Electronic Communications Policies: Fill & Download for Free

Lawyers and safety.Whenever there’s a rule like this, “fear of being sued” and “safety” are usually the culprits.Around here, every school district has a strict policy for teachers that all electronic communication between teachers and students and parents must go through the teacher’s official school email.That’s for the school’s legal protection.If, for example, a student “friends” a teacher on Facebook, then asks the teacher a question about their homework via Facebook messenger, and the teacher responds via Facebook messenger, that teacher could get fired for breaking protocol, because there is no way for the school to monitor that electronic communication between student and teacher.Teachers are told specifically to not accept friend requests from their current students. If a student contacts them via some social media that doesn’t require the receiver to accept them as a follower first (like Quora), it’s prudent for the teacher to email the student, the student’s parents, and the principal, explaining that all electronic communication with the teacher has to go through the teacher’s school-issued email.It may seem like a silly overabundance of caution, but, when it comes to teachers, it’s better to be too cautious than to put yourself in a situation where you can lose your job over something innocent. Not just your job, but your career. “Fired for communicating with student on Facebook” makes you sound creepy and un-hirable, even if the entire communication was “the homework was page 50.”About 25% of my Facebook “friends” are my own alumni. I like it when my alumni follow me on Facebook, because I like to see how successful they are as young adults. I wish more of them would friend me, to be honest. I never friend them first. It seems creepy to do that. Just last week, a boy I taught eight years ago announced his engagement on Facebook. I was happy for him. He manages some sort of small financial business now, is getting married, and is thinking of buying a house. It’s good to see my students succeed like that.

I'm assuming you're working off some future political organization of the Earth. Under that situation, it probably wouldn't make sense to have any capital. A capital is sort of an anachronism based on historical conditions that are increasingly not applicable. You needed a capital to have the elements of government together in one place to enable the interactions necessary for the act of governing. Given the robustness and ubiquitousness of electronic communications, however, you really don't need physical proximity to enable these interactions. And there are a number of distinct advantages to a "distributed capital":1. It would be less susceptible to either attack or natural disaster. To take out the capital, you'd have to take out everywhere.2. Assuming this world government is supposed to be representative, it keeps the policy-makers much within the jurisdiction of those represented. This prevents the formation of a "court mentality" of long-serving policy-makers where they have closer connections to those at court than those represented.3. The policymaking apparatus would require little, if any, new infrastructure, a massive cost savings.4. You'd obviate the political issues over which country gets the capital and whether that country could unduly influence policy.

The difficulty - as I see it - is what one means by “compromise”. Generally we take this term to mean that each party gives up something it wants (or has) in order to gain something they both agree is necessary.“Compromise” in terms of gun control(and 2A rights) never seems to work that way. Let’s say the left asks for national registration of all firearms and/or national “gun-owners license”. Whats do the gun-owners gain in this case by giving up some sliver of their rights, in the name of policies which they believe do no real good (in reducing instances of crime or shootings) ?Nothing can I see, but this is the kind of “compromises” that are usually suggested.I’ll make a possible suggestion that I think is a compromise: We enact National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry License Holders … that’s what the gun-owners get. We establish a National Standard for what CCW licenses look like (similar to Driver’s licenses) and cooperative electronic communications between the states to facilitate easy confirmation by law enforcement, etc. This is what the gun-controllers get … it gives the advantages of national database of CCW holders without the onerous Big-Brother aspects of an actual national database. We’ll have to work out some details for people who live in “Constitutional Carry” states, but I think those are addressable fairly easily.