So - better wages and working conditions might actually happen?
Facebook is blocked in China, so I doubt that’s it. It’s more likely to be the government database of high-res photos of every citizen, that they make available to companies for facial recognition for your AliPay or WeChat app.
1 Like
Well, why would they store it on a facebook domain, if it wasn’t a picture from facebook?
Either the photo came from facebook from a Chinese citizen on fb, or,
They’re keeping it on facebook (unlikely), or,
The database has people outside of China, or,
the database is something other than an official govt. thing, or,
I’m dreaming all this.
2 Likes
Breed Ready.
I suppose it would have seemed a touch less raw if “nubile” had been used instead. Even so, not less disturbing.
1 Like
No, that would have only made it even more infuriating.
2 Likes
Breed Ready. 15 year old girls were in the database. No further comment on this from me.
As I said… no less disturbing.
There are, famously, also too many men in China. Godawful consequences.
Idk, dude.
That’s definitely blocked in China:
https://en.greatfire.org/fbcdn.net
Maybe we just can’t see the whole URL…
The screencapture lists the address of a facebook photo. I’m glad the specific person’s identity is obscured, because it’s all creepy.
I don’t see how it matters that facebook is officially blocked in China. All it means is that whoever made this database (for whatever creepy unknown purpose) added someone who was on facebook somehow. That’s all I was commenting on.
1 Like
There’s a close parallel here to a database from a side project I was hacking on 10 years ago. I needed an *.mdf file with some data in it to wire up to some analytic thingy, and that’s all I had handy. Much shaking of my head looking back at that mess.
1 Like
Well, good to know that the assholes who stole all the SF-86 forms apparently anyone ever filled out here in the USA for a security clearance are also idiots. I think that makes me less worried? Hmmm, no, no it doesn’t. sigh
1 Like
What weirds me out is how selective the information released is. It pretty much forces a conclusion rather than allowing you to reach your own.
We’re told:
- The youngest entry was 15.
- The youngest entry flagged “breedReady” was 18.
- The oldest entry flagged “breedReady” was 39
- The oldest entry was 95.
The data we’re presented pretty much forces a conclusion, but what of the data we’re not presented? To wit - was there any entry between the ages of 18 and 39 which was not flagged breedReady? If there is, this could actually be a preference field. If there’s not, it becomes pretty clear this is a uncomfortably named age bracket.
This is a huge difference, but this information is withheld. Because we’re not being given information, we’re being told how to react. And that I’m always wary of, even if it is BB.
So, I completely understand why people would feel offended by this, but I also know that when I program a database or write a program, I will give a little, but not a lot of thought about the variable names I use. They have to be meaningful to me, but I don’t expect anyone else to see or care. My point is, this might be a variable name that one guy came up with, and maybe not an indicator of the thinking process of the entire Chinese government.
2 Likes
Huh, so if they are basically flagging every female between 18 and 39, they are more or less just flagging the typical age range women have children. I am sure the US also tracks such stats, but I assume use terms like “Of Child Bearing Age” or something much less skeevy. Such stats are important to know when tracking things like estimated population growth etc.
Actually China has a weird population graph. It is very middle heavy, soon to be very top heavy.
1 Like
It’s the “if” that gets me. Are there any 18-39 that aren’t “childReady”? Either yes or no would really skew my perception of that value. But no answer frustrates me - it means I’m not deciding, I’m being instructed.
1 Like
Disagreed. My reaction of being horrified is quite organic, even if the Chinese government somehow had the best possible intent in creating this system.
It’s still problematic, even if that’s true, (which is highly unlikely, IMO.)
It’s not just that this database is “offensive,” the motivation behind creating it is insidious, and that motivation didn’t come from a single man, or even a small group of them.
That the data is flawed/incomplete is besides the point.
3 Likes
I agree that the fact that they want to track it may be problematic. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if American insurance company databases and actuarial tables also tracked whether a woman might require maternity coverage, and that it might not just be limited by her age. But I think the choice of using that for the field name makes it perhaps unintentionally offensive.
Dude… I work for an insurance company; I process apps all day, long entering in people’s personal & health info… that’s not how it works.
5 Likes
3 Likes
