter on in he infamous 'brain-hammer murderer' case. Or better yet, why should the diary that you kept, written in your own sh*t, semen and victims blood be used as evidence in your case?

 

Exactly, that's what I'm saying, the hammer thing, what if browsing history actually isn't owned by you, what if it's owned by a third party? How come cops can possess your computer? How come i've read some stories (albeit from dodgy sites) that search history HAS been used against people.

 

What was said by D4 pretty much answers this, but I would add that a compotent defense attorney or even public defender would be able to argue reasonable doubt that the history isn't owned by you. If for example you lived in a college dorm, or shared an apartment with three other people, then it would almost certainly be ignored as evidencde.


Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#72

Posted 07 February 2014 - 11:47 AM

 

 

 

Here's a thought for discussion.

Do you feel that your internet browsing history should be allowed to be used as evidence of character in a court case, perhaps when you're accused of rape and your use of pornography is highlighted, is this right? I disagree, read my emails, go ahead, but you can't possibly use evidence from this, would it hold up in court at all?

Well generally in a court case your private possessions are (I thought it said 'aren't' haha) allowed to be used as evidence and checked by courts to build a case. I don't see why browsing history should be an exception. If not then why should any of your private property be used as evidence? Why should the police be allowed to use that bloody hammer with brain matter on in he infamous 'brain-hammer murderer' case. Or better yet, why should the diary that you kept, written in your own sh*t, semen and victims blood be used as evidence in your case?

 

Exactly, that's what I'm saying, the hammer thing, what if browsing history actually isn't owned by you, what if it's owned by a third party? How come cops can possess your computer? How come i've read some stories (albeit from dodgy sites) that search history HAS been used against people.

 

What was said by D4 pretty much answers this, but I would add that a compotent defense attorney or even public defender would be able to argue reasonable doubt that the history isn't owned by you. If for example you lived in a college dorm, or shared an apartment with three other people, then it would almost certainly be ignored as evidencde.

 

Yeah I just realized I read Nale's post incorrectly, i'll edit what I thought he said on the first read.


Ava822
  • Ava822

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#73

Posted 08 March 2014 - 09:33 PM

I don't have anything to hide so I would not care.  But I think that it is an invasion of privacy and I do not really care for it.


AndrewDeSanta
  • AndrewDeSanta

    Republitarian

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2012
  • United-States

#74

Posted 12 March 2014 - 01:37 AM

No, definitely not. We all have a right to our own privacy and government should keep out of it. Government has gotten to big for it's own good. Unless they have a reason or a warrant they can keep the hell out. 

  • TheGreenSadler likes this

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#75

Posted 13 March 2014 - 09:48 AM Edited by Doc Rikowski, 13 March 2014 - 09:48 AM.

Internet started as a military project so what's the big surprise? Of course governments will peep in your stuff. Internet is every secret.service/government's wild dream.

If you want privacy just don't use it. I know a lot of people who doesn't and guess what, they live a normal life.

Internet is not really a necessary thing for the average individual.Unless you use it to work then it's just a technological toy, nothing more than that.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#76

Posted 13 March 2014 - 12:56 PM Edited by Melchior, 13 March 2014 - 01:43 PM.

If you call being completely culturally locked out, politically less informed than your peers and generally missing out on a wealth of information and shared experience that the rest of our generation takes for granted "living a normal life", sure.


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    a.k.a. MrCamTheMan

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#77

Posted 13 March 2014 - 01:16 PM Edited by TheGreenSadler, 13 March 2014 - 01:21 PM.

If you want privacy just don't use it. I know a lot of people who doesn't and guess what, they live a normal life.

Internet is not really a necessary thing for the average individual.Unless you use it to work then it's just a technological toy, nothing more than that.

And yet here you are using it.


Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#78

Posted 13 March 2014 - 03:23 PM

I didn't say I don't use it. In fact I use it for work and, secondarily, as the toy that it is, for fun.

 

I said that I know people that do not use it at all and are fine living their life.

Just like I was fine before the internet era.

 

Sorry Melchior but there is a lot more culture outside the internet and you can get informed about things in more "traditional" ways if you want.

We did it for centuries.

Also, there are many people that use the internet daily and are completely politically uninformed, culturally ignorant and that the only thing that they share is memes.

 

So, it always depends on the use you give to the thing, but in the end, like many other things, it's not a necessary need for the individual.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#79

Posted 13 March 2014 - 04:16 PM

It's pretty necessary for business, commerce and basically everything else though.

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#80

Posted 13 March 2014 - 04:24 PM

In fact I said "unless you use it for work".

If you don't need it for work it's just a toy.

And a lot of people do not need it for work.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#81

Posted 13 March 2014 - 10:50 PM

I'm struggling to think of many jobs where there isn't at least an indirect reliance on the internet, or networked computers in general.

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#82

Posted 14 March 2014 - 12:10 AM Edited by Doc Rikowski, 14 March 2014 - 12:13 AM.

My brother is a skipper. He doesn't use the internet to work nor to get work.

 

A friend of mine has a very successful ice-cream shop. He doesn't have a website nor he uses the internet to work or to promote his shop.

 

Another friend of mine teaches windsurfing. He spends his life on the beach and he doesn't use the internet.

 

And these are only a few examples among people I know.

 

Yes, people can live and work without using the internet just like they lived and worked for centuries without using it.

 

Imagine! Some people even live without mobile phones. I was one of them till a couple of years ago.

 

And even in my job, when I started, nobody would need it or use it.

 

I'm struggling to believe people actually believe a human being needs the internet to live a perfectly normal life. 

 

It can be a useful tool for some but not for everyone. For most it's just a fun toy.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#83

Posted 14 March 2014 - 04:54 AM

You definitely need the internet to find work. I don't know how long you two have been in your current positions, but applying for work in person is completely unheard of these days. You need an email address to communicate with teachers, so it's necessary for school as well.


Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#84

Posted 14 March 2014 - 10:24 AM Edited by Doc Rikowski, 14 March 2014 - 10:27 AM.

You definitely need the internet to find work. I don't know how long you two have been in your current positions, but applying for work in person is completely unheard of these days. You need an email address to communicate with teachers, so it's necessary for school as well.

 

Right now in advertising and design you need an email to apply to most jobs but unfortunately, in this case, technology made things much worse for all professionals looking for a job.

A few years ago, still in 2004, you would still pick up the phone and call all major advertising/design agencies, ask the receptionist to let you talk with the creative director, talk with him and, 99% of the times, schedule an interview to show your portfolio "physically".

 

Right now all you do is send an email with a link to your portfolio.

99% of the times you don't get an interview cause your email is either ignored or trashed.

It's so much easier for a creative director to simply ignore an email rather than ignoring a real person.

 

Obviously even in 2004 you could get the usual answer "he's in a meeting" but eventually you would end up talking with the person you wanted cause it was common practice in the business to give the opportunity to show your portfolio to everyone.

 

Back then interviews were an opportunity to better present yourself not only through your work but also personally. Sometimes it was the interview that would get you the job rather than just your portfolio. At the same time if an interview wasn't getting you the job it would get you at least another interview cause if there were no vacant jobs in their agency the creative directors would give you contacts of other people that would or could hire you. Then, very often, after the interview you would be introduced to the rest of the creative team and that was another chance to get more contacts and more job opportunities. 

 

To be honest social and business networking worked much better than today through Linkedin or Facebook.

 

Even my current job I got it through a contact of a friend in the business I've known for years.

And as much as I have on my Linkedin and FB hundreds of people in the business, it is very rare to see job opportunities coming from those networks unless it's people you had "networked" with in the pre-internet era.

 

Internet can be a very useful tool to work with but at the same time it eliminated personal contact.

And there's nothing like talking face to face and not through a screen and a keyboard.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#85

Posted 14 March 2014 - 10:37 AM

As interesting as this discussion is, it isn't really related to the topic at hand.

Doc Rikowski
  • Doc Rikowski

    First Generation Gamer

  • D1RTY12
  • Joined: 02 May 2008
  • Mars
  • Best Gang 2013 - D1RTY12
    Best Event 2011 "Turf Wars"

#86

Posted 14 March 2014 - 12:28 PM

As interesting as this discussion is, it isn't really related to the topic at hand.

True.

 

On topic again.

 

Imo even though it would be better if the government didn't access our email, internet is something you enter at your own risk.

"Privacy" and "internet" just don't fit in the same sentence.

If you are concerned by privacy then you should use the internet only for things that are not personal and that you don't mind being public and/or available to the public or the government.

If you use it for personal stuff and you care about your privacy then make sure to do it in the most anonymous way.

If you have nothing to hide, like me, then you are good to go all over the web and who cares if the government has access to your average private life. :D





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users