It's been a busy couple of weeks so I've neglected this blog for a bit. So, where to begin?
Well, I lost my job. That seems like it might be the big one.
What happened? Well suffice it to say my temper got the best of me in a minor conflict with a coworker. I said something that I immediately regretted saying. After all was said and done and I'd taken a few minutes to calm down I went and apologized to said coworker. I genuinely felt bad as I'd crossed a line. We spoke for a moment or two and all was well. My coworker was fine, and I think appreciated the apology. All over and done with right? Well not quite.
My manager had overheard the comment in question and decided to make a bigger issue of it than it was. I was sent home for the day, and told not to come in the next day. I went to a meeting with my manager and the HR person that following Monday where they advised me I was being terminated without cause. The upside is that because it was without cause (swearing at your coworker is not sufficient grounds to dismiss someone in NB) I received 2 weeks pay as severance. Also, thanks to the letter I was given stating specifically that my termination was without cause, I'm essentially guaranteed employment insurance benefits. So, an 11 month government sponsored vacation.
I enjoyed my job. I really did. Despite the complaining and bitching I often did about it, at the end of the day it was a pretty good job. The inter office politics however were a nightmare. The entire system is set up to safeguard the jobs of management while pitting the individual employees against each other. Now I'm not going to go on a rant about it but suffice it to say that not having to return to that environment has as many pros as cons.
Speaking of pros, as a result of my new found free time, I was able to make time to take up a friends offer to fly out to Edmonton and drive all the way back to NB with him. He recently transferred from his job out there to one in New Brunswick and his employer (who shall remain nameless) paid him a very healthy sum of money to move. This resulted in me getting my flight, accommodations and meals covered for the duration of the trip. So it was essentially a free trip. It was a loooong drive as one might imagine but overall it was an amazing experience. I'll write more about it in a later post, and I've even got some videos and pictures from the trip to share.
The other big news recently is that my dog is ill. I've known for a few months now that there was something wrong with him. He's started sleeping a lot more than normal, and just doesn't have the energy he used to. Now, he's 13 years old or so which is remarkably old for a Sheppard, but it was more than that. A few months ago he started limping on his back left leg. I didn't think much of it at first as he's an old dog and I figured maybe he just twisted his leg or something. Not the case.
After a while it became apparent that his back knee (which I've learned is called a hock) began to swell. Over the course of a few weeks it became apparent that there was a tumor or something else there. So, off to the vet he went as soon as I got back from my trip. Apparently TJ has cancer, a common form of it for older animals as well. The prognosis was not good. I could either have the leg amputated or have him put to sleep.
I'm torn on this.. I don't want to be without my best friend but he's obviously in pain. Amputating his leg would leave him recovering from the surgery for months and let's be honest, at his age he doesn't have many of those left. It would also be a very pricey prospect to give him a few more months that more than likely would be pain filled. So I've made the decision to put him to sleep. Making the decision wasn't as difficult as I'd have thought, but I'm having the hardest time calling the vet to make the appointment.. I guess so long as there's no appointment it doesn't seem as real and it's a little easier to deal with. I'll call sometime this week...
So, that's my life in a nutshell over the last couple of weeks. I'll be posting more details about the Great Canadian Cross Country Cougar Hunt (don't ask) shortly.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Vic Toews responds with a generic email..
In signing up for the link I posted earlier this week, an automated email is sent to the parliamentary email address of Vic Toews. His office has decided to respond with a generic email. I can understand why as they've probably received thousands of the same email. Below is the email I received, and my reply.
From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:07:21 -0500
Subject: Stop Online Spying
To: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.
Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.
We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.
Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.
What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.
For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.
Sincerely,
Vic Toews
Member of Parliament for Provencher
Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.
Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.
Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.
Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.
Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.
Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.
My Reply:
Dear Mr. Toews,
From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:07:21 -0500
Subject: Stop Online Spying
To: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.
Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.
We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.
Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.
What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.
For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.
Sincerely,
Vic Toews
Member of Parliament for Provencher
Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.
Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.
Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.
Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.
Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.
Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.
My Reply:
Dear Mr. Toews,
Thank you for your reply. I would like to address some of the inaccurate talking points you seem to have provided me with:
"This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities. "
While the information provided to the authorities by the ISP in question would not contain email or content information, it would provide the authorities with the information needed to access such information. Your above statement is akin to saying that while the provider didn't give the house to the police, they did give them the keys to the front door. Further, you've left out some information that would be provided, such as the MAC address of communications devices within the household in question. This is a very important piece of information with regards to intercepting and monitoring internet traffic.
If the legislation did not provide this type of information than it would be of no assistance in combating illegal activities in the first place.
"As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us."
No, this legislation does not provide any safety measures to the Canadian public, and actually puts Canadians at risk of being victimized by any abuses of these new powers. It removes judicial oversight entirely when monitoring the private communications of Canadian citizens. It presumes that Canadian law enforcement officials are incapable of making errors. Saying that the activities will periodically be audited by the various civilian privacy commissions etc.. is absolutely not on par with judicial oversight. The government is free to abide by privacy commission findings as it sees fit. Judicial oversight is not so flexible and presents real oversight and monitoring for abuse of these new powers.
"The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public."
Again, you misrepresent the importance of the information that could be obtained. To liken it to phone book information is beyond inaccurate and is intellectually dishonest at best. While I believe there are a large percentage of Canadians who do not have a firm grasp of the technological aspect of this information or the ramifications of having this information collected by the government, please do not forget that there is a healthy portion of the population that understands the difference between how you are representing this information, and the truth.
"This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians."
Nor will the legislation prevent or prohibit either of those parties from doing so. In fact, it would strike me as common sense that once that information has been retrieved, the police or whatever other law enforcement agency has requested it are not likely to destroy it once it has been obtained. This would involve keeping a record of that information, why it was requested, who it relates to etc.. in perpetuity whether that person has been convicted of a criminal offense or not. Sounds an awful like like a database of information collected on Canadians to me.
"Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access."
Apologies for my bluntness Mr. Toews, but this statement is just out and out false. While the existing legislation is troubling with regards to the handling of our private information, the ISPs do currently have the right to refuse to hand over that information if they don't feel it's being requested in a legitimate investigation. This forces the authorities to seek a warrant from a court to obtain the information as it should. The proposed legislation would force the access providers not only to provide that information without cause, without warrant to ANY law enforcement official who requests it, but it would prevent the provider from even notifying the customer that the information has been requested. It provides a mechanism that enables Canadian law enforcement officials to commit what is essentially an illegal search and seizure with no court oversight at all. The potential for abuse in such a situation is clear.
While your vigorous rhetoric suggests that anyone who opposes this legislation is in league with child predators, I truly believe that one does not become elected to Parliament without having a basic understanding of reality. I believe that you know the difference between your inappropriate comments to detractors and the reality of their opposition to this bill. I believe that you understand exactly what they are questioning and further to that, I believe that you realize they are making very valid and important points. I think it's that realization on your part that has led you to make such comments as likening another honorable member of parliament to a child predator. You have no intellectual justification for supporting this bill so like a child on the schoolyard you've debased yourself and our system of government by resorting to name calling.
Mr. Toews, I don't doubt your sincerity in opposing child predators just as I don't doubt your desire to protect Canadians. What I doubt with all of my convictions is your openness and honesty with regards to a piece of legislation that belongs in a 1960s Soviet government and not in Canada's free and open government. Our right to question our leaders and elected officials as is being done with yourself is a sacred and fundamental part of our society. You've not only shamed yourself by your reaction to opposition recently, but you've held Canada up as a shining example that even the most free of societies can be dragged down to the gutters by ego and self worship.
Sincerely,
Andrew OMIT
A former lifelong Conservative.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Follow up to yesterdays post
I'm not one to hop on the online petition bandwagon, but this one is special. Open Media is hosting a petition of sorts to voice your opposition to bill C-30. Take a few seconds out of your day and tell the idiots in Ottawa that your right to privacy is not something you're willing to give up.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Parliament strikes again!
Recently MP Vick Toews has been vigorously pushing a piece of legislation in parliament that would give law enforcement the power to request private information from ISPs about it's customers internet habits. It would give police the ability to go to an ISP and request the information for a specific person, that information would include ip addresses, browsing habits etc. In a nutshell, the police would be able to look at an individuals information and be able to see what websites they've visited, what files they've downloaded and perhaps even read that persons emails. The idea is to make it easier to investigate serious criminal offenses such as child pornography and terrorism.
While extreme, I can see the benefit something like this would have. It could make it much easier to investigate, convict or stop child predators. It would provide a wealth of intelligence on suspected terrorists. There are a lot of situations where this type of information could justifiably be used by law enforcement. Here's the thing though; they can already do that.
The only significant difference this bill would make, is that law enforcement would now be free to gain access to that information without a warrant. The court wouldn't be involved at any point prior to an actual charge being laid.
I don't think I can properly underscore how serious a violation of Canadian rights this is. It is literally the same thing as the police coming to your home while you're at work and rifling through your possessions without a warrant. They show up, the landlord lets them in, and they're free to look at everything in your home.
The reaction from opposition was predictable, they questioned the privacy concerns, and the obvious breach of Canadian rights in a session of parliament. Mr. Toews, not content to simply say it was needed, accused the opposition of "standing with the child predators". Forget the outright disgust of using such an accusation at all, he did so in the house of commons. The most sacred room in Canadian government. He accused a member of parliament of supporting child predators because he rose an objection to the violation of our rights as Citizens of this country.
Mr. Toews should resign. It's as simple as that. But wait! He's not done yet. Canadians weren't very happy with the proposition of any police officer who felt like it, going to an ISP and getting a list of all the twisted and perverted porn they've been watching lately (you really don't want to know..) so they started a Twitter campaign. Sending the most mundane tweets about their daily lives with the hashtag #TellVicEverything. The reasoning is that he wants our personal privacy rights to be abolished, so we might as well just tell him everything up front.
Toews recently did an interview in which he stated that he wasn't aware of the section in the bill that would allow for ANY police officer to make this request for information.
Link to the interview here
So this tells us that one of two things has happened:
1. A member of parliament vigorously pushed and defended a bill that would abolish a large portion of Canadian citizens' right to privacy, and remove judicial oversight in law enforcement investigations. He defended the bill so vigorously as to essentially accuse another MP of being a child pornographer. He did all of this WITHOUT READING THE DAMN BILL!
or:
2. A member of parliament vigorously pushed and defended a bill that he KNEW would abolish Canadian privacy rights and remove judicial oversight from police investigations and now he's backpedaling and trying to deny the whole thing by saying "he wasn't aware".
These are quite literally the only two possible outcomes. Either he was completely and totally incompetent in a situation where such incompetence can curtail the rights of Canadian citizens, or he was complicit in attempting to curtail those rights.
Either option is far beyond disgusting. The mans behavior in parliament alone should have him out on his backside. Add to that the utter incompetence, or the complicity with regards to severely damaging the rights of Canadian citizens (not sure which one it is yet, evil or stupid?) and Vic Toews should be submitting his resignation.
He doesn't deserve to cast his eyes on the house of commons, to say nothing of participating in it.
Mr. Toews, I've been a life long Conservative voter. The NDP, Liberals and Green Party should be pretty pleased with you, because I, like many other life long Conservatives have now become an undecided voter.
Thanks for that.
While extreme, I can see the benefit something like this would have. It could make it much easier to investigate, convict or stop child predators. It would provide a wealth of intelligence on suspected terrorists. There are a lot of situations where this type of information could justifiably be used by law enforcement. Here's the thing though; they can already do that.
The only significant difference this bill would make, is that law enforcement would now be free to gain access to that information without a warrant. The court wouldn't be involved at any point prior to an actual charge being laid.
I don't think I can properly underscore how serious a violation of Canadian rights this is. It is literally the same thing as the police coming to your home while you're at work and rifling through your possessions without a warrant. They show up, the landlord lets them in, and they're free to look at everything in your home.
The reaction from opposition was predictable, they questioned the privacy concerns, and the obvious breach of Canadian rights in a session of parliament. Mr. Toews, not content to simply say it was needed, accused the opposition of "standing with the child predators". Forget the outright disgust of using such an accusation at all, he did so in the house of commons. The most sacred room in Canadian government. He accused a member of parliament of supporting child predators because he rose an objection to the violation of our rights as Citizens of this country.
Mr. Toews should resign. It's as simple as that. But wait! He's not done yet. Canadians weren't very happy with the proposition of any police officer who felt like it, going to an ISP and getting a list of all the twisted and perverted porn they've been watching lately (you really don't want to know..) so they started a Twitter campaign. Sending the most mundane tweets about their daily lives with the hashtag #TellVicEverything. The reasoning is that he wants our personal privacy rights to be abolished, so we might as well just tell him everything up front.
Toews recently did an interview in which he stated that he wasn't aware of the section in the bill that would allow for ANY police officer to make this request for information.
Link to the interview here
So this tells us that one of two things has happened:
1. A member of parliament vigorously pushed and defended a bill that would abolish a large portion of Canadian citizens' right to privacy, and remove judicial oversight in law enforcement investigations. He defended the bill so vigorously as to essentially accuse another MP of being a child pornographer. He did all of this WITHOUT READING THE DAMN BILL!
or:
2. A member of parliament vigorously pushed and defended a bill that he KNEW would abolish Canadian privacy rights and remove judicial oversight from police investigations and now he's backpedaling and trying to deny the whole thing by saying "he wasn't aware".
These are quite literally the only two possible outcomes. Either he was completely and totally incompetent in a situation where such incompetence can curtail the rights of Canadian citizens, or he was complicit in attempting to curtail those rights.
Either option is far beyond disgusting. The mans behavior in parliament alone should have him out on his backside. Add to that the utter incompetence, or the complicity with regards to severely damaging the rights of Canadian citizens (not sure which one it is yet, evil or stupid?) and Vic Toews should be submitting his resignation.
He doesn't deserve to cast his eyes on the house of commons, to say nothing of participating in it.
Mr. Toews, I've been a life long Conservative voter. The NDP, Liberals and Green Party should be pretty pleased with you, because I, like many other life long Conservatives have now become an undecided voter.
Thanks for that.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
A little random meandering
I'm not entirely sure what's been up with me lately. I haven't been sleeping right, I'm cranky (well crankier) at work and have a lot less ambition to DO my work. I haven't been putting in any overtime hours so I don't think I'm burned out. When I do sleep I can't seem to get myself awake for hours after I get out of bed. I think perhaps I've been drinking too much lately, but even that I've cut out recently with little change. Meh, maybe it's just February.. Yeah, we'll blame it on February. It's like one giant string of Mondays all in a row.
I know this barely counts as a blog entry, but hell, there's maybe 3 people reading this on a regular basis and I'm one of em, so I'm not gonna worry about it.
Meh.
I know this barely counts as a blog entry, but hell, there's maybe 3 people reading this on a regular basis and I'm one of em, so I'm not gonna worry about it.
Meh.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Personal boundaries
I'm private. I've mentioned it before, I'm sure I have. Despite the fact that I've started blogging my random issues and thoughts publicly, I use Twitter and Facebook regularly and so on; I'm a private person.
I don't share every little detail of my personal life with all who happen to be on my Facebook friends list, when I do update a frustrated status it's usually a pretty generic "I hate Mondays" type comment. Of course, occasionally people will comment on such statuses and ask what's wrong. When that happens I don't follow it up with a detailed explanation telling everyone how this particular issue has unfolded. I keep the details to myself. I'm happy this way, and honestly I wish more people would do the same.
I don't go out socializing 4 times a week, in fact I rarely do. The most "outside socializing" I've had in the last two weeks has been a trip to the grocery store, and buying dog treats at Walmart. When I'm at work, I'm a little more social than normal, and in all honesty in order to do my job I need to be. None of this is to say I lack social skills, I'm actually quite adept at customer service jobs, more so than most I dare say. In fact, my previous position at work required me to speak to a wide array of customers, build working relationships with them and all that ensued. So I have the skills, I'm just a very private person. And like I said, I'm happy this way.
Now. That leads to my random topic of the day. Touching. I hate it. It's not that I feel violated when someone puts their hand on my shoulder while I show them something at my desk, I just don't like the experience. I work in an office where sexual harassment and other such things are taken with a common sense attitude. Off color jokes are constantly made, in fact I make them myself from time to time, and nobody takes it out of proportion. The environment is very relaxed. In our day to day work life there are much bigger stresses to worry about than someone telling a dick joke in the smoking area, and most everyone seems to agree. It's a nice way to handle it. Usually when someone does cross the line, they either recognize that immediately or it's politely pointed out to them so they can avoid the same mistake later.
That being said, there are one or two colleagues of mine who don't seem to appreciate my need to have my personal space respected. Again, I'm private, and that desire for privacy extends to the physical area around me. I'm not saying that I need all people to stand 6 feet away from me at all times, just don't crowd me. I'm sure most can understand what I mean.
One coworker in particular seems to feel the need to poke at me. Literally, poke me in the shoulder or other such playful (not sexual) behavior. I know to this person it seems like it's funny, particularly because each physical contact is met with my very annoyed "Don't touch me". Now the coworker in question is a fantastic person. Very nice, helpful when possible etc.. it's not someone I dislike and you have no idea how many of THOSE people I work with.
But this person just can't seem to understand that I'm not kidding when I say don't touch me. I don't mean it in a negative way, I don't mean to say that it's inappropriate behavior, I just mean to say Don't Touch Me! I don't have a phobia of physical contact, I don't feel assaulted or violated. I don't feel "dirty" or "unclean". I just don't have the need to be touched by anyone who isn't in that very small circle of people I consider to be trusted friends. There are very few people I consider to be in that circle, I can count them on one hand. From one of those people, a pat on the back, a poke in the arm or even a light smack on the back of the head when I'm being difficult.. I can handle that. These people are a welcome presence in my personal space. First, because I trust them, second, because to an extent, they understand my boundaries and respect them. These people have earned the right to move a little beyond my boundaries from time to time.
Now, my coworkers actions will continue to happen because I don't see the need to make a formal complaint about it. That would be way out of proportion as the coworker in question doesn't mean any harm, and probably doesn't understand how much it truly bothers me. Were I to explain it to the person, they would no doubt either feel horrible for it (which believe it or not I would't want them to feel) or laugh it off as me being cranky (which is often the case when I grumble at work).
I guess my point for anyone reading is simply this. When someone expresses a need for personal boundaries, most times they are very serious about it. When you have a personality like mine, and boundaries such as mine, those limits are an ingrained part of who you are as a person, and they need to be respected.
I understand that not everyone shares that particular need. I understand that those of you without that need don't "get it". The point is, it's not important that you understand it, or get it, or even know why I have those boundaries. What's important, is that you understand the boundaries are there and for no other reason than that, don't fucking touch me!
I don't share every little detail of my personal life with all who happen to be on my Facebook friends list, when I do update a frustrated status it's usually a pretty generic "I hate Mondays" type comment. Of course, occasionally people will comment on such statuses and ask what's wrong. When that happens I don't follow it up with a detailed explanation telling everyone how this particular issue has unfolded. I keep the details to myself. I'm happy this way, and honestly I wish more people would do the same.
I don't go out socializing 4 times a week, in fact I rarely do. The most "outside socializing" I've had in the last two weeks has been a trip to the grocery store, and buying dog treats at Walmart. When I'm at work, I'm a little more social than normal, and in all honesty in order to do my job I need to be. None of this is to say I lack social skills, I'm actually quite adept at customer service jobs, more so than most I dare say. In fact, my previous position at work required me to speak to a wide array of customers, build working relationships with them and all that ensued. So I have the skills, I'm just a very private person. And like I said, I'm happy this way.
Now. That leads to my random topic of the day. Touching. I hate it. It's not that I feel violated when someone puts their hand on my shoulder while I show them something at my desk, I just don't like the experience. I work in an office where sexual harassment and other such things are taken with a common sense attitude. Off color jokes are constantly made, in fact I make them myself from time to time, and nobody takes it out of proportion. The environment is very relaxed. In our day to day work life there are much bigger stresses to worry about than someone telling a dick joke in the smoking area, and most everyone seems to agree. It's a nice way to handle it. Usually when someone does cross the line, they either recognize that immediately or it's politely pointed out to them so they can avoid the same mistake later.
That being said, there are one or two colleagues of mine who don't seem to appreciate my need to have my personal space respected. Again, I'm private, and that desire for privacy extends to the physical area around me. I'm not saying that I need all people to stand 6 feet away from me at all times, just don't crowd me. I'm sure most can understand what I mean.
One coworker in particular seems to feel the need to poke at me. Literally, poke me in the shoulder or other such playful (not sexual) behavior. I know to this person it seems like it's funny, particularly because each physical contact is met with my very annoyed "Don't touch me". Now the coworker in question is a fantastic person. Very nice, helpful when possible etc.. it's not someone I dislike and you have no idea how many of THOSE people I work with.
But this person just can't seem to understand that I'm not kidding when I say don't touch me. I don't mean it in a negative way, I don't mean to say that it's inappropriate behavior, I just mean to say Don't Touch Me! I don't have a phobia of physical contact, I don't feel assaulted or violated. I don't feel "dirty" or "unclean". I just don't have the need to be touched by anyone who isn't in that very small circle of people I consider to be trusted friends. There are very few people I consider to be in that circle, I can count them on one hand. From one of those people, a pat on the back, a poke in the arm or even a light smack on the back of the head when I'm being difficult.. I can handle that. These people are a welcome presence in my personal space. First, because I trust them, second, because to an extent, they understand my boundaries and respect them. These people have earned the right to move a little beyond my boundaries from time to time.
Now, my coworkers actions will continue to happen because I don't see the need to make a formal complaint about it. That would be way out of proportion as the coworker in question doesn't mean any harm, and probably doesn't understand how much it truly bothers me. Were I to explain it to the person, they would no doubt either feel horrible for it (which believe it or not I would't want them to feel) or laugh it off as me being cranky (which is often the case when I grumble at work).
I guess my point for anyone reading is simply this. When someone expresses a need for personal boundaries, most times they are very serious about it. When you have a personality like mine, and boundaries such as mine, those limits are an ingrained part of who you are as a person, and they need to be respected.
I understand that not everyone shares that particular need. I understand that those of you without that need don't "get it". The point is, it's not important that you understand it, or get it, or even know why I have those boundaries. What's important, is that you understand the boundaries are there and for no other reason than that, don't fucking touch me!
Monday, January 30, 2012
And even when you lay it out, step by step...
I was at work today as I often am on a Monday. And I was in the smoking area outside and somehow the topic of last nights post came up. Not that a lot of people in my immediate social circle are aware that I blog, but somehow someone brought it up.
The conversation was about SOPA. And my previous post about how people are unaware of the impending Canadian version was accurate, people 1. Have no idea what Bill C-11 is or have never heard of it, or 2. Don't understand the implications of the bill.
So I reiterated my explanation, gave a brief summary of what the bill could allow large companies to do, and how the process could be abused. I explained, if I had a blog (hypothetically right?) in which I discussed lollipops (for the record I hate the things..) and some big wig at Rogers decided for whatever petty reason that he doesn't like blogs about lollipops, he could have my blog removed.
I was met with looks of utter confusion..
I explained, all he had to do was file a complaint of copyright infringement against my blog.
"But it had nothing at all to do with Rogers.. what would that have to do with it?" were the assorted replies from my baffled co workers. And I explained to them, it would have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my blog. The fact is, that that executive would be able to make the complaint against my blog, a totally false claim, and the service provider who hosted my blog would be immediately obligated by law to remove it. No investigation, no proof (doesn't this sound familiar?) no nothing.
So the point was made. People were genuinely surprised by this. I can't fault them, because most of the people who were present were middle aged women who care little for technology (did I mention I work for a web hosting company?) and even less for politics. That's fine, I can understand that they were unaware of the proposed bill. And, after sufficient explanation they were seemingly as appalled by it as they should be (Though I'm certain they forgot the conversation moments later).
Well, one of the more tech savvy people in the building (he works in tech support, duh!) comes out to have a smoke. He's as close as I've ever come to meeting a real life hippy. It's not hard to tell after several minutes of conversation that he enjoys a little puff puff here and there, he enjoys long winded conversations about the most random of topics (I swear to God he tried to have a conversation about anal fissures one day..). He's just, a hippy. Well, he, as he does, immediately jumped into the conversation to which he knew nothing about. He does this quite often. People often avoid going out to smoke while he's there for fear of being railroaded into a pointless and rambling conversation. For the record, he means well and he's a friendly enough guy, but still. You all know someone like that.
But I digress..
So, I recapped what I was talking about. His response was as startling as it was moronic;
"They'll never control the internet."
I'm amazed. Utterly and thoroughly amazed. How could someone miss the point so entirely???
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT!!!
They WANT to control it. And this bill will let them do just that. The bill is a step by step instruction manual on how to limit freedom of expression online. I can't even begin to explain how incensed I am at the response. In fact, here I am several hours later at home, relaxing, having a beer, and I'm still vibrating just thinking about the utter IDIOCY of that statement.
People, wake the hell up. This is not one of those political things that "the activists" scream and moan about that actually makes no difference. This isn't PETA protesting the 30 seconds of video depicting mice in a documentary because it's cruel to the mice to use their likeness without permission. This isn't some over complicated political issue that isn't going to affect the middle and lower class.
This is an affront to our rights as citizens of this country. The lobbyists pushing this bill want nothing more than to be able to control what we are allowed to say online. That's the bottom line, that is exactly what they want. There is no exaggerating here. This isn't hyperbole. That is EXACTLY what they want, and the government is starting to see the benefit of that as well.
But hey, who gives a shit right? Cause: "They'll never control the internet man.."
The conversation was about SOPA. And my previous post about how people are unaware of the impending Canadian version was accurate, people 1. Have no idea what Bill C-11 is or have never heard of it, or 2. Don't understand the implications of the bill.
So I reiterated my explanation, gave a brief summary of what the bill could allow large companies to do, and how the process could be abused. I explained, if I had a blog (hypothetically right?) in which I discussed lollipops (for the record I hate the things..) and some big wig at Rogers decided for whatever petty reason that he doesn't like blogs about lollipops, he could have my blog removed.
I was met with looks of utter confusion..
I explained, all he had to do was file a complaint of copyright infringement against my blog.
"But it had nothing at all to do with Rogers.. what would that have to do with it?" were the assorted replies from my baffled co workers. And I explained to them, it would have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my blog. The fact is, that that executive would be able to make the complaint against my blog, a totally false claim, and the service provider who hosted my blog would be immediately obligated by law to remove it. No investigation, no proof (doesn't this sound familiar?) no nothing.
So the point was made. People were genuinely surprised by this. I can't fault them, because most of the people who were present were middle aged women who care little for technology (did I mention I work for a web hosting company?) and even less for politics. That's fine, I can understand that they were unaware of the proposed bill. And, after sufficient explanation they were seemingly as appalled by it as they should be (Though I'm certain they forgot the conversation moments later).
Well, one of the more tech savvy people in the building (he works in tech support, duh!) comes out to have a smoke. He's as close as I've ever come to meeting a real life hippy. It's not hard to tell after several minutes of conversation that he enjoys a little puff puff here and there, he enjoys long winded conversations about the most random of topics (I swear to God he tried to have a conversation about anal fissures one day..). He's just, a hippy. Well, he, as he does, immediately jumped into the conversation to which he knew nothing about. He does this quite often. People often avoid going out to smoke while he's there for fear of being railroaded into a pointless and rambling conversation. For the record, he means well and he's a friendly enough guy, but still. You all know someone like that.
But I digress..
So, I recapped what I was talking about. His response was as startling as it was moronic;
"They'll never control the internet."
I'm amazed. Utterly and thoroughly amazed. How could someone miss the point so entirely???
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT!!!
They WANT to control it. And this bill will let them do just that. The bill is a step by step instruction manual on how to limit freedom of expression online. I can't even begin to explain how incensed I am at the response. In fact, here I am several hours later at home, relaxing, having a beer, and I'm still vibrating just thinking about the utter IDIOCY of that statement.
People, wake the hell up. This is not one of those political things that "the activists" scream and moan about that actually makes no difference. This isn't PETA protesting the 30 seconds of video depicting mice in a documentary because it's cruel to the mice to use their likeness without permission. This isn't some over complicated political issue that isn't going to affect the middle and lower class.
This is an affront to our rights as citizens of this country. The lobbyists pushing this bill want nothing more than to be able to control what we are allowed to say online. That's the bottom line, that is exactly what they want. There is no exaggerating here. This isn't hyperbole. That is EXACTLY what they want, and the government is starting to see the benefit of that as well.
But hey, who gives a shit right? Cause: "They'll never control the internet man.."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)