you've come a long way baby
Mar. 23rd, 2013 11:45 amLet's propose a hypothetical situation. Pay careful attention, there's a quiz at the end.
Unidentified individual #1: Engages in inappropriate behaviour at a work event that is specifically prohibited in his employer's code of conduct.
Unidentified individual #2: Responds to and also participates in inappropriate behaviour at a work event that is specifically prohibited in his employer's code of conduct.
Unidentified individual #3: Notifies a corporation that behaviour is taking place that is specifically prohibited in their (the corporation's) code of conduct.
Unidentified individuals #4 - #1000: Send online threats of assault and murder to a single targeted individual. Members of this group also engage in harrassment by launching DOS (denial of service attacks) to one or more online service providers.
Unidentified corporation #1: Fire one of their employees for engaging inappropriate behaviour at a work event that is specifically prohibited in their (the employer's) code of conduct.
Unidentified corporation #2: Fire one of their employees for receiving online threats of assault & murder and for being targetted by DOS attacks.
So here's the quiz part.
Question: Who in this cast of characters behaved in such a way that they should receive the most public criticism for their actions and choices?
Answer: The woman.
Unidentified individual #1: Engages in inappropriate behaviour at a work event that is specifically prohibited in his employer's code of conduct.
Unidentified individual #2: Responds to and also participates in inappropriate behaviour at a work event that is specifically prohibited in his employer's code of conduct.
Unidentified individual #3: Notifies a corporation that behaviour is taking place that is specifically prohibited in their (the corporation's) code of conduct.
Unidentified individuals #4 - #1000: Send online threats of assault and murder to a single targeted individual. Members of this group also engage in harrassment by launching DOS (denial of service attacks) to one or more online service providers.
Unidentified corporation #1: Fire one of their employees for engaging inappropriate behaviour at a work event that is specifically prohibited in their (the employer's) code of conduct.
Unidentified corporation #2: Fire one of their employees for receiving online threats of assault & murder and for being targetted by DOS attacks.
So here's the quiz part.
Question: Who in this cast of characters behaved in such a way that they should receive the most public criticism for their actions and choices?
Answer: The woman.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-23 06:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-23 06:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-23 07:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-23 09:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-24 04:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-24 11:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-24 12:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-24 02:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-24 09:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-24 09:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-24 10:51 pm (UTC)I just want an option for ticky-boxes instead of radio buttons, so that I can say "the hackers" AND "her cowardly employer" should go right straight to hell.
I actually think her employer is the worst in this, merely because they decided that an employee being harassed should be fired instead of protected. I very much wonder if what they did was straight-up illegal.
The hackers are vile, and bear full responsibility for their actions, which are reprehensible.
But the employer chose to sacrifice their own employee, to whom they owed something of a duty of care, *because she was under attack* . . . that's worse than anonymous hackers shouting abuse into the void, in my opinion.
I hope she sues their asses off, and wins.
-- A >:(