Article View: comp.admin.policy
Article #172Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
From: Dmitry Gokhman
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:43
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:43
74 lines
4682 bytes
4682 bytes
In article <1992Oct7.190538.6218@ERA.COM> feit@ERA.COM (Mark Feit) writes: >If that's the way you think everything should be enforced, you're >living in the wrong country. Selective enforcement goes on every day. In general, I think selective enforcement comes into play when the rules are a little too strict, so that too many ordinary people are breaking them in the course of their routine activities. I cases like these, since enforcers often cannot change the rules, they must resort to selective enforcement. Computer admins are often in an exceptional situation of being able to write the rules as well as being the ones enforcing them. Since selective enforcement relies on their own discretion, they tend to ignore the fact that such a system is inherently susceptible to corruption (to be extreme, consider Stalin's purges as selective enforcement). There is though a great opportunity to taylor the rules in such a way as to not hinder the ordinary user, but still have a system where the few irresponsible users can be dealt with (after all that's what rules are for). >Look at traffic. If we tried to eliminate it by stationing a police >officer every quarter-mile on every street to catch and enforce >EVERYTHING, none of us would ever make it to work in the morning. I think you mean eliminate traffic infractions. You brought up traffic enforcement as an example of selective enforcement. That it is. It is also very corrupt in the sense that most traffic rules are unnecessarily restrictive (e.g. a recent survey showed that an overwhelming majority of speed limits are too low for the road conditions). As a result the states and the county mounties have a wonderful source of revenue and, as long as enforcement remains selective, most people don't feel an urgency to do something about it. Selma, TX, a tiny community on the outskirts of San Antonio, enforced the 55 mph limit on I-35 vigorously, raking in unbelievable amounts of money (and earning a spot on CBS '60 minutes'), until enough state legislators got fined and pushed through a change in the apportionment of fines. >There's a tradeoff here: Society won't keep you under constant >scrutiny, and in exchange society expects you to be responsible enough >to follow the rules. They call that SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and it's >something I think a lot of people in this country have lost sight of. Couldn't agree with you more. I want to add that with enough irresponsible people around you need a mechanism to shield those who are responsible from the pernicious effects of the inevitable (and necessary) clampdown on the former. It is a law of human nature, that responsibilities go hand in hand with rights. The actual amount varies with circumstances. A curious example of this is taking place right now. Many of the former Communist police states are reduced to utter chaos once strict enforcement of people's lives is ended. People who have lived without rights, cannot cope with ordinary responsibilities a free citizen is expected to have. Back at the ranch, I think many admins (not just computer ones) tend to overreact to irresponsible acts by placing general restrictions that would presumably prevent such acts in the future without giving much thought to ultimate consequences of such a trend. The quick fix is easier than dealing with the jerks, but the quality of life (and computing) is reduced for everyone. For example, when I was a grad student in Berkeley, the mail room was vandalized and the reaction to that moronic act was not to find the culprits and expel them from our midst, but to restrict access to the room to just office hours. This is not an isolated incident, everywhere I have been, the quality of existence is gradually eroded by the cumulative effects of occasional irresponsibility and reaction to it. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// - Mr. Gumby * \oo7 Dmitry Gokhman -> gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu says: `/v/-* MY BRAIN HURTS J L YOUR AD HERE! /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct11.234300.13595@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ringer!gokhmanReferences:
<1992Oct7.190538.6218@ERA.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ringer!gokhman From: gokhman@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Dmitry Gokhman) Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992 Message-ID: <1992Oct11.234300.13595@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Summary: Keep the rules reasonable and it will be easy to enforce them. Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio References: <1992Oct7.190538.6218@ERA.COM> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:43:00 GMT Lines: 74