Techno-Bullies Are Way-y-y-y Too Unforgiving

[SoDesuKa]

There's absolutely no room for error with techno-bullies. Technology changes every day and if you don't keep up with it you could be caught in an embarrassing situation. You'll get no sympathy from the techno-bullies. Off with his head! they say. Woe unto you if they catch you ignorant of something "everybody knows".

In not allowing ordinary people to make simple mistakes, they remind me of Robespierre. We can take existing law and bend it to allow forgiveable, human errors. Every time some new development punctures existing laws, we can't abandon important existing rights - such as, for example, the right to be protected from snoops.

How to recognize the bullies: They are the ones who demand, What part of X do you not understand, klutz? Whoa! Where are we going to put these people?

[SmileyRose]

1. I have never owned a cell phone.

I am therefore the scum of the earth. :)

[TheWraith]

2. I'm sorry, but you got in trouble for pontificating on something you did not understand.

That's hardly "bullying," it's expecting people to think before they speak. You kept insisting that nobody could POSSIBLY send a photo via Twitter, when 1) you didn't know it's done all the time, and 2) you didn't really know what Twitter was. And also insisting that someone posting something publicly on the internet was somehow the same as a phone call being wiretapped.

[Electric Monk]

3. Thanks for the context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1266041&mesg_id=1266041

[SoDesuKa]

11. Confidential Communications

I was asking why the system design left Weiner's confidentiality at such risk, and what might be done about in the future. I used general language as a way to encourage responses from people who aren't technically adept.

You never addressed the larger question of what was wrong with a system that could cause career death by hitting a wrong button as opposed to hitting the correct one near it. That is a design flaw that will no doubt be corrected in later versions of the software.

It's wrong to blame the user for bad software. Systems guys get away with it all the time.

[TheWraith]

23. No, you kept confusing Twitter with a phone call, and an internet post with a wiretap.

Twitter is not designed for privacy, and you shouldn't be sending photos of your crotch over it. It's really that simple. There was no "wiretapping" necessary when someone posts it for all the world to see.

[PeaceNikki]

36. Are you kidding me?

" a system that could cause career death by hitting a wrong button as opposed to hitting the correct one near it."

Uh... "reply all" on email can do this. Typing the wrong url into your browser at work can do this.

Here's a thought: don't be an idiot and use these tools to show your dick unless you are fully ready for the repercussions WHEN (not if) it comes to bite you in the ass.

[SoDesuKa]

39. Unforgiving

Doesn't sound like you're very forgiving of user mistakes. That was the point of my orignal post.

[SoDesuKa]

13. Weiner's Staff Let Him Down

By failing to give Congressman Weiner a head's up on the dangers of Twitter, they let him down big time. A Congressman is a busy guy; he shouldn't be expected to stay up with the ins and outs of technology. As it turns out, Twitter makes it easy for a politician to disembowel himself. Why didn't his staff alert him to the possibility?

I've seen Weiner's expressionless face in the pictures. It's obvious that he has no idea of the danger he's in. Instead of assuring ourselves that Weiner should have known better, we should be asking if there's any way to rescue the guy's career. Probably not.

As a general rule, it's typical of systems guys not to see the big picture. They're so in the habit of intimidating users that it never occurs to them that they're supposed to anticipate user errors and head them off before they occur.

[Codeine]

26. Heh heh. "Staff"

[ebayfool]

33. snarf!

:spank: :spank: :spank:

[Newest Reality]

4. That just underscores

U.G. Krishnamurti's, (the ANTI-guru) point of view that the mind, (that great and enduring shibboleth) is about nothing more than oneupmanship.

You can get away with saying, "Fuck God!", or,"Screw Buddha", or whatever, better than you can do with challenging the mind itself. You really stand to be subjected to the new inquisition when it comes to that. Yet, isn't both strange and revealing in itself.

The mind is a tool that the possessor of the tool has come to identify itself and the rest of its experience with. That's going to sound counter-intuitive, (as it should) and I know I should not even bring it up here because it posits a thesis that requires endless responses in order to put it into a perspective that does not allow the concept to seem ridiculous and inane.

So, I won't leave you with the correlation of a transformation of brute, physical force, (I am stronger than you so, what part of this pain can't you understand in that) with a mind doing gymnastics on your brain, (as any form of mental hubris implies in an exchange of one form of dominance over another) but I will leave you with a question that you may want to consider about what the mind is and what it does. Is it the ultimate reality and have those who have mastered only its intellectual, philosophical and rational aspects really surpassed us all? Do they see the Sword of Damocles that each new innovation that science and technology hang over our heads as we are sold, yet another, way to a better life?

Is it at all possible that we can put the mind in an arena with the rest of the eyes that humanity has looked through over the ages? It is useful, it has its place, and yet, something is wrong and something is missing, no matter how we cling to that aspect of our being.

Intellectuals may not like my perspective and I would hope that it would, at least, leave them to argue the point and even question the ultimatum that mind presents. The East has other viewpoints that, when considered carefully, point to something else for the mind was a tool and a factor, but by no means was it an ultimate factor in our condition. I am not suggesting spirituality or philosophy are anything more than mere aspects of the functions of mind, in this respect.

If that sounds like a riddle or you can't make sense of it, that's fine. I am merely a pseudo-intellectual throwing out my understanding and ideas. They may mean nothing. If so, that's alright. If not, then what? It is odd to spend so many years pouring over all that we have thought and believed to come to something that many would find curious, odd, or even offensive to their own, current, culturally induced viewpoints. Maybe that's the point?

My understanding is how I function as an organic being. Is that the way you work, too? It seems that, once we can comprehend what mind is and how it functions, then, something might actually happen. What that happening means to you is then the point. Otherwise, it seems we are going to be on the very same trajectory for an indefinite period of time, but we can imagine or hope that somehow, it is essentially different because, well, we are being told it is, even by the brightest minds, for whatever reason those minds inform our own.

[Electric Monk]

6. I think the pineal gland is vastly underrated

fwiw

[REP]

5. It wasn't a simple mistake. It was a bit more than that.

It started with a bunch of assumptions that were false and tacked a legal theory onto it. It might have wiser to read how the technology in question works, or ask how it works, before making assertions.

[SoDesuKa]

7. Blaming the User

It's an old story. A program has a knowable hazard and if the user isn't sufficiently sophisticated, he falls into a trap. The hazard in the Weiner case seems to be the positioning of buttons such that one button keeps the conversation quiet; and a near-by button sends it out to the whole world, with horrific results.

Although you can argue that the user should have known better, this user didn't. Weiner loses his job and we hear, It's all his fault! He didn't read the documentation! He should have asked somebody about how the program works!

The discussion really ought to revolve around ways to keep program hazards from ruining people's careers. That would be humane, and forgiving. Instead the cost of Weiner's career is written off as his own fault. I relate it to the indifference of the technicians and programmers responsible for mistakes that drones make in Afghanistan. Just part of life, they tell us. Take your silly-ass problem down the hall.

[Rebubula]

29. I do not know how all programs work.

However, I do know that putting a picture of your junk on the Internet is stupid.

Very stupid.


And then there is the lying - how are you going to blame the IT staff for that???

[dorkulon]

8. Nobody was particularly harsh with you from what I saw.

I think you just don't like being wrong.

[SoDesuKa]

10. Techno Guys Are Still Shirking Blame

After a helicopter crash costing people their lives the Board of Inquiry interviews involved, including the engineers who designed the helicopter. These engineers are generally willing to acknowledge responsibility for placing buttons in such a way that a pilot attempting one maneuver would inadvertently execute another.

It emerges now that buttone on the telephone device that Weiner used were so close together that one could be easily mistaken for the other, with horrific consequences for Weiner's career. One button kept the incriminating pictures in a private space, while the other sent them out into the wide world.

I'd like to hear some of the techno guys point fingers of blame on the boneheaded system design that resulted in Weiner's career crash. We're always hearing about users and user mistakes. It's time that systems guys manned up to their own failures.

[dorkulon]

14. It's amazing the logical contortions some people will make

to avoid responsibility for their actions. Or someone else's, apparently.

[SoDesuKa]

18. Logical Controtions

Chris Lee, NY-26, was forced to resign after pictures of him naked from the waist up got out. I would think that other members of the House of Representatives would have taken note of that fact. Perhaps some of them even sought advice on how to protect themselves from simiilar humiliation.

That's just what occurs to me off the top of my head. The House of Representatives isn't that big, and the Chris Lee resignation was an important story, one that became even more important after the seat went to the Democrats. Some of this had to have impacted people around Anthony Weiner.



Chris Lee, Former Member of Congress

[dorkulon]

20. And?

Do you think CHris Lee just hit the wrong button? Or do you think maybe both Lee and Weiner get off on risky behavior?

[gkhouston]

31. I looked all over my cellphone. It didn't have a "nekkid picture" button.

Time for an upgrade. :9

[SoDesuKa]

44. User Errors

If a guy can lose his job over hitting the wrong key, the software should make sure this mistake isn't easily made. Weiner apparently didn't realize that software marketed to teenagers isn't failsafe enough to be used by grownups with real responsibilities.

Too bad for him, you say. That's a pretty cavalier attitude. Q.E.D.

[fishwax]

21. all the more reason that perhaps Weiner should have exercised a bit more discretion

[snooper2]

24. I love how you use the whole "techno gouys" lingo

:rofl:


If it wasn't for the frigging techno guys I never would have forwarded that picture to granny!


Damn techno guys struck again. I was trying to buy my hemorrhoidal suppositories under cover by using the self-service checkout and it wouldn't ring up. Had to have a teller come over and she snickered! Damn techno guys! :rofl:

[tblue37]

40. I see that sort of thing on DU these days when people complain

that they meant to hit "rec" but accidentally unrecced instead. The buttons are too close together.

[SoDesuKa]

42. Inept Comparison

The difference between rec and unrec is of no consequence. However, the difference between sending out a sensitive file to the whole world as opposed to a few selected individuals can be catastrophic.

You don't sound very forgiving of user errors. That's pretty much what my original post was about.

[tblue37]

43. Um, how does my pointing out that such mistakes even occur on DU because of awkward system design

translate into my not being very forgiving of user error? Do you bother to read responses, or do you just repeat your argument over and over again? I was defending part of your point. Sheesh.

Regardless of the difference in damage, the point is the same: flawed design makes user error inevitable--not all the time, but sometimes.

Many books have been written about this topic.

[SoDesuKa]

45. Serious Question

Are you asking this as a serious question? The difference between a rec and and an unrec is of trivial consequence. There's very little at stake.

However, when Weiner hit the wrong button releasing sensitive files to 50,000 people instead of 5 or 6 people, he embarrasses his party, his wife and himself, and he may lose his job. It's a catastrophic error.

[tblue37]

46. Oh, for crying out loud! The point is that system design is often

awkward and counterintuitive, so that even when someone is quite familiar with an engineered system--whether software or any other sort of thing--it is not a question of if but when a user will make a mistake. Sometimes the unfortunate outcome is minor, sometimes catastrophic, but if the design is flawed, a user failure is inevitable at some point.

One problem is that those who do the designing are often of a highly technical mindset, so they do not see the technology the way the normal user--even one who is quite familiar with the technology--sees it and uses it. Thus they do not build in fail-safes to protect the user from easily foreseeable errors.

For example, the controls for many stovetop burners are arranged counterintuitively, so that the dial that controls each individual burner is not the one the mind subconsciously associates with that specific burner. After using a stove for a long time, the cook assumes she knows exactly which burner is managed by which dial, but we tend to do familiar tasks with half our attention (or less), especially these days when we all multitask. As a result, in a moment of carelessness or inattention even the experienced user of that particular stove might turn on the dial for the wrong burner, and then fail to realize she has done so until she smells something burning. Sometimes the cook turns the burner on a relatively low heat and then steps out for a short errand, only to come home to a potentially catastrophic kitchen fire.

In such a case, the outcome might be minor: you smell something burning slightly and catch the error with no major damage; or it might be major: the fire spreads and you suffer thousands of dollars in damage, or maybe a complete house fire in which a family pet or even a vulnerable person dies. Whether the outcome is minor or major, the underlying problem is the same: a technological system was designed in a way that does not foresee and protect against easily foreseeable user error.

The people arguing against you are insisting that you are trying to say Weiner is not to blame for his own stupidity in sending his lewd pictures and messages to people he doesn’t know—and who could be anyone at all (of course he is to blame for doing something so dumb), so they are ignoring the point you are making about a system with such a flawed design that some users will inevitably make mistakes, and some of those mistakes will have catastrophic consequences.

People on this thread are claiming that you think Weiner is not to blame for irresponsibly engaging in sex tweets and sending lewd pictures when he had no way of knowing whom he was actually corresponding with. They also claim that you don’t think Weiner was foolish for assuming that nothing inappropriate that he sent out would ever be leaked in some way. But of course you never said anything of the sort. You were just saying that the mistake he made—hitting the wrong button—was so easy to make that it was inevitable that some users would make it, and that when such an easily identifiable design flaw, which makes certain kinds of mistakes a matter of when not if, can have such catastrophic results, the engineers should correct such designs in advance by building in fail-safes, before people’s lives are ruined.

You were also saying that people in important, powerful positions usually have “people,” advisors of the sort whose job is to buffer their boss from easily foreseeable career-threatening situations. (I think you vastly overestimate the layers of protection around relatively low-level politicians, but I understand what you are trying to say.)

But just as those other posters keep ignoring what you are saying and claiming that you are saying something quite different, YOU keep ignoring what I am saying an acting like I am saying something completely different.

YOU are ignoring my point, which is that your argument about design flaws is not wrong, and anyone who posts on DU can see such a design flaw in action almost every day. A small but constantly seen example of the ease with which such a mistake can be made is simply proof that such mistakes are so easy to make that they will inevitably occur, and they are so easy to foresee that they should be corrected at the design stage. BUT (Pay attention now) It is not an attempt to equate the ruinous effects of Weiner’s mistake with the insignificant consequences of hitting the wrong button when trying to rec a post on DU.

[SoDesuKa]

48. Sidetrack

The discussion got sidetracked a bit when I was forced to address the reality that user errors aren't necessarily dumb mistakes, although that's a legitimate point in itself. My original point was about techno-bullies who automatically blame the user for unintended consequences. It's a separate issue, not necessarily the case of programmers claiming their work product is self-documenting, the way programmers do. It's more of a smarty-pants thing than the conflicts that naturally arise between system designers and system consumers.

Techno-bullies are the people Gilbert and Sullivan describe in The Mikado:

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs —
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs —
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat —
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like that —
And all third persons who on spoiling tête-á-têtes insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!

http://lyrics.wikia.com/Gilbert_And_Sullivan:As_Some_Day_It_May_Happen

The people I'm referring to are children who are up on dates and floor you with them flat. These are the people who are up on Twitter - or copy machines - or blenders - or four-speed transmissions - who are oh-so-condescending to people who aren't. These are the people I call techno-bullies, people I consider to be way-y-y-y too unforgiving. I've got them on my list; they never would be missed. The Weiner STORY is bringing them out in droves from their hideouts. I told you so! I told you so!



Our great Mikado, virtuous man
When he to rule our land began
Resolved to try a plan whereby
Young men might best be steadied.

So he decreed with words succinct
That all who flirted, leered or winked
Unless connubially linked
Should forthwith be beheaded . . .

[bhikkhu]

9. Recommended reading: "Being Wrong"

http://www.amazon.com/Being-Wrong-Adventures-Margin-Error/dp/0061176044

...and that's meant without the slightest bit of sarcasm or snark - its just a very well written and readable book that runs circles around the whole issue, and other more local issues here.

[SoDesuKa]

12. Who's Working for Whom?

A Congressman loses his career because he mistakenly presses the wrong button on a piece of hardware instead of the right button located nearby. The systems guys blame the Congressman.

Imagine a lapse in confidentiality occurring in fields other than politics. Suppose a doctor mistakenly hit Enter when he should have pressed Delete, with calamitous results. Would everybody be so willing to give the systems guys a pass?

Or if a stockbroker accidentally hits Buy instead of Sell, would everybody excuse the systems guys for the absence of a fail check?

Systmes guys who work for politicians are shirking blame. They work for the politician, and they're supposed to see that the Congressman or Governor's ass is covered at all times. Instead we're hearing the systems guys falling all over Weiner.

[ebayfool]

15. I just know I shouldn't ask, but who are these system guys you keep blaming?

He used a PHONE to tweet. No system guys, just him. Why do you insist it's gotta be the fault of some employee somewhere, somehow?

T-E-L-E-P-H-O-N-E

Not complicated by any rational measure - point & dial! Mebbe he had his mind on something else (don't even want to go there!). But puhleeze, quit trying to shift this shit on 'system guys'.

Okay. I'm sorry I asked ... but I couldn't take it no more! :banghead: :banghead:

[dorkulon]

16. No, it's the cell phone's fault

all those confusing buttons! This scandal is anything but Weiner's own responsibility, of course!

:crazy:

[SoDesuKa]

38. Error-Conducive Software

Software that is conducive to user errors can't be considered good software, especially if the user's errors cause the kinds of catastrophic consequences this one did. When kids use Twitter and they make a mistake, it's no big deal. However, when a Congressman pressed the wrong button sending career-ruinous files out to the internet, it's calamitous. That's bad software.

Doesn't sound like you're particularly forgiving of user mistakes. That was the point of my original post.

[SoDesuKa]

17. Weiner Wasn't Given Any Warnings

I assume there are guys who advise Congressmen on software - which softwares are safe to use, and which ones are unsafe for confidential communications. Perhaps this is a heroic assumption that Congressmen aren't left to their own devices, especially not after Chris Lee was forced to resign in NY-26.

The general heading for people who have jobs as software advisors is systems guys. Remember I'm only assuming they exist in and around Congress. My reason for this suspicion is that there is a known downside to using unsafe software, and that systems guys - there's that term again - would be up on it.

Now that Weiner's career is circling the drain, I think it's fair to ask who let it happen. Somebody whose job it is to steer these guys away from career-hazardous software was apparently not doing their job.

Again, I'm relying on my belief that such people exist. I could be quite wrong about this. Indeed, the evidence from both the Chris Lee case and the Weiner case is that nobody's minding the store. At least there were people around Clinton trying to keep him from being career-destructive. Maybe there aren't such people to advise Congressmen, but even if there are, they're ignorant.

[KatyMan]

27. " I think it's fair to ask who let it happen"

Wiener did. He's not 80 years old. He knows the technology he's using. Kids use it. He fucked up.

[SoDesuKa]

37. Q.E.D.

Thank you for this post which illustrates the very attitude I was trying to describe. My original suggestion was that software design should anticipate user errors. If it doesn't, it's bad software. If it allows errors that jeopardize the user's career, it's atrociously bad software.

You're not very forgiving of mistakes, are you? That's what I was getting at.

[bhikkhu]

19. I haven't read a single Weiner story

He's not my representative, and the whole range of likely responses - laughing at stupidity, condescension at someone's incapacity, indignation at hypocrisy, etc - don't interest me enough to get involved in the story.

...just chimed in to recommend a relevant book - one of the best I have read this year.

[snooper2]

25. Hey now, is it "Systems" or "Techno" guy...I was cool with techno guy

systems guy sounds kind of lame...


Can we at least stick with one so I don't get confused?

[Morning Dew]

22. Obviously the technology on his phone wasn't changing every day.

He had previously sent messages and photos to people without it being visible to all of twitterdom.

So, he screwed up, but it wasn't because his buttons mysteriously changed functions on him when he wasn't looking.

[Rebubula]

28. This is the most awesome thread of all Weiners...

...seriously - the best!

So...because YOU do not understand technology very well - we should excuse someone for sending pictures of his dick to the world?

The Congressman knew just what he was doing.

The gymnastics to blame someone other than him is amazing - NOW...you take the cake by placing the blame on low paid IT staffers who did not want this dork about sending pictures of his dork on the Internet.


The sex part is between the Congressman and his (likely to be) former wife. I could not care less about that.

What I care about is trust and the belief that the person that is elected to do our bidding has good decision making skills. Lying to the world and putting pictures of your junk on the Internet kills both of those requirements.


I am a person of questionable morals and ideals - However, is it wrong to expect the people that are elected to serve our nation be a little better than me?

[dorkulon]

35. I agree, this is the best straw-grasping I've seen yet.

Damn techno guys!

[SoDesuKa]

41. Bad Software

Software that doesn't anticipate user errors is bad software. Software that allows calamitous errors is atrociously bad software. Weiner's mistake was in thinking that software that's appropriate for high schoolers could be adapted by grown-ups with real responsibilities.

Doesn't sound like you think users should be protected from their own errors. That's a pretty unforgiving attitude, IMO.

[Morning Dew]

47. Some asshat put my brake pedal right next to the gas pedal -

talk about your calamitous errors!

[SoDesuKa]

49. Unsafe At Any Speed

I hope you're not suggesting that we stop blaming manufacturers for injuries caused by design flaws in their products. Y'know, that idea is out there. They call it tort reform but it really might be called the Blame The Victim Act.



1960 Chevy Corvair -
Time Magazine's "Worst of All Time"

[namahage]

30. Dammit. I meant to click "Unrec" instead of "Rec."

Why didn't Skinner put the Unrec and Rec links farther away?

And why didn't any of you tell me this could happen? Sure, I guess I could find a post where people mistakenly rec'd or unrec'd based on a wrong click, which would have made me be more careful...sure, I've usually gotten it right, and maybe today I just slipped...

[ebayfool]

32. Bwahahaha! It were'nt yur fault - the systems guys shoulda warned ya ...

it's THEIR fault for not saving you from your own unsuspectin' self!

(pssst - my systems guy warned me, so I unrec'ed for both of us!)

[Sentath]

34. Ha, Cancelled ( ;

Along with the kick. I want this argument out in the open and discussed, even if it needs to be moved to one of the technology interest groups.

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. You pontificated about the legalities of the matter without understand a whit of the technology

if you ask me, you got off pretty light.

An hour of research might have saved you looking foolish. Instead you posted an ASCII kitten straight from 1995.

[SoDesuKa]

51. Collision Course

With all the damaging information being collected about us in compliance with the Patriot Act - and other snoop-enabling legislation - eventually we are going to be governed by blackmail victims. Technology is going in only one direction, that is, we're not headed back to a time when things were not being recorded.

If you're OK with burning a lecher at the stake every year or so as the price of doing business, I don't think you understand the threat. Online sex isn't going away, nor are efforts to track what people are up to in their own private lives.



It's His Own Fault

[Dreamer Tatum]

52. That is an utterly different argument from what got you ridiculed

but I don't blame you for trying to move the goalposts.