Four Unemployment Frustrations - Part 4

Before I became unemployed, I would have expected that losing my job would also remove a large number of the frustrations of my daily life. The reality is that while I definitely have less stress in my current state, my previous frustrations have simply been replaced by new ones. This series of posts examines my top four unemployment frustrations. Click here to read Part 1, Part 2 or Part 3.


My fourth and final job search frustration is dealing with Recruiters.

I think this is an underreported issue when it comes to looking for a job. Recruiters hold a lot of power when it comes to the job search. They know about jobs that aren’t being advertised elsewhere. And no job searcher wants to alienate a group of people who can help them. I’m probably shooting myself in the foot by posting this, but I think it needs to be said, and I’m hoping that the good recruiters will know they are not the target of this rant, and well, the bad recruiters are less likely to come through with a job anyway. And yes, there are excellent recruiters out there: the kinds who call you back, who understand the company they’re recruiting for and the positions they’re filling, who answer questions and give you helpful tips for the interviews they arrange. Unfortunately, for every good recruiter, there must be 3 frustratingly bad recruiters.

Everyone I know has a story about one or multiple recruiters who just didn’t get it – the jobs they were filling, the candidate they were working with, basic geography, etc. I get emails and phone calls multiple times a week from legitimate recruiters with legitimate jobs that I consider turning down because I don't want that particular recruiter representing me. Here's an example from just this week:

A recruiter calls me. His English is so poor, I have a hard time understanding anything he's telling me [Note: I have a lot of experience dealing with non-native speakers of English and generally am very good at understanding people, so if I could not understand this person, I cannot imagine how he communicates with people not as accustomed to listening to accents.], however I do finally get some information out of our conversation and he tells me he's going to send me an email about the position. A few minutes later, he calls me back to see if I got the email. [Note: this is a pet peeve of mine. Email isn't instantaneous; it can take up to three days to reach its destination, even if it rarely does.] I hadn't yet, so he tells me to refresh my email (seriously?). While I'm waiting for the email he decides to confirm a few details: best number to reach me, availability, last 4 digits of my SSN. Um, what? I ask him why he needs that. He tells me it's for a background check. I tell him he can't run a background check on me with only 4 digits and I don't feel comfortable giving those to him. He says he'll put his manager on the phone. Meanwhile the email has arrived. It tells me the location and rate for the job and includes a non-compete agreement, but no job description. So the manager gets on and starts telling me about the position, basically repeating what the first recruiter had told me. The manager's English is better, but he's still not a native speaker. I finally get am able to get a word in to tell him I’ve already discussed the position with the previous gentleman and that the reason he was put on the phone was because I did not wish to give them my SSN. He tells me it's just for the client's database; they just need to give them 4 numbers. I tell him if that's the case, he could make up any 4 numbers to enter. He tells me it's only 4 digits of my SSN, so it doesn't matter. I tell him that's almost half the number. He tells me I will have to provide my SSN if I get the job. I tell him that if I get a job I will be happy to give him the number at that time, no sooner. Finally he decides he's not winning and relents. I tell him that I had not received the job description. He says he'll send me that and call back (you know, to confirm I received it). He calls back on my cell phone, despite the fact that I confirmed the best number to reach me on was my home number. The job is actually interesting, and I’m qualified for it, so I send in the NCA and get an email later saying to expect a call from another person at 12:30 (it's unclear if this is the client or another recruiter, I sort of suspect the latter), and to be cooperative. (I’m sure this is snarkiness, but email isn’t always the best medium for communicating, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.) The third person calls me at 1. His English is even better than the manager's, but he's still not a native speaker. [I'm a big proponent of immigration, but I'm starting to question my stance after this experience.] He turns out to also be a recruiter, and tells me after our conversation that the next step would be an in-person interview.  So far, I haven't heard back.

Although this is a job I'm rather interested in, I have a lot of doubts. My first doubt is whether this team of non-native speakers can really represent me to a potential client. My second is whether I want to work for a company that would hire these guys. So, the pros of the job are balanced by the cons of the recruiting team I've dealt with so far. And unfortunately, I know in the back of my head that if this group of recruiters is anything like similar ones I've dealt with, I'll never hear back from them again. So I lost almost an entire morning lost to dealing with them for nothing.

I often wonder how recruiters like this make money. But actually, I know the answer: bulk. As an HR person, I’ve dealt with recruiters from the other side, and frankly, my opinions of them were the same – a few good ones, way too many bad ones. The bad ones would send tons of barely qualified resumes for the positions we were looking to fill, and never question when we turned them all down. The good ones would ask a ton of questions about what we were looking for, actually limit their submissions to candidates who met our requirements, and whenever we turned one of their candidates down, call to ask why. It is a shame to me that what should be a noble profession helping match people to jobs has been taken over by people who just want to make a placement (and the accompanying 20% commission), no matter how they go about it, and that the few good recruiters out there are losing their reputations to the much larger number of bad ones.

Four Unemployment Frustations - Part 3

Before I became unemployed, I would have expected that losing my job would also remove a large number of the frustrations of my daily life. The reality is that while I definitely have less stress in my current state, my previous frustrations have simply been replaced by new ones. This series of posts examines my top four unemployment frustrations. Click here for Part 1 and Part 2.
My third frustration is recruiters offering me positions in Financial Sales.

A portion of the emails and phone calls I receive are for positions in financial sales or financial advising. While financial sales is a real, viable career, the techniques used by recruiters for these positions often look exactly like the ones that are obvious scams. The emails often have the same warning flags as the interview offers I mentioned yesterday. And the phone calls are worse. Here’s an example:

A few days ago I received a call from a recruiter. The number showed up on my caller ID as a man's name, not a company. This number called me every day for three days between 9 and 10 am without leaving a message. So, on the fourth call, I decided that I would have to answer the number to get them to stop calling. The recruiter introduces herself, mumbles her company name, and tells me she found my resume on a career site and may want to set up an interview. She then asks me some very basic questions about my work history and contact details. I resist the urge to tell her that if she has my resume she shouldn't need to ask these questions and politely respond. She does not ask for any details about my experience, except to ask if I've every supervised anyone (again this is on my resume). She then says she wants to set up an interview with her boss, and when am I available. I ask what the position is. She tells me they have a number of positions available ranging from associate to senior manager. I tell her that's not very clear; those are job levels, not job titles. She repeats that the positions are all kinds from sales associates to senior managers. I say, so these are sales positions? She says well some of the positions are management. I point out to her that my experience is in HR. She says, so you're only interested in HR positions. I tell her pretty much. She says good luck on your search.

The experience was probably particularly frustrating because it took place over the phone, rather than by email where I could look up the company name if I had doubts, and deal with and respond to the request at my leisure. Over the phone put me on her terms, and I felt like I had to fight with her to get the information I needed. Imagine if I was a less persistent person and actually let her set up the interview. How much time would I have wasted getting to and participating in the interview?

When I was a teenager, I applied for a similar position with a knife company. They advertised on telephone poles and in the paper that you could earn up to $16/hour without telling you anything else about them. Since that was good money for a summer job, I called the number. The “interview” included a sales demonstration with a group of other applicants, a brief 5 minute discussion with the recruiter, and a job offer. Even at 16 I knew that this was a bum deal. I was going to pester my friends and family to listen to my pitch. They would buy something small because they felt bad for me. Then they would give me one or two names of friends who might be interested, but when I called those people, they wouldn’t be interested and that would be the end of my knife selling career. I turned the offer down.

I suspect financial sales is a similar networking sales technique. The need for constant fresh blood pushes the recruiters to do anything in their power to find candidates. Still, their tactics leave a bad taste in my mouth, and even if I thought I might be good at it, I'm disinclined to even consider financial sales as a career alternative.

There's more to come.  Click here to read Part 4.

Four Unemployment Frustrations - Part 2

Before I became unemployed, I would have expected that losing my job would also remove a large number of the frustrations of my daily life. The reality is that while I definitely have less stress in my current state, my previous frustrations have simply been replaced by new ones. This series of posts examines my top four unemployment frustrations. For Part 1 see here.

My second frustration is the amount of job-search-related Spam/Scams I receive.

Every time I update my resume or profile on one of the big career sites, I get a new wave of job search spam, most of it sounding like a scam of some kind. It seems there are a lot of people out there trying to take advantage of the unemployed. A few examples of the blatant spam/scams I've received:

• Interview offers from companies I have not applied to. I get legitimate versions of these from time to time - a recruiter finds my resume on a job board and emails or calls to see if I would be a good match for a position they're working to fill. The difference is that a legitimate recruiter always sends a job description and asks if the position is something I'm interested in before attempting to arrange an interview, usually by phone first. The spam version gives little to no information about the actual position and wants to set up an in-person interview right away. The best I can tell is these are the type of scam where I would have to pay them for something in order to do the job and the "interview" they want to set up is really a sales session where they try to convince me that I need to buy their client list for $299 or whatever.
• Job offers from companies I have not applied to. These usually have multiple warning signs that they're not legitimate - they're offering you the position without any interview or screening process whatsoever; they don't tell you the name of their organization; they don't tell you what the job is; the salary is too good to be true.
• Emails telling me about this great other job site that I should sign up for. These are obviously data mining schemes, hoping I'll type in all my personal data so they can sell it. Although, I have run into some similar sites whose business model seems to be selling "premium" membership. This second type is more likely to advertise on legitimate job boards, rather than send emails, however.
• Emails offering to find me a job for a fee. I don't get a lot of these, but I have gotten a couple. I've been in the HR business long enough to know that legitimate recruiters get paid by the company whose position they've filled, not by the candidate.

It bothers me that so many people and organizations are trying to take advantage of people looking for a job. Sure, I’m savvy enough to recognize that these are scams and hit the delete key, but even I second guess myself sometimes, wondering if maybe I’m being overly suspicious and hurting my chances by deleting what could turn out to be good leads. Of course, when I second guess myself, I google the company or person who sent me the email and find instant confirmation of my suspicions. But not everyone is that suspicious and aware of potential scams. How many unemployed people, desperate for a job, fall victim to these unsolicited email scams?

There's more to come. Click here to read Part 3 or Part 4.

Four Unemployment Frustrations - Part 1

Before I became unemployed, I would have expected that losing my job would also remove a large number of the frustrations of my daily life. The reality is that while I definitely have less stress in my current state, my previous frustrations have simply been replaced by new ones. As with anything, some of these frustrations are simply a natural part of being unemployed: having less money, retyping your contact details and job history for every company you apply to, trying to respond gracefully when people offer unhelpful advice on your job search. These things are frustrating, but they’re legitimate frustrations, with logical, understandable and even forgivable reasons. But some of the frustrations I’ve experienced aren’t logical or understandable, and they’re certainly not forgivable. I was originally going to write about some of these “illegitimate” frustrations in a single post, but apparently, I had a lot to say about them. So, I’m going to run a small series this week of my top four unemployment frustrations. Starting with the least annoying and progressing to the most annoying.

I’ll call the first frustration poor attention to detail.

My resume is publically available on the major job site, Monster, CareerBuilder, Dice, etc. I also peruse these sites, job search aggregator sites, and a number of other sources to find companies that are hiring in my field and apply. As a result, I frequently get emails or phone calls from recruiters about jobs they are working on that they feel I’m a match for. This is exactly how one would expect the job search process to work. Except sometimes, the logic behind the call or email makes no sense. Two recent examples:

• A recruiter called and left a message for me about a position in NYC. I return the call, only to learn that the position is payroll heavy. I have almost no payroll experience. (In her defense, I don't think the company was clear about the payroll requirement at first, but it was an HR analytics role, which generally does involve a lot of payroll data.)
• A recruiter emailed me about a 2-3 month contract position in Texas. The job sounded interesting, but I live in NJ, so I emailed him back to find out if it was a remote position. I never heard back.

Because I can tell that they are legitimate recruiters (I’ll talk about the less than legitimate in future posts), I always take the time to respond, because one never knows when a connection may lead to something. For example, the first recruiter and I had a nice discussion, and while the job she’s working on isn’t for me, I hope she will call me if a better match comes up (although maybe not if she reads this . . .). However, this kind of mismatched contact frustrates me because it uses up a portion of my time and gets my hopes up unnecessarily.

Poor attention to detail comes up frequently in job postings as well. I’ve talked before about typos and poor formatting in postings. Usually, I take small errors in stride. But I do find contradictory information in the same posting to be frustrating. Where is this job, exactly, NJ as it says in the job details, or Florida, as it says in the job description? Is this a management position as the job title says, or an assistant position as the job description implies? If I apply, am I just wasting your and my time? Paying better attention to the details would probably improve the number of quality candidates a company receives, so this is important.

I know I’m not perfect in this regard either. We can all use the reminder to think before we act, to slow down and check for accuracy before we do things. These things reflect on how others perceive us.

There's more to come.  Click here to read Part 2, Part 3 or Part 4.

NJ: Where the only thing fresher than the produce is the wait staff

I have the dubious privilege of living in New Jersey. NJ has a bad reputation as a place to live not just in the other 49 states of the country, but with its own denizens as well. One of the things biggest things contributing to NJ’s bad reputation is the local government. Even before The Sopranos became a hit series, everyone knew NJ was the mob's playground. In the eight years I've lived here, I've seen two governors resign and no fewer than three federal sting operations that have brought down multiple officials at a time.


Since the election of our newest governor, Chris Christie, there’s been a lot of talk about the state budget and the gap between income and spending. I’m not an expert in government budgeting, and I recognize that the economy has not been booming for the last few years, but it puzzles me that the state’s finances are as bad as portrayed. NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation and our state income taxes are on par with our neighbor states (not to mention that some of the nation’s top earners live here). Yet despite the increased income one would expect NJ to have over other states, we do not get additional, or even better, services from the government. So I wonder where does the income go, if it’s not going to services?

Along with cutting many government budgets, Christie’s answer has been to attack teacher salaries and benefits, as the reason for the government’s budget problems. While I do take issue with the idea of teachers receiving their health insurance without contribution and having a pension plan in an age where most workers are funding their own health insurance and 401k plans, at least in part, I’m not convinced that the cost of paying our teachers is the reason for the budget gap. My parents live in another state, in one of the highest paying school districts in the country, and yet their taxes are a fraction of those in my town. Personally, I believe the real reason for the budget gap is that NJ has too much overhead; too many niche government positions, held by unqualified, or underqualified, individuals and obtained through nepotism, who are kept employed through inertia. I would love to see the political leaders of NJ take a tough look at the people on the government’s payroll and make the effort to better align its workforce with the work.

Despite its problems, I will grant that NJ has some things to offer its residents. My home is (relatively) close to the mountains and the beach, giving me options for activities. I'm within easy travel distance of both New York City and Philadelphia, giving me access to the culture, jobs market and resource availability of a large city, while still having a green backyard. I might move out of the state eventually, but for now, I just shake my head at the political ridiculousness and make the most of the opportunities the state offers.

What's in a Name

I believe that names have power. Not necessarily that a person can be controlled through the use of their name, although some people believe that, but more that a person can be known through their name. The interplay between a person and their name is interesting. Our names can shape and define us, but at the same time we give meaning to the words that make up our name. One of the things that proves to me the importance of names is our adult reaction to learning that someone has given their child an obscure or different name. "Think of the teasing she'll get on the playground!" we decry. Now if there is one thing I know, it is that children will make fun of and tease their classmates over anything they think will cause a reaction. Are Jennifers really teased less than Apples? Probably not. But making fun of someone's name is somehow more traumatic. It cuts deeper; it questions our very identity. [It occurs to me that some of this name identity may be tied to our language. In every language I have studied other than English, one gives their name by saying they are called their name; In English we are our names. An interesting thought, but since I don't subscribe to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, I doubt it will prove to be unique to English.]

What I'm really trying to say is that names are important, and as such should be used with care. Unfortunately, not everyone uses other people's names with the care they should. It seems as if someone, somewhere has proposed the idea that if you use someone's name they will like you better, trust you more, or feel a connection to you in some way. This is most likely true, since it seems pretty intuitive that we would feel closer to those who know our names, than those who don't, or can't be bothered to remember them. I can see this being one of those psychological studies that seem to say something interesting, but when you look closer, you find it wasn't telling you what you thought after all (this is a common topic of discussion in my household - yes, my husband and I are dorks). But, while we may feel an affinity to those who know and use our name, there are rules for name usage that need to be followed. Deviation from the rules makes the person whose name has been used improperly uncomfortable, and instead of fostering good will, fosters suspicion. Here are some helpful guidelines for using someone's name based on my own observations.

Get it right. This is the golden rule for name usage. If you're going to use my name, make sure you've gotten it right. Don't call me by my sister's name or my coworker's name, or some random name you made up. If you're not sure, you're better off not using my name at all. I think I'm fair when it comes to pronunciation of my name: I allow for some variation. Depending on your dialect you may say the vowels in my name slightly different. My last name is long, but spelled phonetically. I accept two possible phonetic parsings of my name, but have no patience for people who say the first syllable and give up just because it's a long name. Sound it out like you learned to do in school (or maybe didn't - if you were taught the whole word method of reading, you're probably going to mispronounce my name and I'm not going to like you. Sorry.) If you do mispronounce my name, or call me by the wrong name, I will correct you. My name is important. If you've been under the impression that I'm my sister or someone else, you need to be corrected. I try to be polite about it, but I am firm, too.

Use it properly. It probably won't surprise you to learn that pretty much everything about language is rule governed. Appropriate name usage is no exception. There are limited number conditions where using someone's name is expected and/or accepted. Some general guidelines:

1) Names may be used at the beginning or end of conversations. For example, "Hi, John." or "Talk to you later, Melissa."

2) Names may be used to attract someone's attention. For example, "Jessica! Over here!"

3) Names may be used when in a group to single someone out to get their particular views on something. "What do you think about our plan, Brian?"

4) Obviously names may be used when you are talking about someone, even if they are part of your conversation group.

5) A name can be used when expressing a strong emotion directed at the individual, but this usage should be kept to a minimum. "Mary, what were you thinking?!"

There may be a couple more scenarios where a name could be used, but I think this list is pretty exhaustive. Usage outside of these conditions immediately puts a person on guard. When you say to me, "Let me tell you, Amanda, what a great time we had in Florida." I immediately worry that you're about to sell me a time share. Using my name there is inappropriate. It's wrong. And I think that if you've used it there, it's because you read somewhere that using my name more often would make me like you. Which is wrong. I now don't like you because you used my name in the wrong way.

As the saying goes, "That's my name; don't wear it out."

Setting Priorities

It will probably come as no surprise that my husband and I discuss our jobs and work together. It allows us to consolidate our thoughts and opinions on issues at work, and provides an outsider's opinion and solutions that we would not otherwise have been able to obtain. One of the topics we have discussed on more than one occasion is managing millenials. Personally, I'm not really of the opinion that generations make for huge differences in work ethic and personality. I think a lot of the complaints older generations have about millenials can be chalked up to inexperience, rather than some generational psychology. I also think the ideas the younger generations embrace have more to do with culture change than generational differences. At the same time, there are things in the work environment that younger generations seem to have a harder time grasping or working with.

One thing I've noticed about millenials is that they have difficulty setting priorities. A lot of this is inexperience. Whenever you start a new job, you have to determine which work is more important. And it's not always easy. In a perfect world, priority levels would be based on the urgency or need for the finished product, but in reality, office politics, company policies and client demands can alter the order in which things get done. However, millenials have an obsession with priorities. When given a list of tasks with equal priority, they want their manager to tell them in exactly what order they should perform the tasks. It can cause a mutual frustration between manager and employee - the manager because they just want the work to get done, they don't care about the order; the employee because they feel a need to achieve and think that they cannot unless the tasks are done in the right order. On the other hand managers can get in trouble for setting priorities. Give your employee too many top priority tasks and they may think they're authorized for overtime. Give an employee a low priority task and it ends up never getting done. As my husband says, if it's low priority that means you can check facebook before doing it. It's actually the low priority tasks that get millenials in the most trouble, because they don't get done - there's always something more important to do. One of the things I've tried to explain to millenials I've coached is that the longer something sits on your desk the higher its priority becomes. If you have a project that's been on your desk for over a week, and you don't have anything due five minutes ago, that project is now your top priority.

Speaking of facebook, the internet and its use in the workplace is another area where millenials get a lot of criticism from older generations, and also have trouble adjusting. A lot of managers and older workers feel that surfing the web while at work is wrong. Personally, I'd be a hypocrite if I supported that opinion, because I've done plenty of web surfing on the job. I have always felt that as long as the work was being done in a timely manner, and took priority over personal web use, there was no harm in looking at facebook, or looking up airfare. As a manager, when I felt my employees were on the internet too much, I evaluated whether they were getting their work done correctly and on time. If so, and they still had a lot of time to surf, I simply gave them more work. If they weren't, I had a heart to heart with them about getting their work done and prioritizing that above internet usage. Not everyone gets that message, but most millenials understand that they are in the office to work, and alter their behavior. I think a lot of the conflict over web use during office hours has to do with a difference in how older generations and younger ones view pay. Most younger employees are non-exempt, even if their wages are stated in an annual format, they are still technically hourly employees, which leads employers to think that every minute for which they are being paid, they should be working. But millennials don't see their pay as hourly. Sure they come in from 9 to 5 and get paid extra if they work more than that, but really you pay them to do a set number of tasks in that time, and if they can accomplish those tasks and get some web surfing in, that's fine. This mindset also leads them to not understand why they can't leave at 4:30 some days if all their work is done. All this has led analysts to say that millenials are more project oriented and would prefer contract work to regular salaried employment. I'm not sure that's true, but I see the basis for that belief.

There are other mistakes that inexperienced employees, or maybe millenials make, but these two stand out as the most contentious and relevant. If both sides could see where the other is coming from, maybe a lot of office tension could be resolved.

A Few Thoughts About High Fructose Corn Syrup

Lately, The Corn Refiners Association has been running ads refuting claims that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is unhealthy. I find these ads to be of particular interest for two reasons. The first is that while I have been a critic of HFCS for a long time, I have not heard or noted a groundswell of avoidance of the sweetener. The ad campaign almost seems to be bringing the subject up for a majority of people, rather than addressing concerns they may have. (Or maybe it's targeted at me alone. . .) The second is that the ads note that HFCS is like any sweetener: fine in moderation. While I'm a big believer in moderation, including with things that are 'bad' for you, this comment is laughable, because HFCS is in practically every food product the average American buys. Don't believe me? Check the ingredients for your loaf of bread or your pasta sauce. Manufacturers put HFCS even in items that are not supposed to be sweet.

I have long believed that both sugar and corn are unhealthy for a majority of Americans and culprits in the 'obesity epidemic' everyone is so concerned about these days. While every individual's dietary needs and problems are different, for me, cutting these ingredients out of my diet completely and then adding them back only in low quantities has allowed me to arrest rapid weight gain, have more energy, fewer episodes of 'sugar crash', and better digestion. The Corn Refiners Association is probably correct that HFCS is no worse for many people than regular sugar, but for some it is probably the worst combination out there.

While I'm on the subject of food and obesity, I'd like to take a moment to get on my soap box about dieting. I don't subscribe to the calories in/calories out diet. I have not seen where it is a valid weight loss technique. Sure, you can lose weight if you limit your caloric intake to 1200 calories a day, but all you're doing is starving yourself. Unless you want to be hungry for the rest of your life, you're going to gain the weight back (and probably more) when you go off that diet. It's called yo-yo dieting and it's been proven to be one of the most unhealthy lifestyles there is. In addition, I've noticed that reducing foods to caloric value alone leads people to make bad food decisions, such as skipping a healthy vegetable in order to 'save' the calories for desert. I'd much rather see a lifestyle of exercise and good food decisions, with less concern about body weight, shape or size. An active, well fed person who carries a little extra weight is more healthy than a yo-yo dieter who eats dessert instead of vegetables.

An Invasion of Privacy

Not long ago the Pennsylvania school district of Lower Merion came under scrutiny for questionable use of the remote activation of the webcam in school issued laptops. In short, there is a class action suit filed against the school claiming that the school used the webcams to spy on students, without disclosing the remote activation abilities to students or parents. The school has responded that their policy was to only activate the cameras in cases of lost or stolen laptops, but the fact that a student was disciplined for behavior at home with a photo taken by his laptop's webcam belies that claim.

Frankly, I'm appalled by the idea that a school could use the educational materials it issues to students to spy on the students while they are not at school. In my opinion the school's responsibility for student behavior ends when the student leaves campus. Additionally, as others have pointed out, laptops are frequently open and on while people dress or perform other personal activities. Thinking of my own personal laptop, which I take with me when I travel, and how I use it in the morning at a hotel, I'd worry if someone could remotely activate my webcam and watch what I was doing. Adding that the students are under 18 also raises the possibility of child porn laws being broken. All told, while the ability to track thefts of the laptops is useful, the opportunity for abuse and misuse far outweigh the good.

A few critics have raised the idea that problems generated by a "free" laptop from your high school are not really problems, and that these students should suck it up and stop whining. But honestly, a person's privacy is worth more than a $400 laptop. The idea that a person should be willing to trade their privacy and submit to being spied on by their school just to get a laptop they can use, and a decent education is so blatantly false that I can't imagine someone proposing it.

I will be interested to see how this case turns out. I'm glad that at a minimum the school has voluntarily disabled the remote activation system and the new version of the tracking software they have installed will no longer have this feature. Now to make sure my personal laptop's webcam can't be hacked. . .