Re: [tlug] Wifi hotspot access in Tokyo (Very OT)

[Benjamin Tayehanpour <benjamin@example.com>]

On 14 March 2014 16:30, Raymond Wan <rwan.kyoto@example.com> wrote:
> I personally would not because I don't think I could be successful in
> thwarting an unarmed robbery.  But, for the sake of argument, suppose
> I was 100% sure that I would be successful.  What you're really asking
> is whether the "ends justify the means".  I would say "no" not because
> stopping a robbery isn't a nice thing to do...it is.  But you've made
> the assumption that only I and the robber exist.  What if while
> dashing across the street, an oncoming car brakes suddenly and its
> passengers are injured?

Provided the passengers are using seat belts and all the appropriate
distances are being held, a sudden retardation in speed will bring
damage to neither people nor vehicles. But I see at what you are
trying to get. Seeing isn't agreeing, though. Are you saying that a
hypothetical possibility of collateral damage takes precedence over an
actual emergency in progress?

> Or, say the robber is arrested and then you
> are for jaywalking.  Would you accept the charge for jaywalking or
> would you try to get out of it by saying you stopped a robbery?  What
> if you had failed to stop the robbery and are caught for jaywalking?
> What defense could you use?

I would use that. And I would win. Provided that a street-walking
policeman would have the gall to arrest me when there is a robbery in
progress across the street, an act which would bring him an endless
amount of ridicule from the Chief of Police downwards, and provided
that the case wouldn't simply be dropped by the prosecutor, it would
never hold up in court. In Sweden, we have a law which basically says
that you're allowed to break the law if the projected damage to people
and/or property which would result from *not* breaking the law is
significantly greater.

Or, to put it in layman's terms: "Don't be a f*cking robot."

> The original scenario about being disallowed to use a computer in the
> library by a security guard also assumes that only two people exist in
> a closed world, independent of everything else.  Keeping in mind that
> the security "robot" doesn't make the rules and is really just doing
> his job,

Not a robot. A human being, which means he is allowed to make
judgement calls. After all, if the employer doesn't have faith in his
judgement, he is the wrong person for the job.

That said, if one wants the (quite frankly irrational and
counter-productive) rule to be challenged and overturned, you
shouldn't make the guard's life difficult. That's just rude. Don't
come alone. Be a dozen. Be a hundred. Bring your laptops. Bring some
press coverage. Make a peaceful (and quiet, since you're in a library)
protest action, demonstrating why a laptop has a rightful place in a
library. That way, the guard's choice is easy, since it obviously is a
bigger situation than he has the authority to act on independently.
Then it's up to the library whether they're going to be total morons
about it or actually listen to the people who actually use the
library.

We have free Wi-Fi in all larger public libraries, and most of the
smaller ones too. The computer is an indispensable tool for doing
collaborative research.

> what if he is disciplined by his supervisor when it is seen
> on the CCTV.  What if he is suspended or fired?

Wouldn't happen in Sweden. I seriously pity Japanese employees if
their supervisors are allowed by law to fire them on a silly whim.

> What if a patron sees
> the security guard let "one" go and says, "But you let him!  How come
> not me?"  In time, no one will listen to the security guard...

No. The guard always has the final word. He's allowed to make
judgement calls, because that's his job, and also why the job is
assigned to a human being and not a sign.

I'm not sure whether it's your depiction of Japan or my interpretation
of it which is flawed, but so far, Japan sounds pretty dysfunctional.
Irrational rules? Laws discouraging conscious thought? Calling
employees "robots" and treating them as such? WTF? Please tell me I'm
misunderstanding you. There's a rather popular subculture in Sweden
which is basically adoring all things Japanese, and I used to be one
of them growing up. I wouldn't want all that to be shattered.