Re 2), this reminds me of those situations where people are given the opportunity to resign rather than being fired. They get to save face on their next job interview, but it does the next hiring company a disservice. It might be something that comes up later in the hiring process, but nothing that would be identifiable at the start of that process
Most of my titles have been pretty made-up (with acquiescence of manager). Never had the formal levels seen at large tech companies. Last job description was written for me and didn't even make a lot of sense if you squinted to hard. Made a couple of iterations for business cards over time.
Couldn't have told you what the HR titles were in general.
> the more any font kerning is likely a major leak for redaction
Now I want a font that randomly adjusts the kerning automagically to be used by people in standard word processors not some graphics app. In this way, every time the same word appears in the document, the kerning is different between each one.
most people cannot detect differences in kerning, and must be extreme adjustments to get people to notice. even then, the words would need to be aligned above/below each other for people to see the differences. however, a computer program analyzing the size of a bounding box would notice single pixel differences. so randomly adjusting the kearning per word by pixels between each letter would go unnoticed by the vast majority of readers, but could play absolute havoc with algos trying to decipher possible word combos based on bounding box size.
this tool coming out on the heels of the DOJ releasing a trove of redacted documents doesn't come across as coincidental to me. let's think about this for a bit longer from that idea of using this on legal evidence...why would doctoring a legal document be prohibited?
Generally there is nothing illegal about altering a legal document, or even a strict definition of what counts as a legal document. Under some circumstances it could be illegal to alter a document and use that for fraud, or submit an altered document to a court or government agency. If the doctoring falsely defames someone then you could also open yourself up to a civil suit.
Perhaps I misunderstand what "sue" includes in US jurisdictions but prohibition in this context ought to be criminalisation, i.e. something that happens in the relation between the individual and the state, and to me 'suing' is something that happens in a relation between individuals.
playing devil's advocate for a second, but corpIT is also working with morons as employees. most draconian rules used by corpIT have a basis in at least one real world example. whether that example happened directly by one of the morons they manage or passed along from corpIT lore, people have done some dumb ass things on corp networks.
Yes, and the problem in that picture is the belief (whichever level of the management hierarchy it comes from) that you can introduce technical impediments against every instance of stupidity one by one until morons are no longer able to stupid. Morons will always find a way to stupid, and most organizations push the impediments well past the point of diminishing returns.
> the problem in that picture is the belief (whichever level of the management hierarchy it comes from) that you can introduce technical impediments against every instance of stupidity one by one until morons are no longer able to stupid
I would say the problem in the picture is your belief that corporate IT is introducing technical impediments against every instance of stupidity. I bet there's loads of stupidity they don't introduce technical impediments against. It would just not meet the cost-benefit analysis to spend thousands of tech man-hours introducing a new impediment that didn't cost the company much if any money.
reply