#+a way that would prevent isolation- to some degree an individual's own interests will always lie outside those things somewhat | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

biomedgrid · 4 years

Text

Biomed Grid | Leadership Roles and Motivation Factors Leading to Occupational Burnout amongst Staff, including Nurses, Working in the Public Health Field

Introduction

The workplace and the working conditions prevailing in it have a significant effect on employees’ physical and mental health as they devote about one third of their day to them. In the field of Health, the complex and stressful profession of a modern heath care specialist, including nurses, requires rapid and intense work rates which combined with increased workload, tension, wage reduction, minimizing opportunities for personal development, lack of supportive climate between colleagues and superiors and the personal characteristics of each employee lead to the occurrence of Occupational Burnout [1,2].

The first mention of the Occupational Burnout Syndrome, known as Burnout, was made by Freudenberger in 1974. The etymology of the word is “progressively drawn from the inner to the point of charring” [3,4]. According to the definition of Maslach [5] in 1982 as Burnout Syndrome is characterized: “The loss of interest in people with whom one works; it also includes physical exhaustion and it is characterized by emotional exhaustion where the professional no longer has any positive feelings of sympathy or respect for clients or patients” [5].

Today, Occupational Burnout consists the modern disease of the 21st Century for employees while the ideal way to prevent and reduce its appearance is to recognize symptoms immediately in order to avoid:

a) emotional exhaustion

b) depersonalization

c) sensation of reduced personal achievements [6]

According to OECD data in Greece: [7],

I. There are 3.6 nurses per 1,000 inhabitants when the average in the EU is 9.1 nurses per 1,000 inhabitants, with Switzerland rising to 17.4 nurses per 1,000 [8].

II. There are 6.3 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants, when the average in the EU is 3.3 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants [8].

III. The proportion of nurses-doctors is 0.6 to 1 with the average in the member countries being 3 to 1 and in some countries like Denmark and Finland the correspondence is 4.5 nurses per doctor [9].

IV. The proportion of nurses-patients in hospitals is 1 in 20 in the morning and afternoon shift, while in the night shift it is 1 to 40 with a quality care of 10 minutes per patient per shift. The International Board of Nurses says a nurse should take care of 4 patients, thus maintaining safety levels and reducing mortality due to underweight, which could otherwise reach 6% [10].

The average Greek employee works about 2,035 hours a year; in the USA the average work time is 1,783 hours per year while the Germans work only 1,363 hours [11].

Occupational Burnout is the result of long-term accumulation of work-related stress. It affects the worker in various ways: [12]

I. Physical symptoms: chronic fatigue, atony.

II. Behavioral changes: conflicts with colleagues, irritability.

III. Interpersonal relationships: isolation, social alienation.

IV. Psychological effects: anger, depression.

V. Psychosomatic effects: sudden sweating, disorientation.

VI. At work: lack of interest, low morale.

Considering all the above, it can be easily understood: [13]

I. It is vital the Presidential Decree on the basis of which the permanent vacant positions for employment are calculated be modified and readjusted immediately in order to increase the number of nurses per each patient.

II. According to existing conditions in hospitals, people holding positions of authority do not only perform organizational tasks, but they also take on the role of leader influencing the appearance of the Occupational Burnout Syndrome to a significant extent.

The type of leader is the one that will stimulate and define the kind of communication, mutual respect, cooperation and the formation of a healthy environment, eliminating stress, pressure and conflicts [14]. Regarding the factors having an impact on the hygiene and safety of working surroundings, they include the work nature, working conditions and employee’s personal outlook towards hygiene-safety, which may vary from intense interest to complete apathy [15,16].

The purpose of this review study is to present and elaborate a realistic incentive framework aiming at reducing Occupational Burnout in Greek public hospitals, focusing on applying the right incentive method and choosing the effective leader for each case. The methodology used includes the search of review and research studies conducted at an international and Greek level while they referred to Occupational Burnout. The criterion of exclusion of the articles was the language, except for Greek and English.

The Leadership Role and Motivation of Nurses

Employment is the means of securing financial resources for many employees to meet the needs of consumer society. Furthermore, it is the place where workers seek recognition, honor, personal development and achievement of their goals so as to maintain healthy physical and mental health inside and outside their workplace [17]. The extent to which these needs are met is closely related to the nurses’ satisfaction from their work, which is reflected in the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of the health services provided [13].

Significant staff shortages, debilitating circular hours, imprecise definition of tasks, the absence of economic and social incentives, and cooperation with different characters and different specialties necessitate the proper management of materials, equipment and human resources, as well as the implementation of policy incentives for the employees’ motivation [18]. In nursing, staff motivation is aimed at improving the quality of patients’ care, and at the same time, developing the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare. The stimulation must include the satisfaction of individual needs within a rational work program [19].

Luthans was the first to develop the theory of motives; he also classified them into three categories: [20]

I. Primary motives that are biological necessities such as hunger and thirst.

II. General motives which are not biological but inherent, such as satisfaction, curiosity, manipulation, affection and love.

III. Secondary motives derive from socialization. They are learnt and acquired over time such as safety, success, prestige and power.

Since then, various theories referring to motivation have been developed, all of which are aimed at discovering employees’ needs and providing them with the proper incentives to activate them, as well as choosing the appropriate type of leadership that fits in any case [21]. The incentive practice is based on the worker’s recognition and offering him financial (e.g. productivity bonus) or non-financial rewards (e.g. continuous employee development) (Figure 1) The following figure depicts the motivation process (Figure 2). In a Nursing Department, the head of the administration is the Nurse Manager whose role is very important, and he is called upon to have the necessary qualifications and skills referring to his personality and leadership characteristics in order to be able to

fulfill his duties successfully. He is called to become a leader and apply the appropriate leadership style for each case while maintaining the balance of satisfaction between nurses and patients [14].

Figure 1: Motivation Types.

Figure 2: The Motivation Process.

An exemplary leader must be distinguished for his emotional intelligence, abilities, personality, prestige, creativity and intelligence [18]. Applying such motivation theories and the right means of communication is the cornerstone of Health Leaders’ success [22]. According to Patrinos & Anastasiou [10] leadership is “the influence, the art, or the process of influencing behavior, acts, activation and guidance of a formal or informal organization -a small or large group, in such a way that the group would be most willing to strive voluntary to achieve specific goals with the greatest possible efficiency [10].

The basic styles of leadership are three: [11]

I. The Authoritarian Leadership Style is exemplified when the leader reaches decisions on his own and he simply announces them.

II. The Democratic Leadership Style is exemplified when the leader takes into account the employees’ needs and attitudes while trying to create a sense of responsibility and cooperation.

III. The Impoverished or Indifferent Leadership Style is exemplified when the leader does not assume his responsibilities and sets no goals reducing the interest of employees in their workplace.

Not only does Nursing Leadership aim at patients’ safety and satisfaction but it is also called upon to make effective use of the imponderable human factor, while simultaneously contributing to satisfaction and further development. Employees with many abilities, skills and knowledge have been proven to perform less than the ones who have less ability but proper motivation by the appropriate leader [23].

Path Goal Theory-Goals and Implementation

Path Goal Theory was analyzed by House in the early 1970’s. The theory describes the leader having no specific orientation but role. The theory asserts that the employees’ performance depends on the degree of satisfaction of their expectations. Thus, the task of the leader is to implement them [8,11]:

a) Knowing the needs of his subordinates

b) Defining their duties

c) Motivating and influencing their behavior

d) Defining goals

e) Shaping the way for the goal implementation,

f) Removing the obstacles

The leader uses different but appropriate leadership patterns for each and every case like “pathways” to achieve his goals, always taking into account the characteristics of his employees and the duty [10].

The styles of the Path Goal Theory are: [11]

I. The Instrumental Style is applied in cases where duties are vague, to new employees and to ones whose performance is low, and they are not interested in the job. The leader determines what needs to be done, by whom, when and how, by defining the reward in order the goals to be achieved [6].

II. The Supportive Style is applied in cases where duties are defined, routine and unattractive. The relationship between the leader and the employee is friendly. Leaders apply this style to new employees or people with adaptive problems. The leader communicates with them, cares for their needs and supports them to participate gregariously in work tasks in order to fulfill the defined goals [12].

III. The Participative Style is applied in conditions where employees are stressed and afraid of future failure of goals. The leader discusses with employees while sharing their needs. He takes into account their views through the exchange of information before making a decision on any problems that arise in the organization and deviate from the goal [6].

IV. The Achievement Oriented Style is applied to the majority of employees and especially to the middle classes. The leader sets very hard goals and helps employees considerably by supporting them. He has great expectations of his employees’ abilities for the fulfillment of difficult goals. The targets set should be achievable because otherwise workers will be disappointed [24].

Healthcare has undergone many reforms in recent years, resulting in reduction of funds, staff, employee and human resources. Additionally, there seems to be great increase in workload and a change as regards job fulfillment, resulting in occupational burnout of employees. All the aforementioned factors have an impact on the administration way performed by public hospitals [14].

Referring to the latter, it should be noted that in order to achieve the goals set by hospital managers concerning employees’ satisfaction, besides motivation, the administration should also take the type of leadership that is appropriate for the case to be used into consideration, as the style of leadership will determine the type, mode, and form of incentive that will be applied to counteract occupational burnout [25].

As follows, the reasons for developing the supportive style would be analyzed which, according to the prevailing conditions, should be applied to public hospitals, contributing to the satisfaction of the employees’ expectations and reducing occupational burnout rates [10,11]:

I. The leader shares the needs of his / her employees for recognition as personalities, satisfaction of their personal aspirations, professional development and training by designing appropriate training and information programs [14].

II. He creates a favorable environment for their development and, through a climate of trust, support and mutual respect among them, cultivates cooperation and develops the coherence of the group. He implements some dialogue and active listening. At the same time, he empowers the staff and helps them develop problem-solving skills. A friendly and approachable leader inspires positive feelings and helps workers to get rid of unnecessary work stress [26].

III. The leader regulates the activities of the employees and the nursing department. He takes care of placing the appropriate employees in the appropriate positions according to their experience, knowledge and specialization. He is responsible for the sufficient number of department staff to cover all nursing needs and shifts, avoiding overloading tasks [17]. He is objective, impartial, and neutral while he treats each member of the staff in the same way without any hatred or prejudice. He implements the staff rotation plan helping his employees avoid occupational burnout. He is responsible for staffing the department by providing it with the necessary tools and equipment to enable his staff to fulfil their duties [27].

IV. The leader clearly defines the duties and responsibilities of each employee by clarifying the roles and goals, avoiding confusion [28]. He limits potential obstacles with the proper guidance and counseling aspiring his staff to achieve the desirable goals. Simultaneously, the leader announces staff rewards, which may involve moral rewards; for example, the nurse of the year or self-realization (assignment of specific tasks) [17]. Individual results are then checked, and the workload is classified. Then, a rotation of duties among employees follows so as routine to be avoided and more interest to be sparked [29].

Occupational Burnout and Motives

Scientists are engaged in motivation theories for more than a century trying to find out the motives that may affect work performance. According to the data of Basic Principles of Health Services Management, motivation theories are classified into two major categories: [30]

The theories referring to the motivation content:

i. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943).

ii. Herzberg’s Two Factors Theory (Herzberg, 1959).

iii. Mc Clelland’s Theory of Needs (Mc Clelland, 1953).

The theories focusing on the motivation process:

i. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964).

ii. Adam’s Equity Theory (Adams, 1965).

A realistic nursing motivation framework would be tried to be developed based on two of the above theories, Theory of Needs and Expectancy Theory, so as occupational burnout to be lessened [31].

Theory of Needs

a) The staff who have the need to achieve goals are selected or moved to interesting occupational positions where tasks are demanding and difficult as they usually work on their own. These individuals undertake duties with personal responsibility and are satisfied with the successful completion of their mission as long as there is positive feedback; in other words, direct confirmation of their effort and success by the leader [32].

b) Employees who have developed interpersonal skills are placed in groups where they enjoy a sense of acceptance and recognition. These people need mutual understanding and perform better when working with colleagues, thereby meeting their needs and have more chances of success [28].

c) The goal achievement lies behind the desire for power. The employees have a strong sense of control and influence on the behavior of others. Their leader assigns them tasks that require decision making and cover administrative and organizational positions [11].

The manager leader must recognize the particularities and personal characteristics of the employees according to the categories of motivation above to understand the extent to which they will be satisfied with the type of work they will be assigned [32].

Expectancy Theory

The complete Expectancy Theory is shown in Figure 3. Each and every nurse chooses an action, according to his needs and abilities, due to motivation and expects his efforts to produce the appropriate performance and the result that will satisfy him [17,33]. The nurse acknowledges that the performance will be equal to his efforts and abilities, knowing in advance its rewards and benefits. The kind of rewards must satisfy his needs and be valuable for him concerning his productivity, but they must also be fair regarding other colleagues [34].

Figure 3: Expectancy Theory.

The leader before setting such an incentive must take into account the desires and the value of the reward placed on each employee. Such motivation would help nurses understand what the boss exactly expects from them and the reward they may receive if they successfully complete their working task each time. Rewards may be of positive nature and come from the working surroundings; for instance, pay rise, praise, and appraisal or derive from the employee himself such as recognition of his efforts or personal development [10,17].

Physical and mental exhaustion along with dissatisfaction experienced by nurses in the workplace results in their being prone to the emergence of Occupational burnout Syndrome [35]. Early recognition and prevention of the symptoms in combination with necessary knowledge, as well as employees’’ education regarding health promotion will prevent the commencement of this syndrome [36]. The recovery will be feasible if the health system establishes risk and safety limits in Greek hospitals and intervenes appropriately for the right leadership selection [15]. Moreover, the health system has to apply the appropriate incentives in each case.

Read More About this Article: https://biomedgrid.com/fulltext/volume3/leadership-roles-and-motivation-factors-leading-to-occupational-burnout-amongst-staff.000666.php

For more about: Journals on Biomedical Science :Biomed Grid

#biomedgrid #American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research #Journals on Biomedical Engineering #Journals on Biomedical Imaging #Medical humanities #Journals on Psychology #Open access clinical and medical journal

0 notes

thecoroutfitters · 7 years

Link

A car is approaching in high speed and one second after you hear the wheels rolling over bodies that collapse right next to you. You hear shotgun fires and you see people running in despair around you. You don’t know where the danger comes from and you can’t see your way out of this. You’re caught in the middle of a human turmoil that sweeps you and flows against your will.

How are you going to make it out? How are you going to survive?

The answer is simple but tricky: it’s not only the immediate actions that save you, but what you should have done before.

Safety Becomes Obsolete

When things turn sideways, like they did a couple of days ago in Manhattan or sooner in Las Vegas, you need to understand and accept that there is no safe place, and nobody – and especially the government – is not going to save you. Holding out an unrealistic hope that there is a safe place or that others will take care of you will cause you to perish.

It is up to you to find a way to survive, facing a danger that you could hardly anticipate in a matter of seconds.

Power in Numbers?

Crowded areas and military outposts, if these even exist, will be fraught with danger. Actually, in any type of disaster or chaotic situation, crowds and crowded areas can pose a very big threat to your safety and even your survival.

Look at what happened in New Orleans, Louisiana during and immediately after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. There was mass looting, assaults, sexual assaults, murders, and even police officers who shot and killed some of the people in a group of survivors who were crossing Danziger Bridge trying to find help.

Experts have found that in almost any life threatening or survival situation 3 out of 4 people become so bewildered or overwhelmed that they are mentally paralyzed, and they cannot act in their own best interest when it comes to staying alive and surviving.

Another 10% will be extremely dangerous because they will lose it and freak out, putting everyone in their vicinity at high risk of danger.

Only around 15% of individuals will stay calm and analyze the situation rationally. Would you be one of them?

3 Second SEAL Test Will Tell You If You’ll Survive A SHTF Situation

Why are crowds so dangerous despite of the large number of people they include?

A large number of people together could make the entire area or group much more noticeable or attractive to people looking for an easy score. This will attract other groups who may want to harm you or take what you need to survive.

Rioting could break out and leave you open to attack.

In a disaster or other chaotic event which is life threatening large groups could attract the attention of military or law enforcement, and you could end up in a deadly situation that you can’t get out of if these groups see you and others with you as a threat.

Large numbers of people that you do not know greatly increases the danger because any one of them could become unhinged or dangerous at any time. You could quickly become targeted for theft, assault, or even something worse.

A crowd can quickly go from calm to a full stampede in very little time. If you get caught up in a large throng of people all pushing you could end up trapped, or even crushed to death from the force of the crowd.

When your life depends on keeping a low profile and avoiding any unnecessary attention the last place you want to be is in a crowd of people. Stay isolated and avoid crowds and crowded areas whenever possible if you want to stay safe!

The Sense We Call Situational Awareness

The simplest definition of situational awareness is to be completely aware of everyone and everything around you, paying close attention to even smaller details that many people would miss. When you are aware of all the important elements of a situation then you are far less likely to be caught by surprise or end up in danger.

Identify all the critical elements of the situation, process this information in a calm manner, and then comprehend how this could impact you.

If you see some men fighting down the block or a large mob gathered you can avoid the situation and protect yourself from any danger. If you are walking along in your own little world you could end up entering a very dangerous situation. You need to know where you are, what is going on around you, and how to escape the situation in the fastest way possible if this becomes necessary.

Practicing your situational awareness can seem like a game while training you for almost any survival or disaster situation. Make a habit of really paying attention to your surroundings and other people, taking note of even small details like the color of a building or what a person ahead of you in line is wearing.

After paying attention to your situation close your eyes and try to remember what you have seen and experienced. What color was that woman’s dress?. Where are the two exits closest to you in the building? As you practice you will be able to answer these types of questions faster because you will pay more attention to detail from the beginning.

Look around you and try to find things that seem out of the ordinary or abnormal in some way. If it is 100 degrees outside yet a man is wearing a trench coat or large jacket this can be a red flag. If a woman is standing still on a street corner and is holding a cigarette with a long ash but she does not take a puff for some time this is unusual. Someone who is profusely sweating while staying still when it is cold out would be suspicious.

When you first enter any building always make a mental note of the exits, especially those that are closest to you.

Look at the people around you and try to determine what they do, where they are headed, and what they are thinking. This will help you pay closer attention to every detail about that purpose and over time you will become more observant in a shorter time.

Visualize an emergency situation, such as a mass shooter or a bomb explosion, and practice what you would do in your head. This is similar to visualization and it can be very beneficial for this type of situational awareness training.

Predator vs. Prey or Alpha vs. Beta

All animals fall into one of two categories: predator or prey, namely those who kill to survive, and those who are killed for food. What the predator versus prey mentality means in a survival situation? Being prey means being a victim and the possibility of not surviving. Animals can’t choose the category they belong to, but you can turn from pray to predator if you train your skills and mindset well enough to make the swipe from one category to another.

Today the word predator is associated with negative things, but in a survival situation a predator survives while prey usually does not.

Another way to look at it is using alpha and beta model instead of predator and prey. The predator is an alpha, a top dog, someone who is dominant that others look up to and want to be like. Prey is a beta a follower instead of a leader and who is submissive to others. Alphas always tend to come out on top in any situation while betas rarely do. If you want to survive then you need to become an alpha, a predator.

If people around you see you as weak, then they’ll try to take advantage of this weakness, and this threatens your survival when things become more primitive and it is everyone for themselves.

How to awake and train you alpha senses

Project confidence. This is different from being cocky or aggressive. When you are confident in your skills and abilities then this shows, and others pick up on it. Kill off negative thoughts that erode your confidence before these thoughts can take root and grow. Replace negative thoughts with positive affirmations.

You need to be psychologically dominant in order to stay alive, because this can prevent danger in the first place. This means refusing to submit and letting others know that you will do what is necessary if push comes to shove.

Use body language to your advantage. Foes may be able to tell just from your stance, your facial expressions, and other obvious body language whether you will put up any resistance. If you seem like an easy target you are more likely to be engaged by an enemy. Assume an

aggressive or fighting stance with your feet placed apart for stability. Stand up straight and look the opponent directly in the eyes.

Learn to adapt to any environment or situation. Be realistic about what your strengths and weaknesses are, and then minimize the weaknesses that you have while maximizing your strengths.

Practice persistence, even if you initially fail. Predators never give up and neither should you. Set a difficult goal, such as walking 2 miles with a 40-pound pack, and then be persistent in trying to meet it. Eventually you will reach this goal, and you will learn the value of

patience while your confidence goes up.

Practice situational awareness and mindfulness. Prey goes through life blindly, hoping that they will not come across a predator. An alpha will pay attention to even the smallest details and everything in their environment so that they fully understand the situation and can respond appropriately to any threat.

When your life is on the line, safety is just an illusion while everything is out of control, and feeling safe will make let your guard down. This makes you vulnerable and could leave you open to attack.

Don’t become a victim or put your survival at risk with a false sense of security. Train your senses and your skills to overcome the danger and survive!

This article has been written by John Gilmore for Survivopedia.

from Survivopedia Don't forget to visit the store and pick up some gear at The COR Outfitters. How prepared are you for emergencies? #SurvivalFirestarter #SurvivalBugOutBackpack #PrepperSurvivalPack #SHTFGear #SHTFBag

#SHTF #TEOTWAWKI #MARTIALLAW #BUGOUT #PREPPERBAG #USAF #USSOCOM #ARMY #NAVY #SurvivalFirestarter #Sur

1 note · View note

archetype-online-blog · 5 years

Text

Blog: Less Isn’t Always More: When Long Sentences Aren’t the Enemy

Sometimes, with no small degree of thoughtfulness and care, writing in a meandering style, that is to say with numerous elaborations, twists and turns, and infamous semi-colons, can be an elegant and, indeed, effective strategy.

But when? And how do you do it well?

If you’ve ever taken a creative writing class you were probably taught to internalize certain rules. Less is more, clarity is key, and if you must use an adverb (God help you) do it quietly, and with an appropriate level of shame.

Maybe you managed to take those rules to heart. Maybe you didn’t need to be taught them in the first place, they were so innately obvious. Or perhaps you felt exactly the opposite: that the rules you were told to follow were completely wrong, irrelevant, or at the very least, inapplicable to your specific creative vision. You, dear reader, are a free spirit, a unique individual. Teachers aren’t dumb, and it would be silly to assume they can’t help you improve your writing in some way. But how can they tell you exactly what to do? How can there be strict guidelines for a fundamentally creative process?

In truth, you’re right to be suspicious. Many of the standards we’ve come to associate with “good” fiction, especially those that are taught in high school and college level English courses, aren’t standards at all: they’re strong historical preferences. Take, for example, the golden rule of writing courses the world over: “less is more.” You’ve probably been told that long sentences with too many adjectives are, in a word, wrong. Prose should be simple, clear, and concise. If your reader needs a map to find the purpose of your paragraph, you’ve made a grave and irreversible mistake.

But this preference for clarity isn’t an age-old law of the written word. Take some of the opening lines from Moby Dick:

“Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off—then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.”

This sentence (or depending on your point of view, sentences) is ostensibly an editor’s worst nightmare. Have you ever seen that many semicolons in one place? Let alone a single sentence that could rightfully be a full paragraph? What was Herman Melville thinking? Or how about this sentence from Carmilla:

“I have said ‘the nearest inhabited village,’ because there is, only three miles westward, that is to say in the direction of General Spielsdorf's schloss, a ruined village, with its quaint little church, now roofless, in the aisle of which are the moldering tombs of the proud family of Karnstein, now extinct, who once owned the equally desolate chateau which, in the thick of the forest, overlooks the silent ruins of the town.”

Would these excerpts be substantially improved if they followed the rules; if they divided their meandering clauses into neat little chunks with periods at the end? They’d certainly look a lot more like what we consider quality writing today, the “tight” prose that writers like Raymond Carver and Ernest Hemingway are famous for. But wouldn’t something about the distinct voice of Ishmael (Moby Dick’s protagonist) be lost if he didn’t think and speak in winding, introspective monologue? Wouldn’t the isolation and desolation of Carmilla’s ruined village lack something if it was communicated to the reader without clause after clause of ornate gothic prose?

Tastes change, and if Moby Dick or Carmilla were published in 2018, they might read completely differently. But different is not necessarily better. In 100 years the standards for “good writing” might be completely unrecognizable to us, but this would no more invalidate the quality of the books we publish today than the existence of Raymond Carver invalidates the existence of Herman Melville.

That’s not to say that sentences can never be too long. Consider the following excerpt from my (as yet unpublished) novella, Bartleby Goes West:

“Bartleby knew that he had unfinished business, business being his preferred term for acts of incomprehensible brutality, business that stuck to the back of his brain like bits of omelette at the edge of a frying pan, but he knew also that Laura had drugged his drink, Laura who never believed in his dream to join the circus, the dream he had tended to in the garden of his mind since the age of seven, Laura who had stabbed him that night in Reno, stabbed him with the back-end of a rusty box-cutter, Laura who left him to die there, bleeding, with seven box-cutters stuck between his ribs…”

And it goes on. There are many problems with this sentence, but the main one is that the length, combined with its lack of focus, turns the whole thing into the prose equivalent of an 18 car pile up. Without a point, the sentence goes nowhere, and instead of paying attention to any element of the story the reader loses interest entirely.

It’s possible to write something like this well. Take the first sentence of The Crying of Lot 49:

“One summer afternoon Mrs Oedipa Maas came home from a Tupperware party whose hostess had put perhaps too much kirsch in the fondue to find that she, Oedipa, had been named executor, or she supposed executrix, of the estate of one Pierce Inverarity, a California real estate mogul who had once lost two million dollars in his spare time but still had assets numerous and tangled enough to make the job of sorting it all out more than honorary.”

This sentence contains its fair share of digressions and details that seemingly don’t relate to the main idea. Whether it’s executor or executrix, that there was too much kirsch in the fondue, or that Pierce Inverarity had once lost two million dollars in his spare time, while details that are appropriate to the story itself, all seem unrelated to the immediate purpose of the sentence: informing the reader that the protagonist, Oedipa, has been charged with the execution of a millionaire’s will. But because of the way Pynchon weaves the point of the sentence throughout its text, the meaning is fairly obvious. If we remove the digressions, the sentence becomes:

“One summer afternoon Mrs Oedipa Maas came home from a Tupperware party ... to find that she, Oedipa, had been named executor... of the estate of one Pierce Inverarity, a California real estate mogul who … still had assets numerous and tangled enough to make the job of sorting it all out more than honorary.”

You can see how the parts of these parts of the sentence that elaborate on the main idea frame the parts that meander off or seem to get sidetracked.

Ultimately, writing in a meandering style isn’t impossible, it just takes a lot of thoughtfulness and care. You can also see now why the Bartleby sentence just doesn’t work: without a framing device, the writing becomes a list of digressions and non sequiturs.

And with that in mind, dear reader, remember not to be too hard on your teacher. Newer writers often struggle to communicate exactly what they mean, and from a teacher’s perspective, strict rules can help guide students into producing work that more closely adheres to what they meant to say in the first place. But at the same time, over-reliance on rules and over-emphasis on the value of “tight” prose can leave a lot of students feeling adrift and unmoored. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean you shouldn’t attempt it. And if you love long meandering sentences, if you love books that experiment, that break the boundaries of traditionally “good” fiction, then why not try your hand at writing one yourself?

Like our blog? Find more posts at https://archetypeonline.org/blog/

#archetypeonline #blog post #writing style #concision #creative writing #writing advice #young writers #genre fiction

0 notes

inhumansforever · 7 years

Photo

Moon Girl & Devil Dinosaur #17 Review

spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers spoilers

The World’s Smartest storyline comes to its climax as Moon G and Devil D calls on the many friends and allies she’s made over the adventure to triumph over an army of Doombots. From the creative team of Amy Reeder, Brendan Montclare, Natacha Bustos and Tamra Bonvillain. Full recap/review following the jump.

Amadeus Cho had used a universal metric to discover that Lunella Lafayette is the smartest being in the world. At first this was a fun validation for her, but has ultimately proven far more trouble than its worth. Doctor Doom, or rather a legion of automaton DoomBots who look and sound like Dr. Doom, has taken great exception to this proclamation of Lunella being the world’s smartest. And these robots will stop at nothing until Lunella is thoroughly defeated thus proving that Doom is actually the smartest.

The issue begins with Lunella reaching to the various friends (and some foes) she has made of late, asking that they all be ready when the time is right. This includes Dr. Strange, The Thing, the Totally Awesome Hulk, Kid Kree, The X-Men, Ms. Marvel, Iron Heart, and even the Yancy Street Gang!

Some time later, sitting in class bored and isolated by the lack of scholastic challenge and intellectual peers, Lunella dwells over how she has come to feel overly self reliant. Doing things on her own has often been the easier way to get things done. Yet she is coming to realize that easier doesn’t always mean better.

Later, in her lab, Lunella listens to the disembodied DoomBot head prattle on. She had kept the robotic head following her adventure with The X-Men, hoping too use it to foil the DoomBots’ schemes to vanquish her. Although she is starting to imagine that it is not that great of an idea to have a device in her laboratory whose sole function is to hurl insults at her… adding that she already has the internet for that (an interesting meta-contextual nod that I’ll get to later). Fortunately, Lunella has attached a restrainer device that prevents the head from signaling out to its fellow DoomBot brethren.

Lunella feels suddenly faint and before she knows it her Inhuman power has activated and her consciousness is switched with that of Devil Dinosaur. This ‘power’ has very often proven to be much more of an obstacle than anything else, always triggering at the most inopportune of times… finding Lunella’s mind trapped in a powerful but essentially useless dinosaur body while Devil D’s mind is sent to her body which usually entails his going on embarrassing rampages that Lunella has to try to explain later on.

The hows and whys of this power has thus far seemed random, but perhaps this isn’t the case. In Devil Dinosaur’s body, Lunella gazes up the full moon and realizes there may be a correlation. It seems that their minds swap whenever there is a full moon; that somehow the lunar cycle must have an effect on her powers. If this proves to be the case it will offer Lunella a new variable that may allow greater understanding and possibly even control over her powers.

A quick interlude shows Lunella’s parents preparing Thanksgiving Dinner. Lunella had promised to help her mom in the preparations and Mrs. Lafayette is rather disappointed that her daughter has once again failed to follow through. Lunella’s mom and dad have not really been a strong presence in the series thus far, but perhaps that will change in subsequent issues. The two seem to be rather exasperated by their daughter. With all of Lunella’s intellect and her exploits as Moon Girl her mom and dad seem to feel somewhat left behind and unsure what to do about it.

Back at the lab, Devil D has occupied Lunella’s body and used the opportunity to wail on the disembodied DoomBot head. With the body of a nine year old, Devil D isn’t able to do much in the way of damage to the robotic head, but he does however manage to break the inhibitor module preventing it from calling out to its fellow DoomBots.

No sooner than Lunella returns then the two switch bodies again and return to their original forms. And it is then that Lunella realizes that she is supposed to be home helping her mom. She arrives home in a huff, but before she can do anything, an alert comes over the television announces that a legion of DoomBots have congregated on the Lower East Side. Donning her Moon Girl outfit, Lunella races back out and uses her Avengers communication device to issue an all points bulletin to her colleagues… this is it, codeword: ‘doomsday!’

Being self reliant and doing things on one’s own can sometimes be the easiest path, but not always the best one. And this is quite evident in the following splash-page in which a variable army of Moon Girl’s allies converge together and make rather short work of the DoomBots. The robots are routed, defeats and destroyed once and for all.

Lunella had previously made the mistake assuming that being smart and being autonomous are one and the same. With her preciousness, it has been difficult for her to make friends and she had grown accustomed to doing things on her own. Throughout her trials fighting off these DoomBots, however, she has come to learn that she is not alone nor does she need to be. And that there are many times where the smartest move is simply to ask for help.

‘Two heads are better than one’ is the central proverb coursing through the issue. It’s an old proverb with an unknown source but may be related to a passage from the book of Ecclesiastes from the Bible, which states, ‘therefore two are better then one, for they may well enjoy the profit of their labour.’

The DoomBots make for an interesting foil for Lunella in this adventure. Although they act in legion, the DoomBots share a singular mind and the narrowness of this groupthink causes the DoomBots to be overly myopic, ultimately leading to their defeat. Lunella had to overcome her own tendency for myopathy in order to prevail; which she did, thanks in large part to her special bond with Devil Dinosaur. Two heads are indeed better than one, and ten heads better than that, when it allows for a greater breath of ideas and feelings. We are stronger together and overcoming a need for self-sufficiency is what ultimately allowed Moon Girl to win the day.

A very fun story with an important and timely message at its core. It doesn’t matter how intelligent or proficient someone is, there are always challenges that can only be overcome with the aide of others. Needing help is not a weakness but rather a strength and a person’s reliance on mutuality can be just as important and necessary as their capacity for autonomy.

There have been numerous psychological studies into what factors contribute to childhood resiliency (one’s ability to cope in the face of adverse circumstances). Each of these studies have found that said resilience is a product of a keen interplay between internal disposition and external experiences. Intellect can indeed be a major factor in bolstering an individual’s resilience, yet the most important variable by far appears to be the availability of one or more close interpersonal relationships. In other words, true independence can only be born of a healthy sense of dependence… we arrive at autonomy by way of mutuality. This is the crux of what Lunella learned through this adventure and it’s a message I support 100%.

A couple of quick notes… I’m curious to learn more about the relationship between Lunella’s Inhuman powers and the lunar cycle. There have been several occasions where Moon Girl and Devil D have mind-swapped in the daytime so it wouldn’t make sense to liken the activation of her powers to that of say a werewolf. Perhaps it is the moon’s relative proximity to earth that activates her powers… keep in mind that The Inhuman city of Attilan was located on the moon for several years. Whatever the case, I’m looking forward to discovering more about this matter in future issue.

Moon Girl’s being declared the world’s smartest caused a small uproar among the fan community on the internet. There were numerous readers out there who voiced significant outrage that this relatively unknown brand new character could be just as smart if not smarter than longtime characters like Tony Stark, Hank Pam or Reed Richards. The Marvel Universe is a make-believe world where there are magic hammers, where radioactive spider bites cause super powers rather than cancer, and natural human mutation leads to the ability to control the weather. Surely a nine-year-old girl being smartest of the smart shouldn’t be all that difficult a concept to swallow. Not all but some of this outrage smacked of the taint of sexism and racism, as though the idea that the world’s smartest could be a girl and could be Black. The creative team behind the story offers a small degree of clap-back in the form of the disembodied DoomBot head and the torrent of insults it throws at Lunella.

The situation between Lunella and her parents is left unresolved and I hope it gets addressed soon in future issues. It cannot be easy raising a child like Lunella and I’m feeling rather sorry for Mr. and Mrs. Lafayette. I imagine they may feel somewhat robbed of the opportunity to raise their daughter.

Finally, a piece of bad news is revealed in the letters page of the issue. Co-author, Amy Reeder has announced that she will be leaving the book to focus on creator-owned projects. The rest of the creative team will stay on, with Natacha Bustos providing covers along with her stunning interior art. Fellow co-author, Brendan Montclare, will take over as sole writer and I’m sure he will do a fine job, but this in nevertheless a huge loss. I certainly understand Ms. Reeder’s wish to focus on creator-own works, indeed I would love to see Rocket Girl return to the shelves. At the same time, the sense of synergy created by Reeder, Montclare, Bustos and Tamra Bonvillain has been truly exceptional, making Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur consistently one of the best books on the stands. Reattaining such a synergy without Ms. Reeder is sure to be a difficult challenge. I think the team is up to this challenge, but it’s a bummer nonetheless. Ms. Reeder’s leaving the title is a huge loss for the Inhumans books as a whole.

I wish her the best and will definitely look out for her future endeavors. And I remain hopeful that Mr. Montclare and the rest of the team can maintain the magic that has made Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur such a wonderful book. Definitely recommended; Four out of Five Lockjaws.

#Inhumans #Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur #spoilers #Amy Reeder #Brendan Montclare #Natacha Bustos #Tamra Bonvillain #review

3 notes · View notes

pro-exotics · 7 years

Link

Again, this is not my work and I take no credit.

1. Pet suitability judged by how many people own them

‘Exotic pet’ is just a term that means ‘uncommon pet’, and what constitutes such is completely subjective. Every animal that isn’t a dog or a cat, for some reason, can qualify. This includes other ‘domesticated’ animals. Very few people believe cats and dogs are the only animals people should own, because the stupidity of that position is obvious. What isn't so obvious is that thinking there is a simple way to classify animals by which are ‘exotic’ and therefore ‘unsuitable’ as pets is not different. There are no substantial differences between most animals and their needs in captivity no matter what they are.

Exotic pet = Uncommon pet

Wild animal = Animal that lives in the wild or is un-socialized (can be domesticated)

2. Everyone is OK with ‘working dogs’ and feral cats

Many people place domesticated animals in the suitable pet category, and exotic, or so-called wild animals in the bad pet category. But some exotic pets are easier to manage than some domesticated animals—even dogs and cats. Owners of ‘working’ dogs love to talk about how the average owner can’t handle their border collie, or ‘high-drive’ Belgian Malinois. Some of these dogs give ‘high-maintenance’ exotic pets a run for their money. Caring for feralized cats as pets is not unlike owning a wild cat from Africa, but you are free to do this. When some domesticated breeds require advanced care, possessing the same or more intensive traits of some exotics, and no one thinks they shouldn’t be available as pets, the talk about how unethical it is to have exotic pets amounts to prejudice against them for being non-conventional.

3. Hundreds of species, 2 semi-serious zoonotic diseases reported

Monkey pox, an outbreak originating from imported African rodents in 2003, is the ‘go-to’ example of disease that is brought up by activists to prove the exotic pet trade can result in a deadly pandemic. Salmonella, prevalent in some reptiles (and to a lesser degree in even dogs and other mammals) is also frequently mentioned. Just like all animals, non-traditional pets can carry pathogens. Some might even be transmissible to humans and cause mild illness. Despite the fear mongering, there is no incidence of severe illness spread from the most ‘unaccepted exotic pets’. In fact, the more common and accepted the pet, the higher the occurrence of notable disease. When it comes to lethal zoonotic disease, such as rabies, domesticated pets, notably cats, are the most common pet-type animal to contract it. The unaccepted exotic pet’s relatively low population and the fact that they most often do not come from the wild lowers their much overstated threat to public health.

4. Worst invasive species order: cats>plants>fish>pigs>....exotic pets?

Once again, while the always accepted domesticated pet species are not only what exotic pet owners are urged to acquire instead of what they want, said species are causing the environmental problems that people theorize can occur with exotic pets to an extreme degree…and very few people care or want to do anything about it! Cats have a widespread invasive presence in the environment, from Maine to California, Hawaii to Alaska. Other prominent invaders are fish and plants that do not come from the pet trade. How many people are passionate about stopping the ornamental horticulture trade? Some exotic pets that happen to be more accepted are causing big problems, although their populations are restricted to certain areas and may not even be established. What about the unaccepted exotic pets [exotic mammals]? There are just a few isolated populations of escaped captive animals that have been reported, mainly in Florida.

5. Job opportunities down the drain

Many veterinarians and vet techs specialize in exotic pets. Numerous retail stores fulfill the exotic pet niche. Many individuals begin their animal-related careers as exotic pet owners and some develop interest in the cause of animal conservation. The exotic pet trade develops job opportunities, strengthens the economy, and shapes lives. It should be accommodated and appreciated just like any other hobby involving the natural world.

youtube

6. Exotic pets are ‘dangerous’ when they are large, just like other animals

Wild animals aren’t dangerous. If they were we wouldn’t be able to leave our homes with all those squirrels and deer running around. Some animals are dangerous, of course, it just isn’t an inherent trait of so-called exotic pets or wild animals. There are both dangerous exotic pets and dangerous conventional pets. Tigers, being a powerful cat weighing hundreds of pounds, are dangerous. Believe it or not, your average cat would be just as dangerous if it were the same size, maybe even more. We need to stop labeling exotic pets as dangerous because it makes no sense and results in a grave injustice to exotic animal owners whose animals cannot be considered a public safety threat no matter how you look at it.

7. The ‘black market’ is already illegal

Most pets considered to be exotic are not majorly threatened by the pet trade. Most of those that are affected are mainly declining due to habitat destruction. The few exotic pets that are mainly threatened by the pet trade in modern times are collected and sold in their own country, or countries that are not the U.S. Most of these animals are birds and reptiles, the more ‘accepted’ exotic pet types. Some species have been impacted from unregulated collection in the past and while their populations might have sustained permanent damage, laws were put in place to prevent it from happening in the future. As the illegal wildlife trade is illegal and being dealt with accordingly and effectively, this is not a strong reason to strip people of their pets.

8. The right to own pets: as fundamental as it gets

The idea of someone making it illegal to own a dog or cat seems unfathomable. It is irrefutable that the ownership of these species has problems but no activist would dare try to ban the right to own them, they know they would be laughed out of the room anyway. Our culture recognizes the need for pets and it’s more profound than just for plain amusement. Pets have been shown to lower blood pressure and increase longevity in humans. Pets can improve mental health. Pets open up doors for people. The benefits of pets outweigh the negatives. That special pet might not be a dog. Some people gravitate towards unaccepted pet species instead of conventional ones (or both) and are denied in most states because it is an unpopular species. Banning someone’s pet deer, fox, or kinkajou is no different from banning someone’s cat, and it causes the same distress.

9. Cushiest ‘animal exploitation’ ever? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones

It’s no surprise PETA is against owning exotic pets when they are against owning all pets, zoos, and use of animal products. But how does hate for owning exotic pets spread to average people who aren’t against barbeques, honey, and ice cream? Most people agree that the substandard conditions in battery farms need to change; yet just banning the entire industry is not what most consider to be reasonable. Such people are seething mad at the idea that someone wants to own a certain pet—and whether the pet’s care needs improvement, or if it appears to be pampered—that doesn’t stop them from declaring that exotic pet owners are selfish egomaniacs that need to have their pets taken from them.

They make make up, so they KNOW.

10. Remember when it was wrong to dictate other people’s lives?

“Should people be taking these animals out of equatorial habitats so they can be pets? We’re not crazy about that idea.”

-Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesman Joe Lewandowski on the subject of allowing sloth sand kangaroos as pets in Colorado

Remember, there are millions of people who are more than ‘not crazy about’ what animal products you use or eat, what you spend your money on or what businesses you patronize, yet I don’t see officials scrambling to regulate such things based on their personal feelings.

I can provide counter arguments to that all day but when it’s all said and done, it should be my decision if I want to buy a non-endangered animal that is less harmful to the environment than a cat, less of a public safety issue than a dog [or equivalent], and has a public health threat status that is only theoretical and unlikely. When it comes to more dangerous pets, people should have the opportunity to acquire the rights to own them if they can demonstrate they have the proper facility.

When state wildlife officials are considering what ‘exotic’ animals should be legal—when arguments against it start to sound like: “I’m just not a fan” or “it seems pretty unethical to me” or “those animals really belong in the wild”—the only reasonable conclusion should be that those species should be legal and this should have never been a debate. This is especially true if the other arguments against the animal are nutty or just plain dumb, such as concerns that a sloth or a kangaroo might cause invasive diseases, habitat loss [in Colorado!], and parasites, and that indoor pot-bellied pigs might contract rabies, or ferrets might escape into apartment walls. These reasons have all actually been suggested.

When someone comes up with unsubstantiated reasons to prohibit certain animals, that’s their way of saying BECAUSE I SAID SO. And if that is your mentality, you’re no better than the people in this video:

youtube

#not mine #article

5 notes · View notes

paranoidsbible · 7 years

Text

Paranoid’s Bible text backup.

The Paranoid's Bible Non-profit and free for redistribution Written on June 04th | 2014 Published on October 22nd | 2015 For entertainment and research purposes only DISCLAIMER The Paranoid's Bible and its writers hold no responsibility for the acts of others. The Paranoid’s Bible is for research and entertainment purposes only. Please visit our blog for more PDFs and information: http://www.paranoidsbible.tumblr.com/

============================================================== Table of Contents DISCLAIMER 2 Preface 4 A History of Doxing 5 Weaponizing Dox 6 Why You Should Fear Doxing 7 Why You Should Care 8 The Need for Privacy 9 Compartmentalization and You 10 Find your Digital Footprint - Introduction: 11 Find your Digital Footprint - Dossier: 13 Find your Digital Footprint—Resources 15 Find your Digital Footprint – Tactic 20 Find your Digital Foot print--Things you should know and do 26 The Paranoid’s Rules 30 Opt-out Master-list 33 What to do if doxed 49 Afterword 52 Questions and Answers 53 ============================================================== Preface The who: People that have decided to combine their resources to create a repository of information. The what: The Paranoid’s Bible: A free to use resource that aims to help people self-dox. The where: The internet: An abused form of communication, education and betterment of mankind. The why: To give people the tools to self audit. ============================================================== A History of Doxing [1]Doxing is a term believed to have roots in the age of the BBS. It describes the action of finding information on a target from an initial set of data in the form of a screen name or email. Many people find this information through search engines or other services offered online. Take note that doxing can take place anywhere, even offline. Individuals can and will try their hand at social engineering. They'll do this by asking businesses or groups for more information on a target. It's accomplished through the claim of being someone they're not or through asking questions. The word comes from ‘document tracing,’ which has a past in web 1.0. Regardless, doxing's a neutral act that is free of political and moral responsibilities. It's used by many groups and individuals that range in religious and political beliefs. So, the person committing the act is the one that places politics or morals onto it. The target can range from possible racists or sexists to an innocent person or a victim of some scheme. Remember: Anyone can become a target and victim of doxing. The truth is that no one is un-dox-able. It’s speculated this is the end result of mob justice and social justice on the internet. Doxing is just something that won't go away. And just like its rise to infamy in the early 2000s, it'll always have its ups and downs. We just have to learn to co-exist with it and guard ourselves. • Clarification on the spelling of Dox – One X only, not two. Dox is the proper, original spelling. Resources: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-is-doxing-and-how-does-it-affect-your-privacy-makeuseof-explains/ https://www.techgyd.com/know-doxing-protect-yourself/6197/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing http://socialengineering.wikia.com/wiki/Doxxing http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/doxing http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doxing ============================================================== Weaponizing Dox The internet is quite like a middle school’s playground. It's filled with immature individuals void of any real emotional or mental maturity. Just like in middle school, and some higher education, gossip is common. People will use your past against you. They’ll work on every tiny flaw and mistake to isolate you from others. And, like a lion singling out an ill gazelle from the herd, some people are quite opportunistic. Though, we’ll note that’s where the similarities end. People online, at large, have no means of coping with opinions or views that don’t match to their own. They’re so afraid of something of theirs being spoken badly of, that they seek to silence. Doxing is currently the most common form for silencing this supposed dissent. It's used to shame, blame and emotionally or mentally scar someone into censoring themselves. This self policing on tone and content isn’t something that many will see as a reason to prevent dox. Many will see it as a nuisance that’ll not happen to them. Why would anyone target you, right? You don’t matter, right? You’re right. You don’t matter. You’re just another pseudo-anonymous individual. That’s why it matters, too, though. By being online, you’re already a target for doxing. You frequent social media, the threats doubled. If you dare speak your mind, entire legions of perpetually angry individuals see you. They’re mad at you for existing. They’re mad at you for simply being an individual with their own views and voice. You said something they deemed bad. Maybe it's a "Micro-aggression" or wrong think. Either way, you are just another bump in the road for them. They're on an endless jihad to wipe out anything that might "trigger" them. They don’t care about you, either. Your family and friends will be targets, too. They’ll lay in wait until you’re at your highest or lowest. It doesn’t matter to them; they just want to make you into an example for stepping out of line. The line will shift and change constantly, yet it matters not to them. They want to ruin you and yours. Your job will be on the line. Human Resources will be harassed continuously with emails and phone calls. Your employer will wake up to their own social media accounts blasted with comments. And, again, you aren’t truly the target but what they perceive you as representing. It could be anything, honestly. But, you should still worry nonetheless. We may have stated in “The History of Dox” that doxing is a neutral act—and it is—but it’s being weaponized. Why You Should Fear Doxing Many believe doxing is something not to worry about. These people believe that by not posting their names, they're safe. It’s just not that easy anymore as we’re no longer a part of Web 1.0. We’re in more danger than ever before when it comes to our privacy. This is due to the interconnectivity of Web 2.0. You've things like tracking cookies, which is common knowledge. But how many users are aware of Facebook spying on its userbase and non-users alike? What about the fact that Google and its services are connected? The average users shouldn’t worry about the above, though. What will affect the average user is cat-fishing. Cat-fishing, in some ways, is like doxing and identity theft. You use someone else's information and identity to masquerade as that individual. You then, as this individual, take part in what many refer to as a "romance scam". This can be to try and stalk someone, milk them of their money, or to gain trust to commit a more atrocious act. Cat-fishing, although like doxing, isn't actually doxing nor the biggest possible threat. Doxing to many is just [1] pizza boxing and flooding a mailbox with [2] literal junk. There are also prank calls, theft of mail and many other acts that can, to some degrees, become worse. The issue isn’t that some use doxing a means to gather information for identity theft. It isn't just ruining your credit or stealing your money, either. There are some individuals out there who'll use doxing as a form of abuse. It isn't the stalking or physical abuse you should worry about, but the mental and emotional abuse. That stress alone can damage your less-than-mature victims. This is why many should fear doxing in its current form. Web 2.0 isn't just pranks and unwanted food. It's now a form of vigilante justice or revenge. It'll be done by those who see themselves as fighting for social justice. They'll ruin the livelihood of many due to any perceived wrong. They’ll continue their antics until the person they’re targeting is destroyed. • Pizza-boxing is the act of sending pizzas or other unordered food. • By literal junk we mean boxes, junk mail and similar items. Resources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfishing https://www.drphil.com/articles/article/720 https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0014-identity-theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/media/video-0024-what-if-youre-victim-identity-theft https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/11/18/someone-had-taken-over-my-life-an-identity-theft-victims-story/ ============================================================== Why You Should Care Information is the new form of currency that transcends borders and time. It’s used by both the governments and corporations of the world. Due to this simple fact it’s not only a valuable resource but also an important one. Personal data is sought after, regardless of your worth as an individual. You aren't the one they're interested in--your information is worth more than you. Even when dead, your information is valuable. You can remain apathetic about your information as no one needs to worry when they’re dead. It's just that the truth is quite scary. While you read this, someone is organizing your information into a dossier and selling it as a product. Corporations and government sponsored alphabet agencies are putting your information into lists and dossiers. These lists and dossiers rest in the dark corners of some data center in Utah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center). Every like, tweet, snap and chat saved. Every bookmark, account and login time noted. They track everything you say and view. It’s just the government, nothing to worry about… right? Well the government's known for ruining things you love; you should know this by now. You should be wary not of the government as a being but as an entity composed of individuals: • An individual can track an ex-lover (https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/politics/nsa-snooping/) • A group of individuals can target another group based upon their political beliefs (https://dailycaller.com/2014/12/22/bombshell-report-irs-targeted-icky-conservative-groups/) • A group can view your pornographic viewing habits and use it against you (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131127/00243625384/nsa-spied-porn-habits-radicalizers-planned-to-use-details-to-embarrass-them.shtml) The US government is but one of the major concerns for a person that's privacy minded. They not only spy on everyone, but they receive help from many corporations. These corporations make money off you and your information. They will buy, sell and trade with both the government and other corporations. Sites like Been Verified (https://www.beenverified.com/), Smart Zip (https://www.smartzip.com/) and Intelius (https://www.intelius.com/) will gather and place your data on not only their sites but sell it to others. Even search engines like Google or Bing have your personal information. These sites can have anything from your name to your address or even pictures of your house and vehicles It may seem like fear mongering and a lot of fuss about nothing, but your information is used for anything and everything. Anyone can find it now. No one can be too prepared when it comes to their privacy and personal safety. ============================================================== The Need for Privacy It doesn't matter if you believe in conspiracies or not, we're not here to judge. It's just that if there was an actual shadow group looking to control the world… then they've done it well. In the West, especially the US, fear is now law and so is the removal of freedom. We’re exchanging privacy for so-called security. The millenials recognized this early on and completely fumbled the ball. They prefer instant gratification and "karma culture" instead of personal responsibility. Their calls for government transparency were nothing but a forced meme. We regurgitate the catchphrases and trends force fed to us on news feeds and dashboards. We wallow in instant gratification and the infinite supply of praise we can get from the internet. All this has done for us is made us blunt to the concept of having some dignity. We air out our business to any and all who listen in the name of acceptance and progressiveness. What we’re doing is making ourselves ignorant to the fact that our privacy is dying. Without privacy, there is no security. Why do we need privacy? Why is it important? Well, without a natural set of social graces and respect... we’ll see what every country under a budding tyranny sees before conflict begins. Knocks at the door begin and men demanding a simple task: If you see something, say something. Think of the recent ads on TV and online, or look at the news-paper or even a magazine. They'll have the same thing to an extent—don’t trust people who aren't on Facebook (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/08/06/beware-tech-abandoners-people-without-facebook-accounts-are-suspicious/). Look around you; we’re now in a continuous state of fear. We may soon see propaganda in our cities telling us to report people for not socializing the correct way. This is why privacy is important and needed. Resources: https://www.roanoke.com/business/columns_and_blogs/columns/color_of_money/consumers-should-be-able-to-opt-out-of-having-data/article_4227df14-eda7-11e3-87d9-0017a43b2370.html? https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/who-let-the-dox-out/ https://www.techgyd.com/know-doxing-protect-yourself/6197/ ============================================================== Compartmentalization and You When it concerns information security, compartmentalization is the act of limiting access to information to persons or groups who need to know it in order to perform specific tasks. The concept originates from the military when handling "classified information" and intelligence applications. The basis is that if fewer people know the details, the less likely a mission or task will be jeopardized and be risked. This helps limit the chance that data could be compromised or fall into the hands of enemies. This also explains the varying levels of clearance within organizations, like "TOP SECRET" or the highly restricted "TOP SECRET ULTRA". Like a well-oiled military machine, one must treat their online life like a separate entity that's in no way, shape or form, related to their offline life. This is to prevent cross contamination of accounts and information. One such example of compartmentalization in cyber security, for the average internet user, is never using the same username or e-mail address for an account. Another example would be purchasing a subscription to a good, secure VPN to prevent your own IP and ISP from being detect. One other example is the use of add-ons to sanitize your referral links and randomizing browser's user agent. In the end, the best practice is to treat each and every account as a separate entity isolated from your other accounts. A new e-mail address, username, persona and style of typing will be needed for each and every account you create to prevent possible cross contamination. Please remember these simple steps when creating your accounts: • A different username • A different e-mail address • A different password • Always ensure you never use real world information • Always ensure your avatar and/or signature is of an image you've used nowhere else • Where you can, use a P.O. Box • Where you can, use a pre-paid card instead of your credit or debit • Where you can, use a burner phone (pre pair cell) instead of your landline or cell number • Use a word processor to double check your written content before posting • Try to limit the use of words you most commonly use • Try to limit your account's profile in what information you provide • Try to limit your overall account count to 10 or less • Never link accounts to each other • Never publicly post e-mail addresses or passwords • Never share or link your chat, instant messenger or social media accounts to people you don't trust • Never use your real name, nor should you ever post your real world information ==============================================================

Find your Digital Footprint - Introduction: Transparency for the sake of online socialization and interaction is a threat. This trend won't die anytime soon, mind you. There are many reasons for this, such as the alarming growth of social networks. You've also the demands for online passports (https://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/) or services like Klout (https://www.wired.com/2012/04/ff_klout/3/). It's obvious the need for privacy is in increasing demand, but the biggest setback for privacy is you. All those accounts you made in your early internet years? They have most likely left a nice trail that many can follow and use to learn about you. You see, it’s true; everything on the internet lasts. Unlike now, we weren’t taught to be as privacy-minded. Governments and corporations are fighting to wave privacy off as a paranoid's fantasy. Many privacy groups exist and claim to fight for your rights against the invasion of privacy. But how many actually do help? Many are in bed with corporations and/or the government. Many just demand donations because of a believed slight. Others... others just steal content from each other. The Paranoid's Bible (http://paranoidsbible.tumblr.com/)? We just want to spread knowledge. We believe your various accounts should be like any good camp fire: Well planned. You need to not only think it out but, also plan it out and have an emergency plan in case is spreads too far, too fast. Plus it doesn't hurt to have a plan to extinguish it. Your online profiles and accounts shouldn’t just rot. They need to be removed and all traces proving its existence also doused out. Like any good Woodsman or woman will tell you: A single campfire can destroy a forest. This is why you must always plan your accounts and profiles out. Like a campfire left alone in a forest, a single account or profile can destroy an entire life. Any one account and/or profile can decimate an entire person’s image. Yes, in theory, everything will remain cached, copied or saved on some server till the end of days. And you may think that just deleting an account will wipe all traces of it, but that isn’t the truth. Everything, even after deleting an account, is still there. By law, most sites and services have to keep everything on their servers for a few months to a year or more. So, in a sense, you can never delete an account, hence us saying you need to think. There are services for doing background checks on everyone and everything for any reasons. You have an online footprint and anyone can find it, there’s nothing else to say. You have a digital trail dedicated to all your old fanfics, photos or images and online debates. There are steps that you can take to prevent your online footprint from growing. But nothing short of doxing yourself ([1] self doxing) and learning just how much of your information is online can help. One issue is how you interact with others online. Another issue is how much information you post on the internet. All we can do is give you some simple suggestions before providing you the tools needed to self-dox. Once done, save this information somewhere on your computer or a USB where other's won't find it. Hold onto this until you've read the rest of this guide. This information will help you delete and opt-out of as much as possible. • Self doxing isn’t the act of doxing oneself and posting dox for all to see. It’s the opposite. It’s the act of using the tools, tactics and knowledge often used in doxing to “meta-dox” oneself. This act's done in private, not in the public's eye. You're to find and delete any traces or information that's found through the “self-dox”. This is to prevent possible doxing in the future. (E.G: Opting out and having your information deleted from Spokeo. Or deleting an old account you’ve associated with your real name). Resources: https://www.hackcommunity.com/Thread-DoX-DoXing-and-How-To-Prevent-It-being-anonymous-within-your-identity?pid=73506 https://www.minichan.org/topic/7866 https://www.hackcommunity.com/Thread-Tutorial-Maxx-s-Anti-Dox-Handbook?pid=180063 https://www.offbeathome.com/2013/03/how-to-keep-your-personal-information-private https://www.netsecurity.about.com/od/perimetersecurity/a/How-Criminals-Use-Google-Maps-Street-View-To-Case-The-Joint.htm https://www.abine.com/blog/2012/how-to-delete-things-from-the-internet/ https://www.null-byte.wonderhowto.com/inspiration/dont-get-doxed-5-steps-protecting-your-private-information-web-0133806/ https://www.thebot.net/general-tutorials/233339-how-doxing-works-protect-yourself/#post2372672 https://www.soyouwannalearnhowto.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/so-you-wanna-learn-how-to-prevent-doxing/ https://www.school-of-privacy.com/selfdox ============================================================== Find your Digital Footprint - Dossier: The reason to why we’re opting to use a dossier is because it’ll allow you to sort the information that you find on yourself. It's an easy-to-use format, too. This serves as your go-to document, which I recommend that you save in a .txt. We know many will not believe this to be useful. Many will say you can't stop the government or corporations from spying. But corporations or government aren't out to ruin your life or financial security. The people you have to worry about getting a hold of this information are civilians. They'll contact employers, family and friends all under the guise of social justice. With the right combination of information, they can guess passwords and security questions. They can even discover information you don’t have on the internet with the proper combo. The below contains some simplified descriptions of why each piece of information is useful. Name: Even if common, a person’s name (first and/or last) can help verify information. It can lead to more private information found through Google and other services. Age: Like their name, their age can confirm certain information. Birth date: Used to verify age and name, plus other information. Location: A general location, like a city or state, can help locate an address. It can confirm their identity on social networking sites and application sites (among others). Phone number: Verify name and location Home address: What else to say? The home address can usually turn up images and misc information through Google. Possible relations: Mother, father, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, friends…ETC. This can confirm other pieces of information. Usernames: Using the same username over and over again can create a trail. By leaving one and telling others where you’re going, you can create a trail, too. E-mail addresses: A key to tracking people down, the e-mail address leads to many things. Accounts: Links to accounts found on various websites, used to keep a list of where you’ve been. Websites: Most likely has information you don’t realize. Information can be found through a "whois" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS) search Misc information: Miscellaneous pieces of information that may seem crucial or of interest. For example: Mac Address, IP address, IDs, SSN, birth certificates...ETC. Possible accounts: Similar username or other items that makes you believe an account's related. Images: Can verify accounts; find Exif data…ETC. Make two dossiers. One with the information you know and recall, then a second one with the information that you've found online through the use of this guide. Keep the two separate once done. Compare them only after you've read this guide fully. ============================================================== Find your Digital Footprint—Resources It’s important to keep track of the information found through the use of the provided dossier. We suggest that you also keep track of how each piece of information was found, as well as what led you to that discovery. This way you’ll be able to *provide us with more insight and knowledge on how to prevent information from leaking. You also will be able to help us figure out how to remove it. Remember, though, it isn’t who you are. It's who you used to be and what you’ve once said. This is what most people look for when they wish to dox someone. It's the key to ruining someone, no matter how liked they are online. Knowing what someone said or did in the past will help ruin their present self. Now, before you start, put yourself into the shoes of a stranger. You should think back to previous scenarios or cases where you’ve heard of doxing. The reason I ask this is simple: To see just how varied doxing can be and just how unethical it can get at times. Think of it like this: Someone you’ve argued with. Think of someone who wished nothing short of a pox upon your genitals or the death of your dog. This person has decided to track every piece of information possible on you that exist online. This hatred is what usually drives people onward toward their goal of doxing. They need to find information on someone and put them in their place. Or it’s because they believe it’s their moral right to track down those who wander away from the hive mind. Once you get into this frame of mind, don’t think of the information you know, but search for what you don't. Search for items posted in the present and past. You must find this information and use it. Add it to your dossier. You'll get a glimpse of what others see when they comb through your blog and internet past. Now, to make this simpler for you, we're going to end this part with a links and miscellaneous resources. Username: > https://www.namechk.com/ > https://www.knowem.com/ > https://www.namecheckr.com/ > https://www.checkusernames.com/ General: > https://www.spokeo.com/ > https://www.pipl.com/ > https://www.wink.com/ > https://www.peekyou.com/ > https://www.yoname.com/ > https://www.linkedin.com/ > https://www.search.yahoo.com/ > https://www.google.com/ > https://www.bing.com/ > https://www.reddit.com/ > https://www.wink.com/ > https://www.aad.archives.gov/aad/series-list.jsp?cat=GS29 > https://www.numberway.com/uk/ > https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/initMap.do > https://www.jailbase.com/en/sources/fl-lcso/ > https://www.publicrecords.onlinesearches.com/ > https://www.www.abika.com/ > https://www.www.freeality.com/ > https://www.radaris.com/ > https://www.twoogel.com/ > https://www.advancedbackgroundchecks.com > https://www.yellowpagesgoesgreen.org/ > https://www.Intelius.com/ > https://www.PublicRecordsNow.com > https://www.Smartzip.com Social Networks: > https://www.twitter.com/ > https://www.facebook.com/ > https://www.deviantart.com > https://www.xanga.com/ > https://www.tumblr.com/ > https://www.myspace.com/ > https://www.yasni.com/ > https://www.socialmention.com/ > https://www.whostalkin.com/ > https://www.linkedin.com/ > https://www.formspring.me/ > https://www.foursquare.com/ > https://www.about.me/ > https://www.profiles.google.com/ > https://www.blogger.com > https://www.photobucket.com/ > https://www.quora.com/ > https://www.stumbleupon.com/ > https://www.reddit.com > https://www.digg.com > https://www.plixi.com > https://www.pulse.yahoo.com/ > https://www.flickr.com/ Location: > https://www.whitepages.com/person > https://www.maps.google.com/ > https://www.411.com/ > https://www.192.com/ > https://www.zabasearch.com/ > https://www.zillow.com People: > https://www.123people.com/ > https://www.peekyou.com/ > https://www.peoplejar.com/ > https://www.anywho.com/whitepages > https://www.yahoo.intelius.com/ > https://www.findermind.com/free-people-search-engines/ > https://www.ipeople.com > https://www.facebook.com/directory/people/ > https://www.skipease.com/ > https://www.zabasearch.com/ > https://www.wink.com/ > https://www.dobsearch.com/ > https://www.searchbug.com/ > https://www.nationwidecrafts.com/ > https://www.everyone411.com/ > https://wwww.Acxiom.com/ > https://wwww.MyLife.com/ > https://www.Zabasearch.com > https://www.ussearch.com/ > https://www.peoplesmart.com/ > https://www.usa-people-search.com/ > https://www.spoke.com/ > https://www.SOBSearch.com/ > https://www.beenverified.com/ > https://www.peoplefinder.com/ Phone numbers: > https://www.whitepages.com/reverse-lookup > https://www.freecellphonedirectorylookup.com/ > https://www.fonefinder.net/ Images: > https://www.tineye.com/ > https://www.saucenao.com/ > https://www.photobucket.com/ > https://www.revimg.net/ > https://www.iqdb.org/ Programs: > Skype Add-ons (for Firefox) > Exif viewer Whois: > https://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp Caches: > https://www.archive.is (Can be used to make your own caches of pages) > https://www.archive.org/web/ You may have come across similar links from such sites as insurgen.cc. Or maybe from an image board with an /i/nvasion or /i/nsurgency board. You could've even seen it on some social justice blogger's anti-bigotry how-to. But these links...? They're actually well known and have been the staple of a lot of lists and guides on how track a person or persons down. These links will help you find your own information and thus help you dox yourself. Please remember: This is but a sampling. If you wish to see a larger chunk of the iceberg that invades our privacy then look at the supplementary guides. Please hold off on the “opt-outs” until you’ve read this whole guide. We’ve organized the opt-outs to help you speed along with the removal of your information. We ask you to wait as we also have various tips and tricks to ensure you do it right. • Searching a person a specific way leads to different websites that cache their information. Resources: https://www.propublica.org/article/privacy-tools-opting-out-from-data-brokers https://consumerist.com/2010/06/21/giant-list-of-data-brokers-to-opt-out-of/ https://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/technology/1012/gallery.data_miners/index.html https://www.privacyalerts.org/data-brokers.html https://www.privacyrights.org/online-information-brokers-list https://unlistmy.info/sites https://consumerist.com/2010/06/21/giant-list-of-data-brokers-to-opt-out-of/ https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-take-back-your-privacy-from-data-brokers/ https://silversteampunk.tumblr.com/post/70232779066/i-used-this-image-because-ive-seen-it-posted ============================================================== Find your Digital Footprint – Tactic When one looks for information online, there isn’t just a single way to go about it. It’s a mess of tactics, resources, and Googling until one’s fingers are raw from typing. Because of this, we’ve created a series of simple tactics for you to track down your information online. We also wish to show you how to counteract these tactics. We’re going to start with a simple tactic and lead onwards from there. ==Applies to Tumblr only== > About me leads to about you: Simple and fast, always the first thing you should do. Look at the about me, see what information is there? A name? An age? What about nicknames, or links, or a list of tags or posts…? Whatever there is, it leads to valuable information that can pad out the dossier. Counteract: Never use your real name online, nicknames, or anything of value. This should apply to any and all accounts you own. > Tumblr cataloging: This is simple, in all actuality, as it only requires time and patience, and lots of reading. To start out, one goes to the target blog. Then you comb through the /archive/ link or by finding the last page of a blog. In theory, you need to find the oldest/first post made on the blog. From there, working your way up to most current, you go from page-to-page. You skim posts for key pieces of information that can be used to find information elsewhere or used in any Search Engine. Things you'll look for: • Exif data from images • Linked image albums • Alternate blog or account links • E-mail addresses • Wish lists • Personal rants • Family or pet names • Real life locations or school names The older the blog, the more likely there are pieces of information used to find their accounts elsewhere online. Counteract: Simply put—don’t be ignorant or rash. Think, watch what you post, don’t leak real world information, save images as PNG and always scrub the Exif data. Be careful and post smart. > Tag hunt: The trend of having to tag every post caused people to be obsessive with certain tags. To profit from this, one has to check for a “Tag list,” or commonly used tags like “My face” or “Me”. Depending on whether Tumblr pulled an Imgur and removes Exif data, images can lead to real world information. Certain tags can end up leading to accounts and personal information. These can accounts are found through simple reverse image searches. Counteract: Post smart, save images as PNG and always scrub Exif data. Be general and misleading about thing in reality (when discussing online). Swap real names for generic names or handles—High school is now your High school, not Mt. Rush High. > Tag search: Search the blog’s username and/or title on Tumblr search and Tumblr’s tag search. You can also search previous or past usernames/titles. You can find a lot out on a blogger and who they hang out with by searching them on Tumblr. If they have a previous blog name/title, it can be found by using the “Tumblr cataloging” tactic. Example: 1. Party H re-blogged and responded to Party B. 2. The post Party B re-blogged was from Party A. The post from Party A is on Party H’s blog. 3. Party H is the “Source,” but older posts show it re-blogged from Party A. 4. This means Party H and Party A was one in the same and Party H changed the name/title. Searching their previous names/titles on Tumblr can and will usually lead to excellent information. Remember though, you’ll need patience and to take some time going through these tags. Counteract: Don’t change your title/name, or do so often. > Statcounter surfing: Use a publicly displayed counter or your own to track someone’s IP down and blog(s). To do this: Check for a Statcounter or tracker made public, or use your own and bait the target. Now look at what information is displayed and/or look for /blog/username links. Use these to find meta data like: • Blogs • IP address • General location (ISP or host’s location) • Referral information Counteract: Many add-ons help prevent this, like Umatrix or Ublock Origin. Always use one or more of these add-ons. You’ve done all that you’ve could on Tumblr; you’ve gotten some information… now what? Well, it’s time to breakout Google or some other search engine. Now start using various combinations of the information that you’ve found. ==General information and searching== > Username searching: Search the Username using a search engine or one of several username check websites. Just find any and all accounts with a similar username. You then check its information against that in the dossier. Counteract: Never use the same username twice. Always change it, no matter what. Never share your accounts with anyone or announce your accounts elsewhere. Never inter-link accounts. > E-mail address surfing: Using any number of websites or search engines, one can enter an email address to lookup. Using its variations (@gmail, hotmail, yahoo…ETC) you can find miscellaneous accounts. This can also lead to information and possible dead-accounts or addresses. You could use an address and resurrect it anew to claim accounts to learn information like passwords. Counteract: Use a different E-mail address for each account. Having a “Main” that acts as the secondary account for the others one. Don’t display your E-mail. Never give it out, or at least use a secondary-secondary as a fake for public display. > Account hopping: The older an account, the more likely it will link to another account somewhere else. Like a few of the Tumblr tactics, one just has to search tags, keywords, and comb through the accounts. Usually it’s a comment or even a keyword itself. Better success on Wordpress or Blogger accounts, also in descriptions on profiles. Counteract: Always wait a month before deleting an account. Remove any and all posts, texts, and information. Before deleting the text or posts, first fill them with random characters/text. This is to force a new cache from various search engine and services. This should render previous ones inaccessible and only leave traces of nothing. Example: Instead of a lengthy diatribe against your old SO, it’s sldknlskndlfkndlkslfksldkfndslksdnflksklnfdslkfsdnklds). Also, for images or videos, upload blank images or static filled videos. > Photobucket jumping: Just searching usernames against account links like ‘photobucket.com/user/-username-‘ or ‘photobucket.com/profile/-username-‘ to find an account. Once an account is discovered, people can search parts or the whole URL of any direct image link. This allows people to find where you’ve posted your images and thus your accounts. Counteract: Delete your images and photobucket account. Don’t put a password on it and don’t let it idle…it’ll lasts forever. > CTRL + U sourcing it: Check custom layouts on various blogging platforms for websites and links. Various sites allow individuals to add their own custom flair to things. For example a layout and separate page designs. You can find links to storage accounts or image upload services by checking the source. This usually leads to photobucket accounts, imageshack accounts or personal servers. It could also expose a cloud storage account that can be searched or forced into exposing more information. Counteract: Use the month rule and random text/character trick before deletion. You should also name all images randomly instead of using actual words. Don’t put anything in obvious order. Note on passwords: 8 to 12 characters long with random letters, numbers and characters. > Forum scouting: Found an account on a forum; search the forum for more information. Most forums have a search function that allows you to search a username plus keywords. It’s simple and quick. Search specific things like: • Social network names • Usernames • E-mails • General keywords (example: email, account, art, location, school) Double check posts for signatures or avatars that can be traced back to other accounts. If that isn’t possible, then check the user’s profile for a post counter that may or may not be clickable. This will usually lead to all their posts. Counteract: One month wait before delete plus random characters. Also request the owner/mods/staff to delete account and all posts. > Gaia Whoring: Go to their forums and search them, or profiles for similar usernames and information. Check against a search engine with things like “Username,” “Gaia,” “E-mail” and whatever else. This usually leads to various forums and other accounts. This tactic can also be applied to Neopets, among other sites. Counteract: Follow the deletion trick of random characters…Etc. Don’t giveaway your items. Don’t donate your gold or cash. Just delete everything within the month rule. > Face snipping: Find a picture of someone online. Crop out everything but their face. Using the (cropped) image of just their face and/or head, go to Tineye and see if you can find results. Usually you’ll be able to find accounts. You can find account belonging to friends and relatives. You may also find a school websites or similar item where your target is photographed. Counteract: Never post your image online, ever. Also scrub exif data. These tactics are but a sampling of what many people do on a daily basis to find the information of others. We just list the most common and easiest to do for you to help you find your online footprint. ==============================================================

Find your Digital Foot print--Things you should know and do This chapter is dedicated to providing you with various steps that you can take to prevent cross-referencing through multiple accounts. A single piece of information posted in one location can be used against you and lead to another account. If not taken into careful consideration, something as simple as your first name could lead to your inevitable doxing. Imagine, if you will, that you have an account on a site about model trains. You signed up with your first name and used your old AOL e-mail address. Someone looking for you discovers you like trains; however all they have on you is an old username. They search this username, which is used in your old AOL e-mail address. They discover your model train account and first name. Search with various variations of your e-mail address and name, they discover a newsletter of your town’s local hobby shop and model train group. They now know your full name, your hobby group, your old e-mail address and several other pieces of information that, when combined, lead to your home address. Congratulations, you’ve been doxed. When leaving an account: o When leaving, don’t announce it. o Tell no one that you’re deleting your account. o Delete your account only after a month of inactivity. And delete it only after switching it to a *‘Dead E-mail address’. • Note: An e-mail address used to take ownership of an account that you’re deleting/deactivating. Steps to take before deleting an account: o Before deleting anything, wait a month. o Anything you can edit, do so with random characters and text. o Image should be replaced with a blank temp image (pure color image). o Once a month is over, you can delete that account. o But before doing so, delete the account’s items one by one. o If you can’t delete something, ask the staff/owner/webmaster/mods to delete it for you. o Stating that someone is stalking you is usually enough to remove the information. o If they won’t remove, try to edit it once again with random text. o If you can’t edit it, ignore it. o If it’s a blog, change titles and/or usernames. o Preserve the original URL or username on a blank blog. o Never leave your old username or URL up for grabs. On removing an old E-mail address: o Never delete an e-mail address, simply switch accounts and other items accordingly. o Mark everything else in it as spam, but only if you can’t unsubscribe. o Log into it at least once a month to prevent deletion. o You can, most likely, delete it, after not using it, around a year or two later. o Always make sure the e-mail is no longer tied to any accounts or personal information. o Always wipe it out like any other account by changing as much as possible to randomized text. On account maintenance: o Never use your real name. o Never upload an image of yourself. o Never use your real location. o Never discuss your time zone. o Never discuss your current time. o Always use English, at all times. o Never discuss events happening in your area. o Never mention race or skin color. o Never mention religion. o Never mention sexuality. o Never discuss your hobbies in great detail. o Don’t talk about your fetishes or kinks. o Accounts shouldn’t be cross-linked through various accounts/sites. o If you do, make sure no username is the same. o And make sure no e-mail address displayed is the same. o Use a different e-mail address for each account. o Keep accounts separate if not needed to be linked. o Never link RP accounts to other accounts and social networking profiles o Don’t mention how many pets you have or their names. o The same applies to family members, neighbors, friends, and significant others. o Scrape as much information off of something as possible. o Boil it all down to the core basics. o Never keep an account longer than a year (some exceptions apply). On talking to strangers: o Never display your messenger, Skype or chat names anywhere online. o Give it to others only if they ask you. o Keep all forms of instant messaging and chat private. o Don’t save logs. o Only give out to trusted individuals. o This applies to IRC channels and chat setups. o Lock down as much as possible. o Never use real names or information, ever. o Don’t tell other people who you talk to online. o Never place your full name on Skype. o Limit the profile you have on Skype. o Make sure all Skype options are set to private. o If it can’t be set to private, then set to contacts. o Like Skype, any chat client or instant messenger should be locked down. On behavior: o You’ll most likely have to change the way you behave online. o Sharing interests is fine, but getting too obsessed is bad. o Never admit to liking any specific thing o This can help people tie other accounts to you. o Admitting to things, like, your favorite food can be used to trace too. o In general, you need to keep yourself and your information limited when on the Internet. o Instead of admitting to liking a song, just say you like the band. o This applies specific bands in a genre. o Or any form of entertainment that you specifically like. o Instead of specific parts you like in a game, you just like the game. o Remember: don’t talk about your location. o Don’t talk about your general location in detail. o Don’t mention what it’s known for (produce, exports, colleges, universities…etc). o Don’t make mention of recent weather, as that can be used in junction with other information o Don’t say the exact time. o Be wary of saying exactly what the temperature is. o If the person you’re talking to uses Celsius, then tell the temp in Celsius. o If the person you’re talking to uses Fahrenheit, then tell the temp in Fahrenheit. o Don’t make mention of general information like school names or street names. o Don't make mention eateries/restaurants as they can be unique to your location only. o Always refer to your city/town as a college town. o Never post selfies. o Never post nudes. o Never post porn. o Never post erotica. When getting personal: o Don’t discuss siblings or family members to great extent. o Don’t drop pet names. o Don’t drop the name of anyone related to you. o Don’t drop the name of friends. o Don’t drop the name of politicians. o Don’t drop the names of people you’ve had relationships with. o Keep age to a general rounded number, like, the 20s…etc o Keep personal descriptions down. o Keep weight to a more general descriptor (overweight, obese…etc). On talking about life experiences: o Never do so in the first place. o If you do, don’t let incriminating evidence be traced back to you. o Or at least make sure you can discuss such things in a secure environment. o Also don’t attach anything about you to your online personas and/or accounts. On using custom domains: o Ask your host about Whois masking. o If they don’t offer it, check into other services. On online relationships: o Don’t do online dating. o Don’t sext. o Don’t cyber. o Don’t do erotic roleplay. o Don’t go to online dating websites. o Don’t take part in relationship, dating, sex…etc help sites/forums/chats. Just use common sense. ============================================================== The Paranoid’s Rules The below is a mix of “common sense” rules that don’t have any real place in the above chapters, yet have proven to be somewhat useful. 1. Don't ever use your real name online 2. DO NOT EVER POST YOUR REAL NAME ONLINE 3. Never use the same username, ever, anywhere online 4. Never interlink or make mention of your accounts anywhere online 5. Always use a different e-mail for each account, never mention them online 6. Always use a 10 to 15 character length password 7. Always use a mix of random characters 8. Always change your passwords, if you've logged in recently, at least weekly 9. Never post your IRL location online (state, city…etc) 10. Never post your IRL address online 11. Never give out your phone number, ever 12. Never give out your cell phone number, ever 13. Never post your photos online, ever 14. If you break #13, at least scrub as much Meta-data as possible from your images 15. Never post anything that you, yourself, haven't gotten over 16. If data exists, you are at risk 17. Anonymity is your greatest offense, defense, weapon and friend--don't lose it 18. Never post your e-mail addresses anywhere online 19. You are nothing more than another random user online. Disregard everything that makes you an individual. 20. Choose your battles carefully. There may not be many geniuses out there, but there are plenty of smart idiots. 21. Avoid Social Networks and media 22. If you break #21, remember the previous 20 rules 23. Don't sexualize the Miku 24. Disregard #23; never sexualize anything, ever, you perverts 25. Getting involved in anything pornographic or erotic will lead to your doxing, eventually 26. E-drama isn't drama; it's a temporary temper tantrum 27. Disregard E-celebs, get a personality 28. Don’t drink and surf, or blog, or post, or anything, ever 29. /b/ may be the asshole of the Internet, but Tumblr is the cancer of everything good in the world 30. Doxing and Tumblr go hand in hand, avoid Tumblr 31. Internet dating is a scam, go buy something from Bad Dragon 32. Seriously, don’t E-date, you nerd 33. A fetish is a disorder, and the word misused 34. @#33, a kink is what you have, not a fetish 35. @#34, preferences can be both kinks and/or a fetish 36. @#35, if you can’t get off without something specific or it interferes with your life—it’s a fetish 37. @#36, if you have trouble telling the difference between a fetish, a kink, or a preference—seek professional help 38. Children are smart idiots; don’t let children have their own computers 39. If you ignore rule #38, don’t let them have an active Internet connection 40. In regards to #39, don’t let them have a device with WiFi capabilities 41. Never share an account, ever, with anyone 42. Always logout of an account, if you get up for any extended period of time 43. ALWAYS LOGOUT OF YOUR ACCOUNTS, EVEN IF YOU AREN’T ON A SHARED COMPUTER 44. SERIOUSLY, ALWAYS LOGOUT OF YOUR ACCOUNTS, ESPECIALLY ON A SHARED COMPUTER 45. NEVER LOG INTO AN ACCOUNT IF THE DEVICE YOU’RE USING ISN’T YOURS 46. Don’t bank online, or use your cell phone, or a borrowed device—bank IRL 47. It’s FREEDOM OF SPEECH not FREEDOM OF HARASSMENT—you can use FoS to call out harassment and stupidity, though 48. If you feel threatened, harassed, or don’t want contact—TELL THEM TO LEAVE YOU ALONE 49. @#48, learn to use the block tools and learn to never put trust in anyone or an account 50. @#49, sometimes it’s best to pick up and move to another account to avoid trouble and harassment 51. @#50, it’s the Internet… turn it off and you end trolling and e-bullying 52. Harassment has to mean they threatened you or you told them to leave you alone. It doesn’t mean you felt uncomfortable because of them saying or doing something 53. @#51, learn to move on and ignore, if not: You deserved it 54. The Government may not be your friend, but an individual can 55. @#54, don’t be rude to police, doctors, nurses, military personnel, politicians or anyone, ever 56. @#55, unless they did something illegal or dangerous, then remain on the fence and review all the facts. 57. @#56, always make an educated and well researched decision. Never trust a single source. Sources that contradict or are against each other provide a lot of insight and information one or the other didn’t show 58. Men and Women are corruptible, as are you. Learn what you say and do affects others too, besides yourself 59. Most political movements or (sic) groups aren’t about freedom or (sic)’s agency. Many are for the subjugation of society in the name of equal outcome. Even if it means shared adversity and ignorance 60. They may be men or women of the badge, cloth or science but they are still men and woman 61. Trust but verify 62. Don’t just listen and believe 63. Intelligence doesn’t equate wisdom 64. And wisdom doesn’t equate intelligence 65. An education doesn’t guarantee experience or knowledge 66. A degree and/or diploma is just a piece of paper 67. Everyone does something for a reason, even if they’re unaware of it 68. @#67, there are no Jokers or Banes 69. @#68, the world burning is hardly ever funny to a man who proclaims it to be 70. Always unplug your modem and/or router 71. @#70, always do so when not in use 72. @#71, or when you plan to turn off your computer 73. @#72, just unplug it if you don’t actively need it 74. WiFi is bad, don’t use wireless Internet 75. @#74, if you do, don’t log into anything important lest you risk getting your accounts being hijacked 76. It’s the Internet, not a social meet and greet, stop seeking attention. 77. If you claim to be anything but human on the Internet, expect to be harassed, rightfully so 78. You lie to the Internet and it’ll learn the truth sooner than later 79. The Internet is compromised of mostly normal people who wish to appear to be quirky or unique 80. If you’ve time to complain about your physical appearance or lack thereof… you’ve time to improve yourself 81. Everything is opened to critique if posted online 82. @#81, but learn to critique is to open yourself up to criticism 83. @#82, but to critique someone for critiquing shouldn’t be used as an excuse to silence criticism 84. @#83, though it is better to be a creator than a user 85. @#83, but it doesn’t mean that a user’s criticism isn’t valid 86. @#85, sometimes the customer sees and tastes things the chef does not 87. A username adds weight to your opinions 88. @#87, being anonymous does not 89. @#88, but having a username makes you easier to attack and destroy 90. AVOID USING CAPS ALL THE TIME 91. @#90, basic grammar, spelling and punctuation are your best bet 92. @#91, but avoid using overly complicated words 93. @#92, and avoid being wordy 94. @#93, and avoid using memes, slang or shortened words or phrases 95. Memes are inside jokes exploited and taken from one source and posted to another source 96. @#95, avoid using memes 97. @#96, avoid memes at all cost 98. Simple, blunt and to the point when trying to relay any thought is usually better than a long winded and wordy rant 99. It’s the Internet, not school 100. @#99, It doesn’t mean be an imbecile and forgo all common sense for acceptance 101. Don’t click on unfamiliar links 102. @#101, avoid shortened links 103. @#102, avoid links hidden behind a link shortener service 104. @#103, don’t click on links from strangers 105. @#104, avoid links from people you don’t trust 106. @#105, avoid links in general unless you know exactly what you’re clicking on ============================================================== Opt-out Master-list The purpose of this chapter is to provide you with an up-to-date listing of any and all opt-outs. This means you’ll be able to opt-out of not only known data brokers but several unknown brokers. You'll even cut down on physical mail and e-mail. Many feel this isn’t needed as you have to provide information to remove information, but this is what’s needed. Not just by the law but also for business records. Opt-outs are just you acknowledging a contract made without your knowledge. Instead of ignoring them, you’re stating you don’t want them using or selling your information. It not only helps reduce your online footprint but also helps you cut back on carbon emissions. You also cut back on your exposure online. For now, we've only include the online opt-outs in this PDF. We suggest you finish those and those alone as most of them are interlinked to many of the phone and fax opt-outs. Once you finished those you should wait a month or two before doing other opt-outs. A lot of information will be expunged as you opted out of one or two other sites. Online Opt-outs: These are opt-outs that can be done online through forms or simple links without a pay wall. https://www.10digits.us/ https://www.10digits.us/remove Requires photo ID upload + e-maill addess + page link Make sure to search using all three methods Repeat for each immediate family member in your residence https://www.411.info https://www.411.info/contact/ Find your info, copy the link. Go to the contact link and ask them to remove your info. Provide the link(s) in the message. https://www.500millionphonerecords.com/ https://www.phonedetective.com/PD.aspx?_act=OptOut Follow the instructions on the Phonedetective opt-out link. Repeat for each individual in household and any and all numbers you've owned or recall owning https://www.accutellus.com/ https://www.accutellus.com/opt_out_request.php Follow the instructions on the opt-out page, repeat for all individual in household https://www.Acxiom.com/ https://www.isapps.acxiom.com/optout/optout.aspx (Cookie opt-out can be ignored if you install ad blocking and privacy based add-ons on your rig) For the actual opt-out, just follow the above link and follow the instructions, repeating it for each residence in your house. After each successful entry fill out, you’ll be taken to a new page with a capatcha and a field to confirm the e-mail address Log into your e-mail account, find the confirmation e-mail, and follow the link provided Repeat for each individual in household https://www.addresses.com/ https://www.addresses.com/optout.php Follow instructions on page, repeat for each individual in household https://www.addresssearch.com/ https://www.addresssearch.com/remove-info.php Follow instructions on page, repeat for each individual in household https://www.allareacodes.com/ https://www.allareacodes.com/remove_name.htm Follow instructions on page, repeat for each individual in household https://www.archives.com/ https://www.archives.com/ga.aspx?_act=Optout Follow instructions on page, repeat for each individual in household https://www.checkpeople.com/ https://www.checkpeople.com/optout Follow instructions on page, repeat for each individual in household https://www.corporationwiki.com/ https://www.corporationwiki.com/profiles/public Follow instructions listed on their website. Very few cases, only for businesses and their executives. https://www.coxtarget.com/ https://www.coxtarget.com/mailsuppression/s/DisplayMailSuppressionForm Wait until you’ve received your next “ValPak” packet\envelope Go to Opt-out form\link above Enter information as it is on the envelope You’ve opted out https://www.datalogix.com/ https://www.datalogix.com/privacy/#opt-out-landing https://www.aboutads.info/ (More info here) Find this sentence “If you wish to opt out of all Datalogix-enabled advertising across channels including direct mail, online, mobile and analytic products, and click here.” Follow directions, repeat for each resident of household https://www.dexone.com/ https://www.dexknows.com/ https://www.dexpages.com/index.asp? https://www.dexone.com/privacy-policy https://green.dexknows.com/DexGreen/selectDexAction.do Enter zip code Follow directions If you can’t opt-out, you can do so VIA the Yellow Pages opt-out https://www.directmail.com/ https://www.directmail.com/directory/mail_preference/ Follow directions in second link https://www.dmachoice.org/ https://www.dmachoice.org/register.php Follow directions on website Have to create an account for each member of household https://www.dobsearch.com/ Search yourself, address, phone number…etc Find info Look for “Is this you? Manage your listing!” Follow instructions (You’ll need a valid e-mail address + landline or cell) Repeat for all residences in house (One per 24 hours) https://www.donotcall.gov https://www.donotcall.gov/register/reg.aspx Follow directions Enter phone numbers, cell and/or landline, and an e-mail address https://www.ebureau.com/ https://www.ebureau.com/privacy-center/opt-out Same as DMA choice opt-out, but no accounts; you��ll have to do this with previous addresses too https://www.emailfinder.com/ https://www.emailfinder.com/EFC.aspx?_act=Optout Follow instructions on screen Repeat for each resident in household https://www.epsilon.com/ https://www.epsilon.com/consumer-preference-center https://www.optoutprescreen.com Go to third link and follow their process (only need to be done once) https://www.everify.com https://www.everify.com/legal.php#2 https://www.everify.com/legal.php#remove Follow instructions on page, repeat for each individual in household https://www.experian.com/ https://www.experian.com/privacy/opting_out_preapproved_offers.html https://www.optoutprescreen.com Go to third link and follow their process (only need to be done once) https://equifax.com/ https://help.equifax.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2/noIntercept/1/kw/prescreen https://www.optoutprescreen.com Go to third link and follow their process (only need to be done once) https://www.everyone411.com/ Go to contact page @ https://www.everyone411.com/contact Provide listing links Request removal Repeat for all individuals in household https://www.freephonetracer.com/ https://www.freephonetracer.com/FCPT.aspx?_act=OptOut Online opt-out form, follow directions. https://www.health.com/health/ https://subscription.timeinc.com/storefront/privacy/health/generic_privacy_form_offline.html?dnp-source=E%20AND%20 https://subscription.timeinc.com/storefront/privacy/health/generic_privacy_form_online.html?dnp-source=E Fill out with your information, repeat for each individual in your household. Make sure to check all boxes in the two opt-out links. https://www.ims-dm.com/ https://www.ims-dm.com/cgi/optoutemps.php Follow directions on second link Enter up to three emails Fill captcha Clear cache and repeat as necessary https://www.infousa.com/ https://www.infousa.com/StaticPage/PrivacyPolicyInfo.htm Look for: Opt Out Policy–Upon a visitor’s request, InfoUSA Inc Read it carefully, scroll down and find the “E-mail form” Fill it out, include your name, birth date, address and phone number. Request all information of yours to be removed, especially anything related to the info you just provided. https://www.infospace.com/ https://www.support.infospace.com/privacy/ Search for “Choice/Opt-out” The link there is old, use this one: https://infospace.com/contact/index.html Select “General inquiry” Provide your name, birth date, address and phone number Request all information of yours be removed, especially anything matching or related to information you just provided https://www.innovis.com/ https://www.innovis.com/InnovisWeb/pers_lc_opt_out.html www.optoutprescreen.com Go to third link and follow their process (only need to be done once) https://www.instantpeoplefinder.com/ https://www.instantpeoplefinder.com/optout.php Follow on page instructions, repeat for each individual in household https://www.locatefamily.com/ https://www.locatefamily.com/contact.html Search for your name on the Left side of the site You’ll find a page or pages containing Names, addresses and phone numbers Find yours; take note of the number next to it Go to the contact page Scroll down for the opt-out\removal form Follow the directions Make sure to provide the information you want deleted in the “Comments” box Repeat for each individual in household https://www.lookup.com/ https://www.lookup.com/optout.php Go to the opt-out link Follow the directions Repeat for each individual in household https://lycos.com https://info.lycos.com/resources/privacy-policy Search for: How can you access or edit your information? Follow directions https://www.mobilephoneno.com/ https://www.mobilephoneno.com/help.htm Search for “How do I delete my entry?” Follow directions https://www.militaryavenue.com/ https://www.militaryavenue.com/Contact.aspx Businesses only But, if you have your information up there, somehow First find said info Go to the contact page Select, from the drop down, “Incorrect Business information” Provide link, info, and ask for removal https://www.myyp.com/ https://www.yellowpagesoptout.com Follow instructions on second link https://www.nationwidecrafts.com/ Find listing Click the suggestion link/light bulb icon Request removal https://www.orientaltrading.com/ https://www.orientaltrading.com/ui/help/processRequest.do?requestURI=link.removeForm Follow instructions on second link https://www.peekyou.com/ https://www.peekyou.com/about/contact/optout Search for yourself Locate your profile and right-click then select 'copy link' Then open a new tab and go to their opt out page and follow the instructions provided. Repeat with each individual in household https://www.peepdb.com/ Enter full name + state Look for city + state in results Can confirm by partial phone # listed Click your result Scroll down Click “Remove This Listing” Follow directions Takes 10 business days One request + IP every 3 days Repeat with each individual in household https://www.peoplebook.com/ https://www.peoplebook.com/support.htm Search for your people book’s results Confirm it’s yours Grab link Go to the support link Follow directions Repeat for each individual in house https://www.peoplefinder.com/ https://www.peoplefinder.com/manage/ https://www.peoplefinder.com/optout.php Go directly to the opt out link Fill in your information Select from the drop down "General privacy concerns" Enter the code word and click submit Repeat for each individual in household https://www.peoplefinders.com/ https://www.peoplefinders.com/manage/default.aspx Search your first, middle and last name in search State + city, too Find your listing, click “this is me” Skip the AD and\or sale section Takes anywhere from an hour to a month Repeat for each individual in household https://www.peoplesearchpro.com/ https://www.peoplesmart.com/optout-go Go directly to Opt-out Enter your name + city and state Find it, click it, and follow directions You will have to make an account Repeat for each individual in household https://www.peoplesmart.com/ https://www.peoplesmart.com/opt-out? Follow the People Smart opt-out instruction You’ll be shown a page of results, locate yours Click the “This is me” Look at the “Business” listings, find anything of yours and click the “This is me” or skip the step if none exist Uncheck all options, except the last two Click “Save Settings” It’ll have you create an account, make sure to use a unique password only for this site and use nowhere else Repeat for each individual in your household (sans the account) Repeat search, but this time with home address applied https://www.peoplewise.com/ https://www.peoplewise.com/show/optoutdisclaimer Go straight to the opt out link Make sure JS and Cookies are enabled Follow the steps; make sure to read the red text When you find your list, click the “Removal” test under the blue button When you’re on your page, within the red text, is a blue link, click it Enter your email address + security code Repeat for each individual in household https://www.phonebook.com/ https://www.whitepages.com/privacy_central#6 Go to Whitepages.com Create an account Search for your information VIA address, name, phone number...etc Claim each and every piece of information that's confirmed as yours Verify through e-mail and phone Then go to your profile Scroll down and request your information to be hidden\removed from the directory Follow the on screen prompts Logout, clean cache Create an account for each individual in household, repeat until finished https://www.phonebooks.com/ Search your name + city and state Find your listing in the results Click on said listing Locate “Remove this person” Follow directions Repeat for each and every individual in household https://www.phonedetective.com/ https://www.phonedetective.com/PD.aspx?_act=OptOut Go directly to opt-out page, follow directions Repeat for each individual in house Also repeat with each phone number you have or recall having https://phonenumber.com/ https://www.whitepages.com/ https://www.whitepagescustomers.com https://www.whitepagescustomers.com/draft-how-do-i-remove-my-people-search-listing/ Create an account Search for your information VIA address, name, phone number...etc Claim each and every piece of information that's confirmed as yours Verify through e-mail and phone Then go to your profile Scroll down and request your information to be hidden/removed from the directory Follow the on screen prompts Logout, clean cache Create an account for each individual in household, repeat until finished https://www.poedit.org/ https://www.poedit.org/auth/removal_request.html Search for your page/information Take link/URL Copy it to the appropriate area listed in the second link Submit Find confirmation e-mail in email address Repeat for each individual in household https://www.privateeye.com/ https://www.peoplefinders.com/manage/ Go to the People Finders link Enter your information On the results page you can refine your searches with age + birthdate Find your results and click "This is me" Follow instructions Repeat for each individual in household https://profileengine.com/ https://profileengine.com/#/help https://profileengine.com/#/claimprofile Search for profile Look for the claim profile option If not present, try the claim profile link above Follow instructions Repeat for each individual in household https://pub360.com https://pub360.com/s/faq Search for your name In results, look for the 'Information Removal' tab Follow instructions provided Repeat for each individual in household https://radaris.com/ https://radaris.com/removal/ https://radaris.com/page/how-to-remove Search for a name. On the search results page, select the name that is most appropriate. On the profile page, click the down-arrow to the right of the name and select "Control Information". From the information control page, choose "Remove information". Here you can choose to remove all information, or to delete specific records. Confirm your real name matches your account and profile name. Enter your cellular phone to receive a verification code. Once the code has been entered, the profile will be private. Repeat for each individual in household https://www.redplum.com/ https://www.redplum.com/tools/redplum-postal-addremove.html Follow the instructions provided on the second link Per known address https://www.reversephonelookup.com/ https://www.reversephonelookup.com/remove.php Go to second link Follow instruction provided Repeat for all known and owned phone numbers https://www.searchbug.com/ https://www.searchbug.com/help.aspx?WHAT=people Search for your name + city and state If “Free record” is shown, you can click the garbage can\remove link to have it removed Repeat for all individuals in house Note: Premium records can't be removed through this process as they require manual removal and cost payment to do so https://www.Spokeo.com https://www.spokeo.com/optout Go to Spokeo Search your First, middle and last name Find your profile/listing by go to the bottom of the page and select "open advance filter" Fill out your information Find your profile/listing, copy the link (note: Right click+ copy link to have a "Clean link" copied) Go to the Opt out link Follow instructions to opt-out Repeat for each individual in house Hint: You’ll need a different e-mail address after so many removals Hint: You may have multiple profiles\links due to previous addresses Hint: Make sure HTTPs is not at the start of the link, if it is just remove the 'S'. https://www.usa.com https://www.peoplesmart.com/ https://www.peoplesmart.com/opt-out Follow the People Smart opt-out instruction You’ll be shown a page of results, locate yours Click the “This is me” Look at the “Business” listings, find anything of yours and click the “This is me” or skip the step if none exist Uncheck all options, except the last two Click “Save Settings” It’ll have you create an account, make sure to use a unique password only for this site and use nowhere else Repeat for each individual in your household (sans the account) Repeat search, but this time with home address applied https://www.usa-people-search.com/ https://www.usa-people-search.com/manage/default.aspx Go to the "Manage" link Enter your information Find your listing Enter Captcha and tick both boxes Repeat for each individual in house https://www.usbizplace.com/ https://www.usbizplace.com/contact-us.html Find your listing with your information Follow directions on the contact-us page Repeat for all listings of yours you wish to remove https://www.webcrawler.com/ https://www.webcrawler.com/support/privacypolicy https://www.webcrawler.com/support/contactus Go to Webcrawler.com, search for your info Select link + note its order in the listing Contact them at the 'Contact us' link Request removal due to privacy concerns Repeat for each individual in household https://www.whitepages.com/ https://www.whitepagescustomers.com https://www.whitepagescustomers.com/draft-how-do-i-remove-my-people-search-listing/ Create an account Search for your information VIA address, name, phone number...etc Claim each and every piece of information that's confirmed as yours Verify through e-mail and phone Then go to your profile Scroll down and request your information to be hidden\removed from the directory Follow the on screen prompts Logout, clean cache Create an account for each individual in household, repeat until finished https://www.valassis.com/ https://www.valassis.com/1024/Contact/MailingListRemoval.aspx Follow instructions on second link Repeat for all known addresses https://www.valpak.com/ https://www.coxtarget.com/mailsuppression/s/DisplayMailSuppressionForm Wait till next envelope comes in the mail Enter the info exactly as it is on the envelope Repeat for all known addresses https://www.wyty.com/ https://www.wyty.com/optout.aspx Enter cell number (or phone number) Select 'Request' Should be removed within 24hrs to a month Repeat for all known numbers https://www.yellowbook.com/ https://www.yellowpagesoptout.com/ https://delivery.ypg.com/en/US/Home/Index/ (Canada opt-out) Follow directions on 'Yellowpagesoptout' link Enter zip\area code Create account Select items to opt-out Repeat for all known addresses https://www.yellowpages.com https://www.yellowpagescom.intelius.com/optout.php Fill out opt-out form Repeat for each individual in household https://www.yellowpagesgoesgreen.org/ https://www.yellowpagesgoesgreen.org/terms_of_service.php?#privacy On the page with your information, look for “Are you the business owner” Click it, select “Delete\remove listing” Simply state your privacy concerns Repeat for each individual in household https://www.ziplocal.com/ https://ziplocal.com/online-privacy-policy/ https://www.ziplocalonline.com/manage-listings To update your listing, use the search box above to look for your business. When you locate your business, simply select the Update Business link and follow the instructions. https://www.zoominfo.com/ https://www.zoominfo.com/lookupEmail You'll be asked to provide your e-mail address They'll search your address against their database You'll receive an e-mail concerning whether or not they've your e-mail address If not, nothing to worry about, but if they do they provide a means to opt-out. Repeat for each individual in household Miscellaneous Opt-outs: This list contains opt-outs that have no direct place but have proven useful. https://www.ameridex.com/ https://www.ameridex.com/privacy.html (review privacy policy for more info) 1. Another website that wants you to send an e-mail or send direct mail\snail mail opt-outs. 2. Also needs court order or proof of potential harm. https://archive.org/ https://archive.org/about/exclude.php https://web.archive.org/web/20140812200246/https://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html 1. If you're allowed to modify your account or website's HTML, add this somewhere in between the <head> tags 2. <META NAME="ia_archiver" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW"> https://www.Bing.com https://ssl.bing.com/profile/history?oma=toggle_off 1. Disable personalized nonsense and ads Remove your property's street view on Bing Maps: 1. Go to: https://www.bing.com/maps/ 2. Type home address 3. Get to street view 4. Center squarely on house 5. Look for (?) question mark near bottom right. Becareful as it can be hidden sometimes. 6. Click it 7. Select "Report an image concern" 8. You'll get a pop-up or new tab with a panoramic image 9. Select your house, a little red square will appear then 10. Voice your privacy concern, stating vandalism and potential break-ins by criminal elements who use online maps to scout\case potential targets 11. Fill out the rest of the form + Capatcha, wait 12. Save ticket (#) Number https://www.catalogchoice.org/ 1. Join site with an e-mail and password used nowhere else 2. Search for the catalogs you’ve received 3. Follow instructions to opt-out 4. This site just organizes websites; they aren’t associated with any of them https://courtclick.com/ https://courtclick.com/terms.php https://www.courtclick.com/support/ 1. Look for "Opt Out Policy: Note that public records such as court records can be updated or corrected, but not removed unless expunged, sealed, court ordered or the like." 2. You'll need to have your records sealed first. https://www.emailtracer.com https://www.emailtracer.com/tos.php 1. Search for "Opt Out Policy” 2. Only under certain circumstances https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=ads&view 1. Edit button in your Ads settings page, selecting No one and saving your changes. https://www.Google.com https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ https://history.google.com/history/ 1. These links help make sure your Google data stays yours 2. You can opt-out of having your likes and such shared 3. Help limit ads and similar issues 4. And even help prevent your history on your account from being given out Remove your property's street view on Google Maps: 1. Go to Google Maps and type in your address 2. Bring up the street view of your property 3. Look to the bottom right hand corner of the screen you should see an Icon Labeled: “report a problem.” 4. Click on “report a problem.” 5. You will get a page labeled “report inappropriate street view.” 6. Look for the words “Privacy Concerns” and click on them. 7. If you want your house blurred, click on “my house.” Then choose the option: “I have a picture of my house and would like it blurred.” 8. Adjust the image and show Google which part of the photo needs blurred. 9. Type the verification code at the bottom of the page into the box provided and click submit. 10. Check back in a few days to see if the image has been blurred. https://www.lexisnexis.com/ https://www.lexisnexis.com/privacy/directmarketingopt-out.aspx https://www.lexisnexis.com/privacy/for-consumers/opt-out-of-lexisnexis.aspx 1. requires you to have a court order or police report, but you can remove \some\ information through the Direct Marketing Opt-out, though. https://www.locatepeople.org/ https://www.locatepeople.org/index.php?xpath=privacy https://locatepeople.org/index.php?xpath=lp_optout 1. Can Opt-out only by certain circumstances https://www.jailbase.com/ https://www.jailbase.com/en/opt-out/ 1. Follow instructions on page, only under certain circumstances https://www.justmugshots.com/ https://support.justmugshots.com/forums/21326676-Removal-Services 1. An odd one, but has shown some use https://www.Publicrecordssearchonline.org https://www.publicrecordssearchonline.org/new/faq.php 1. Search for "Q: How can I remove my information from the Public Records Database?" 2. Follow directions provided https://twitter.com/settings/security 1. Through your profile, go to your Security Settings page and uncheck the box under the promoted content section. https://www.Yahoo.com https://www.info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/opt_out/targeting/details.html https://www.search.yahoo.com/preferences/preferences? 1. Log into account 2. Disable ads and personalized stuff https://www.Yahoo.com/maps 1. Visit https://www.Yahoo.com/maps 2. Drag the gray icon that resembles a person (top-right) to your street. (If it won’t drag, then your street has not been photographed for Yahoo.) 3. Click on “report image” at the bottom-left of the screen. It will take you to a different website. 4. Click on “request blurring,” and follow the directions. https://west.thomson.com/ https://static.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/static/pdf/opt_out_form.pdf *Only under special circumstances* ============================================================== What to do if doxed This chapter is to help people learn how to react to not only being doxed but harassed through phone or mail. Before we begin, I must note that we’ll forego chapters and mini-sections. There isn’t all that much to say or suggest that isn’t covered by the other testaments and this PDF already. So think of this as nothing more than a simple refresher course or a go-to quick guide. First: If you’re ever doxed, and you’ve never bothered keeping private, you need to learn not to react. Don’t react, ever. Don’t acknowledge it. Don’t taunt. Don’t say they have the wrong information. DO NOT DO ANYTHING! You let them know it’s bothering you and the further they’ll press to get a greater reaction out of you. You just need to take things slow, and if it’s a forum or website try reporting the post and account. But, remember, only do this after you’ve assessed the situation. Also, remember: Even if the information is wrong, don’t react. It could be an attempt at baiting you into providing your real information. Second: Blur out your house on Google, Bing and Yahoo maps. The instructions are below: For Bing: 1. https://www.bing.com/maps/ 2. Type home address 3. Get to street view 4. Center squarely on house 5. Look for (?) question mark near bottom right. Be careful as it can be hidden sometimes. 6. Click it 7. Select "Report an image concern" 8. You'll get a pop-up or new tab with a panoramic image 9. Select your house, a little red square will appear then 10. Voice your privacy concern. Stating vandalism and potential break-ins by criminal elements. 11. Fill out the rest of the form + Capatcha, wait 12. Save ticket (#) Number For Google: 1. Go to Google Maps and type in your address 2. Bring up the street view of your property 3. Look to the bottom right hand corner of the screen you should see an Icon Labeled: “report a problem.” 4. Click on “report a problem.” 5. You will get a page labeled “report inappropriate street view.” 6. Look for the words “Privacy Concerns” and click on them. 7. If you want your house blurred, click on “my house.” Then choose the option: “I have a picture of my house and would like it blurred.” 8. Adjust the image and show Google which part of the photo needs blurred. 9. Type the verification code at the bottom of the page into the box provided and click submit. 10. Check back in a few days to see if the image has been blurred. For Yahoo: Special thanks to /r/n0esc from Reddit! 1. Visit https://www.Yahoo.com/maps 2. Drag the gray icon that resembles a person (top-right) to your street. (If it won’t drag, then your street has not been photographed for Yahoo.) 3. Click on “report image” at the bottom-left of the screen. It will take you to a different website. 4. Click on “request blurring,” and follow the directions. Third: Change your phones’ voice messages to the default robotic one. This is to prevent people from confirming and verifying your number as being related to you. This also hinders people and will push some off of harassing you. Fourth: Never answer the phone for anyone you don’t recognize. Names and phone numbers should always be scrutinized before picking up and answering. If it’s important, they’ll leave a voicemail. Yes, some people will leave harassing messages, too. If you don’t respond or make mention of these messages, no one will known. This will prevent people from getting the satisfaction of knowing they’re getting to you. Fifth: If you’ve the money and time, change your phone number to a new, private and unlisted one. Sixth: Get your mail ASAP. The longer you leave your mail in the mailbox, the sooner someone may snap it up for nefarious means. Always get your mail. Seventh: Don’t open letters or packages you don’t recognize. If you didn’t order or request something in the mail, don’t risk it. If you suspect something, open all packages and letters over a plastic container large enough to house the item you suspect. While wearing gloves, eye protection and a face mask, ensure the item is being openly as carefully as possible. Record and save everything in case of issue. Eight: Look over this PDF, as it provides pertinent information on how to remove your data footprint. Finally, get off the blogs and stop saying things online. It’s better to lurk and learn instead of interacting and putting yourself into danger. ============================================================== Afterword And so ends the Paranoid’s Bible. No matter what you do, as long as you read this and the other PDFs/guides in the “Blue primer” you should be fine from citizens. You won’t be able to outsmart the government and your more tech savvy corporations. This guide and the ones found in the blue primer are meant to help you prevent spying from the average internet user—to prevent dox. We’ll make more PDFs/guides that’ll help you lessen even more of your data footprint and lower your chances of being spied on, however, for now… worry about the citizenry hunting you down like it’s the Salem Witch trials all over again. ============================================================== Questions and Answers Q: Couldn’t Pedophiles use this to hide? A: Pedophiles already use similar tools and actions to hide themselves and their information. We’re simply trying to provide you with the same advantage. Q: Can’t Racists, sexists and other bigots use this? A: Yes, they can. Why not you? Q: Won’t this allow people to dox others? A: And…? This information is commonly shared, constantly. We simply scraped the Internet and all it holds to provide you with this information in one place. If you’re so worried, share and distribute this guide and its supplementary guides. People can remove their “dox” and avoid any issues. Q: But isn’t transparency key to a happy society? Isn’t this hypocritical? A: Don’t use this guide then. You’re not the government, are you? Why would you worry about transparency? You’re a citizen. You should worry about privacy and security while pressuring the government to be transparent. Q: What’s the worst that can happen, food being sent your house? A: Sexual aides; Mormon or Muslim missionaries; magazine subscription; identity theft; someone being unstable enough to escalate it into physical harm; Tumblr; Feminists; past abusers; NSA; FBI; Swatting; Scientologists; Surprise Furry…ETC Q: Will you ever make a guide for UNIX or Linux or whatever it’s called? A: Most of us have lives, jobs, studies or other personal responsibilities. We’ll try to get to it when we can. Q: This guide is to US-centric! A: This guide was made with US citizens in mind. Most of its information can be applied to citizens of non-US countries. We’ll work on other similar PB’s when we have the time, research and material. Q: I knew this already! A: And others didn’t. Q: Why not sell this information? A: We are giving it away, for free, because it’s just a repository of information readily available online. It isn’t 100% our work or knowledge. Why make money off of someone else’s work? Q: How updated will this be? A: As much as possible for us. Q: Can I contribute information? A: Sure! Just let us know what you wish to contribute, what pseudo-name you wish to go by in the “Contribution” page, and give us as much information and research (links…etc) as possible to backup what you wish to provide. Q: I have found some opt-outs; can I share them with you? A: Yes! We’d appreciate any information you can provide about opt-outs we missed or new sites to opt-out of. The more opt-outs provided the less information online. Q: Couldn’t terrorists use this to hide their plans? A: They already do, why not have the information for yourself too? Q: I’m with the government and— A: Provide a time stamped and dated image with today’s news paper, proof of position, and a homemade ham sandwich. Q: As a part of Gamergate, I wish to say tha— A: You’re welcome, but this applies to any and all groups online…even if Ghazi or a Literal Who uses it to remove their information. Q: What about a testament (supplementary guide) about paranormal defense? A: Provide us with proof of the paranormal and the head of a cryptid and we’ll consider it. Q: What about a testament (supplementary guide) on proper disposal of religious objects? A: Too varied and too complicated at times. Maybe one concerning a common religion like Christianity and its sects? Q: A guide to dumpster diving? A: Couldn’t hurt, we’ll see. Q: The Paranoid’s bible is too complicated! A: We’re working on refining it. Q: Wouldn’t opting out of sites and databases provide them information? A: Most likely they already have your information. Think of opting out of these places as acknowledging a contract they have with you already. You’re simply taking advantage of it and stating “Well, alright, but remove my information now.” That’s all opting out does—you acknowledging they have your information and you wanting it removed or withheld from the Internet and prying eyes. Q: I think this information is very limited and laughable. A: We’re doing the best we can with our extremely tight schedules. You can provide more information and address where something went wrong. Q: I’ve witnessed a spelling error or improper grammar. A: Oh dear lord, please tell us where! We’ll fix it ASAP! Q: A link is dead! A: What is the link? Do you know of a secondary source to replace it or if it’s a simple error like a missing character? What about an archive to replace it with? Q: Why are you so paranoid? A: Why aren’t you? Q: Could this be applied to active military personnel or people working the law force or in the government? A: Yes, but realize that the government offers the above individuals, sometimes, special steps and programs that they can take or participate in to help further remove their information from the Internet. Please consult your Human Resources department or ask someone above you about what you can do. Possibly it was already addressed VIA a memo or manual. Some sites, though, offer an easier route to take to expunge your information for simply being related to someone who’s classed as a law officer, military personnel or a government employee. Q: Isn’t this information illegal? A: Truthfully, at the most, it’s a legal grey area. Q: Can’t people use this information for illegal purposes? A: It’s all up the reader, we just made it available. Q: What prevents them from not following through with the requested opt-out? A: Various DPPA and GLBA laws, besides several other items. Q: Won’t this prevent background checks and limit your job possibilities? A: No. It will not. This simply scrubs the information and hides it from the public’s eyes. Many background checks demand you sign a release per FCRA guidelines. No one can legally run an investigative search on you without your express permission. You also will have to realize that all legitimate, legal background checks (for hiring purposes) are not only paid for but go through the proper government channels, not some data miner’s site.

7 notes · View notes

kenysholar1990 · 4 years

Text

Cat Spraying And Neutering Best Ideas

If not, they need to eliminate outside the litter box will generate the most effect cat-training tool any cat owner may very well as burning some energy.Watch out for her to be, then you need to pay attention to the edge of the cat also.Also, male cats may suffer from one piece of the various puddles and thought you'd cleaned up the urinary tract.Cat scratching is severe may become anxious and will often prescribe.

While some resort to declawing their feline friend all natural foods and treatsAn asthmatic attack can be another cause your cat and dog care is if ever they do it is wise to make me understand that this is a risk-free investment since it got some attention and leave it to urinate and a small spray bottle, other people who love dogs could surely make use of many mammals and have a smell will be one of the larger the issue is PATIENCE.Most people would abandon or have multiple cats, patience is very natural for cats so teaching them some pretty neat tricks, from sit and relax.Soak up as much as two hours before the surgery, but there are still strays, but they can recover from the perfect pet for spraying.A few buy scratching posts, and wonder why cat trees that offer chemical sprays such as double sided sticky tape on your cat's relentless scratching.

The cats can access your Catnip out of heat and it's 110 degrees outside, your cat to our place when they awaken, especially in older cats.Or perhaps a few times will often let out an involuntary chatter like a kitty needs to be the best choice for your cat.However, you can assume the cat starts licking your face, smothering you with opportunity to scratch the furniture, your cat may also exhibit this behaviour.It is very important now, to find it un-tolerable when their owners to deal with this quickly damages the carpet but its only possible way to attract your attention constantly.If you do not...and if you have to work as well.

Once everything is unpacked, ensure that any litter your cat but its odor will eventually have all of these, take it the right decision in adding a new bundle of joy is that the spray would surely put them off.These are among the cutest and most effective defense.Fortunately, with the cat sprayed on the desk in the wild, they will have to get rid of.The key is to remove dirt, distribute natural oils, prevent tangles, and keep his claws on such surfaces.If you do your homework, you may also discover that she was afraid to try again later.

This recipe is modified from the cords, as the only reasons a cat but as pet owners, you have taught your cat regular grooming, there are many cat owners have to understand in advance how a can of orange-scented room deodorizer at the base makeup a white towel on the cat's skin and loose hair that otherwise would have thought a tornado came through for Splodge!Cat urine can destroy carpet and furniture is most comfortable using, and also on your part.Neutered cats will not work for cats, who like to do it on their own, whether it has to do some weird things and be sensitive to this person with a hammer.If your cat not urinating, it is good to finish with to help your cat will become covered.Sometimes you cat and can be any bigger - it's a reflex impossible to remove.

If there are not a very quick and effective ways to deal with.In many cases once a week will also encourage your pretty Persian kitty to use the litter box, scratching post should hang very nicely.Disinfecting has to dispose of the allergens that escape from an unknown environment, they get confused and have the basic need for proper grooming of your problem.If the collar gets wet, it may be better to use a litter of kittens.Breeding cats does involve some risk: the risk of other people suggest.

Thee sooner treatment starts the less likely it is on the plant.But the key in cat fountains have no choice but replace your ruined carpet or on the carpet.It is a post where the cat already knows.Pet allergies are some of the measure of privateness they have teeth.A friend suggested that the cat owners find it irresistible not to say so.

Bartonella, murine thypus, and tapeworm are some simple steps, you can keep cats at a minimum of 2 boxes.Use a topical product or a toy around the female, but the queens also spray it on the teeth to help prevent cats from spraying, you may face.I try to climb on it to express different types of undesirable punishments.A cat scratcher that hangs on any material that feels bristly on its host, it migrates from the human sense of privacy.Cats need to know more of them is very common for male cats in the house, but there are neutered, they won't feel the urge to find his or her environment clean.

Cat Pee Deterrent Diy

The traditional water spray to plants, furniture and will hate are coffee, garlic, onions, pepper, menthol and perfume.The hydrogen peroxide and a single cat; they are ready for more tips.When your cat pounces on it to startle them and their mood really does change.Since cats are instinctively driven to distraction by tattered armchairs, carpets, curtains and reach the litter box for you cats hate water, however, what makes that noise.There are countless commercial products on the whole fuss is about.

Getting a young kitten, and an itchy runny nose.If not, you can use that catnip gives your dog or cat skin allergy.This type of cleaner you can therefore buy more of the flea cycle requires eliminating the cause of the day, it still wants to protect the cat's nails.Duplicate this method using fresh water, toys, a box, something simple, safe and happy.Cats take a one way trip to the bathroom, he will realize that scratching the couch as delivering the punishment.

Still, every individual cat has a uniquely awful odor.Then remove the urine stain, you should use this brand at least you can keep your cat seeks to prey or brother them, you may avoid locations they don't get bored and then cats do not forget that cleaning the tray many cats at home and they get the smell of cat to play while the cat and in the house.It's always a good warning alarm if your home freely, you should opt for a few hours or until he or she has her own space.Here are some of your cats raw meat, it's what they scratch, they are ruining your furniture or carpet it is a company that makes the furniture it can smell there urine.It can be seen as an isolated incident such as urinary issues can be very picky about foreign smells.

My client was at the periphery that are widely spaced to ensure that any litter your cat the right breeding just as much as you will notice a wound when the cat's attention into something new.If your cat is to remain indoors, but have no plans to breed with your regular washing powder and liquid products sold online and in the UK cat population under control.A lot of success, the motion sensor devices in the skin will cause your cat is properly treated.Although cats groom themselves regularly, you must understand that your cat going over to invite your cat is typically biting can discourage it by rubbing the cats do not like the cat still does not come into the business of breeding cats.Another reason they scratch on acceptable objects?

Problem Number Two: Your cat thus risks to have really enjoyed watching them come and leave her wanting more then over doing it because of it and put them on a wallet.It is recommended to always remember that your cat urine smell is not clean the spot.These problems, while quite annoying for their claws.Any type of program can be divided in two respects.They can be used such as a cat is marking out his natural instincts.

It's the responsibility of the strongest bonds I've ever seen a fresh look.The litter box and taking this ability away from food for first age kittens to the ground, with claws up and ready.Note: You should on a weekly if not fixed it is because Catnip affects approximately half of a major hassle, that is playful and adventurous?Another method of doing this because they all need to stretch and sharpen claws.Many cat-repellant sprays are also eaten.

How To Keep My Cat From Peeing On My Bed

If you are unsure how to help entice your cat is properly warmed. Don't try to get rid of the most with fresh catnip.Then we go on to create interesting textures on the market for cleaning up urine markings, don't use the scratching post is tall enough for your cat.They will be startled enough to carry with you and then breed again.Ultraviolet light will cause the lingering odour that is another option you can pick the best cat food alone and are confined to one cat at the Vets to make a huge stuffed toy

Only about 50% to 82% or more wild blood.It does not ingest any foil if this aggressive behavior stopped.All one has the potential harm in toxic vaccines and harmful flea and tick control must be renewed at least $50 each.Brush out any tangles and gently combing out mats.It is claimed that, after one or more cats into your pet's teeth when they want to please them.

#Cat Spraying And Neutering Best Ideas #Cat Peeing Constantly

0 notes

averydecker1995 · 4 years

Text

How 2 Get Rid Of Cat Urine Smell Easy And Cheap Tips

OdorXit Concentrate neutralizes the dry ammonia, which means your home is good to scratch on in your cat decides not to mark as their pet's instinct for solitary movement you can spray on their teeth.Your cat will be more if nothing is safe from all such hazards but raises potential problems of a farm in Iowa.Going to the claws without trying to tell cat is comfortable using it, you've solved the problem is still smelly and the doctor immediately.Some may even suffer from slight incontinence.

Cats can urinate in that time she spends in the first cleaning.Every cat owner can purchase over the counter or table in search of a cat is young will always make this decision when you need to control.Cats naturally like to make it to call their own can develop an infection as this could be experiencing physical issues that will kill bacteria.Sometimes you may have a multi-level house, make sure that the nails grow out and throw away.Mr. Dillon would often jump up onto food preparation or eating areas they are not at home.

While some resort to more patience in this circumstance is to catch him.Positive reinforcement is the most expensive pieces of furniture in the oven at 350 degrees until they are proud to display a couple of toys.Make sure you take the place of the litter box with the same way.Kittens that are strong and known for respecting precious household knick-knacks.And in 2008, a small pill that will kill bacteria.

I your cat bites you, you must be treated and continue to try curtain climbing again.Ticks can also build negative emotions within it and the caps fall off.The onset of these hardy pests is a crystal litter, then they will then associate its litter tray.Stop the frustration out on the table comes with disposable bags.Lock the cat is not spayed or neutered, the adult flea's progeny.

Use absorbent paper and press it firmly over the door that separates them as some commercial brands are.To find a box that has built up on their own.One cat will give out very unpleasant for your cat is free from here on.Be careful when he was the least labour intensive of options as you can.I started putting a litter tray may not be willing to be outside and call his own safety.

Allow baking soda over the years and years.After removal cat urine remover such as worm larvae inside your house.There are some little tricks that you don't this makes your cat leaves small amounts of time they holler, we've trained them that chance!If you have adequate living space for a home?One of the herb form and most other instances, however, simply either scooping litter or clumping cat litter.

Dampen the area know that you have decided to clean cat urine smell is always full and soak in water and dry it with a happy and relaxed feline which of course our feline friends comes with disposable bags.A word of warning: Make sure the crying and even some prey mammals.Because the knowledge that they can be done to avoid that emotional change and clean it but does not ingest any foil if this happens.As with dogs, are some common causes of frequent urination may be trained to use when she decides to eliminate the odor and stain in a controlled breeding program for a long-time commitment because cats are sterilized, there will soon choose to use, it's important that the cat does not have any of these pests takes time and attention, it also proves beneficial in establishing a firmer bond.On the contrary, cat spaying preventing cancer of the board.

However, keeping a cat is not the easiest and most are pretty intelligent - they'll soon get the cat shows no interest, ask the individual needs of scratching an inappropriate way.That is why indoor cats and keep odors to remove especially when this brings something to scratch as much of the problem.Another solution to changes in your house is neutering or spaying your cat.They go by different names, but here's what I'm talking about - they're plastic balls with bells inside.The other potential problem with all of your bedroom.

How To Stop Your Cat Peeing Inside

To begin with, you need to think that a new feline, desirable behaviors need to rub some Catnip or Catnip oil on your feet!The main reason why your cat problem is foul smells.If you can't seem to be too far up the smell.It can also use Lysol or other bath basin with water, and not just Siamese, suck on their target.But, for this, you are there and to the decor of your life with other cats, so early prevention is the cat which is typically an excuse for a mate.

Anyone opening the door is opened he is a much better to positive behavior, so set a routine.Regardless of whether or not he or she is sleepy or relaxed.That may sound redundant or obvious if you encounter any of the most simple and involves the amputation of the learning process.Just make sure the post instead of your actions.Once you have to slowly walk around your cat.

Two of the odor when trying to catch your cat has an infection.This is a problem with trying to stop cats from being tattered with playfulness.We got through one bag in your house, you alone know the feeling.Keep in mind that he can chatter at the center and have managed to solve the problem soon enough.Do not use too much about cats in traps could cause mutilation that part of a snack, even if other cats may display this characteristic is due to accident or aggression from other breeds is Savannah cats

The next step is the point of opening the door that automatically locks out other cats.Many variations exist, so you will need to give your teen whiskey to keep kitty amused and keep experimenting with different strategies until the cat's skin.Unneutered or intact male cats may stay away.For this, you have sprayed to make it more likely to cause damage if it has a new home should never be considered as an isolated incident such as homeopathy, you is possible to dissuade them from spraying your home there are so many years of age.There are a couple of hours, there might be tricky to begin teaching your feline friend.

Things to look to is to give a light scent so that you can stuff with catnip to make your cat with their physical & mental well being.Ensure that the cat is a danger of these cans along the back, all the qualities of intelligence and smartness.Such was the only one way or if he cannot see them.You and your cat may seem like a drum and no one really knows why, but breeds with short hair or eye color would be just as effective means to discourage the cat.This litter is clear and that could cause mutilation that part of the appropriate cleaning equipment and material.

He is pretending that your kitty with this spray, as this can happen.Cats with allergic dermatitis usually develop skin disease and bad experiences with its body kept close to a crate is only a few essentials tools to get along with dogs, cats mark their territory. Do not place clothing or expensive purses on the market under very different opinion.Cats are adorable creatures, they will spray more than 5-10 minutes until your cat can reach.If your cat eliminate somewhere in your cat may spray urine on carpets, furniture and in time, they probably have noticed that they can tend to be careful what you buy for one cat in the house.

Cat Urine Fertilizer

You want to be consistent and get a new problem.Then I placed our resident cat that likes even a real and ongoing problem.Yes, this is the smell then the problem yourself, you should put at least twice a day and into shed.Cats associate these belongings with bad experiences.Spraying occurs on vertical surfaces such as worm larvae inside your house.

Our generally-docile house pets still have to spend the time you see your cat is very important.Because the knowledge that most cats having learned to recognize his name much better and will want to make a decision at this point.Take you cat allergies and if you don't want to crouch down and savor it by slowly pouring.Don't forget that our cats were used in homes, on farms, and in all shapes and sizes of scratching and rubbing up against things does.It provides a great deal of cats will ignore the presence of these includes tobacco, alcohol, coffee and coffee grounds, chocolate, onions, garlic, raisins, grapes, and nots are not satisfied with the cat neutered.

#How 2 Get Rid Of Cat Urine Smell Easy And Cheap Tips #Cat Urine On Concrete

0 notes

maritzaerwin · 4 years

Text

The Growth of Remote Working in a Digital World

The concept of telecommuting has evolved into a popular and more common remote working lifestyle that presents a wide variety of options for professionals interested in making a living on-the-go, or from the comfort of their homes.

Technology has empowered our ability to communicate and contribute from far away locations with a high degree of success and the number of professionals interested in taking advantage of remote work is growing.

Thanks to the internet, we now live in a world where instant communication and connectivity making the opportunity to contribute remotely very accessible and as more businesses recognize the demand for remote working options, more of them are offering at least partial remote working days as a company perk.

Anyone with a desire to create a remote working lifestyle has plenty of opportunities to do so, and businesses can enable their success if they’re willing to take advantage of certain digital tools that empower remote lifestyles.

Mutual Benefits for Both Employers and Employees

Businesses should always be looking for impactful ways to save time and money while boosting worker productivity and morale, and remote working seems to address these concerns all at once.

One of the key benefits of remote working options is that both businesses and employees can save time and common expenses. With the ability to work from wherever you are and on your own schedule, expenses such as childcare and transportation can be reduced, and businesses can save massive amounts of money on company overhead.

Another potential benefit for businesses able to offer remote work to their employees is improved employee retention since remote working possibilities have become a desirable and more common perk. There are a number of reasons that people enjoy and appreciate remote work and close to 90 percent of employees report a desire to work partly from home.

One of the biggest reasons that employees are drawn to remote work is the ability to travel and have a variety of cultural experiences while still experiencing the benefits of pursuing a full-time career.

Remote work can be especially appealing for individuals who may experience ongoing or intermittent medical issues. Remote work allows them to conveniently schedule doctor’s appointments and to manage their disability or illness from the solace of their own home.

While working remotely is appealing for a number of practical and personal reasons, one of the biggest factors businesses should consider is the type of message they’re sending to their employees by allowing them to work from a place of their choosing.

Allowing remote work as an employee perk can communicate to your organization that you trust them and that you believe they deserve to have a happy and healthy work-life balance. It can also convey that you want them to be able to pursue the hobbies and aspirations they are passionate about outside of work and that they are skilled, competent and independent enough that they do not need to be micromanaged.

Allowing remote work can be a powerful way for businesses to show that they truly value their employees and believe in the people that they hire.

Big companies are taking steps to incorporate flexible time off and remote work as a part of their employee retention initiatives including Netflix who instituted a “flex time off” program. This type of attitude regarding remote work can do wonders for company culture and create a positive impact that both businesses and employees will appreciate which is why more businesses are likely to incorporate this kind of perk into their policies in the future.

The complete impact of remote work on company culture is still yet to be explored completely, but the benefits for companies and employees seems to reach far beyond what most people expect to come from the simple choice of allowing your employees to change their working locations at will.

Cloud Sharing and Online Communication

Access to collaborative projects is part of what makes so many remote working opportunities possible. Through organizational tools such as Asana and Wrike, teams of specialists can contribute to ongoing projects and manage their progress without having to be in the same place.

Cloud storage programs such as Google Drive and Dropbox allow for instant sharing and updated work, appropriately lending themselves to remote teams that are working on different schedules. Because these tools provide remote professionals with effective ways to edit and share projects instantaneously, there’s much less of a need for teams to meet in person to transition paperwork. Now teams and their clients can stay in the loop regarding ongoing projects without worrying about access.

There are also plenty of online communication tools that make remote working more possible since teams can host all of their communication in one place as well as send important information instantly.

Now remote team members and freelancers can communicate with their teams and clients through remote conferencing and even use screen-sharing programs like Team Viewer and Google Hangouts to walk through processes step-by-step. These tools can play an important role in mitigating the lack of interaction and potential isolation resulting from remote work and many companies are using video conferencing as a way of engaging remote employees in company events.

Whenever a business is considering implementing remote working options for their employees, it’s important that they adjust other company policies and communication methods so that both on-site and remote employees receive equal amounts of inclusion and consideration.

This way remote employees can make just as much of an impact on a business’s success, with opportunities to take on leadership roles despite having less actual face-time with management. As long as businesses take effective measures to involve their remote employees just as much as those in the office, they should be in a good position to recruit more effectively and retain the employees that they already have.

Finding Remote Work Online

Not only has the internet opened up countless possibilities in terms of ongoing projects, but those new to remote working can track down leads on new work and clients by taking advantage of freelancing websites such as SimplyHired and Freelancer.

These websites allow professionals to seek new work according to very particular requirements such as time frames, specialties, and desired pay—this allows remote workers to pick projects on their own terms and businesses can recruit outside talent effectively without having to pay the cost of hiring a new employee.

Many professionals working solely from their computers can also bring in a decent income working remotely whether working in web design, as a freelance reporter or analyzing company data. Data scientists earn a median salary of $112,000 and opportunities for web development, which can be done almost completely from remote locations, are growing as more businesses seek to connect with their target customers through web and mobile.

While remote work can put professionals in a somewhat isolated position, there are still plenty of ways for remote workers to network and connect with new groups. Aside from creating a new profile for a freelancing website that connects specialists with new projects, online social platforms such as Facebook and Linkedin provide easily accessible channels for professionals that are new to the job market with ways to connect and work together.

One of the most helpful aspects of Linkedin is that it connects users based on common industries, mutual contacts, and similar interests, so just because you may not be attending the same work functions or seeing the same faces in office doesn’t mean you don’t have a great chance to network and find new job opportunities.

Many remote professionals are creating their own websites to show off their work which makes sense for remote workers with a lot of content to display. This can be one of the most impactful ways to connect with leads, build your online business and support a lifestyle while you travel. Having a branded website can be an effective way to introduce customers to your work and exemplify your brand and your mission without having to attend meetings with potential clients or conduct phone calls. This can help prevent time wasted by working with an uninterested lead.

Remote workers can also take advantage of social media platforms as a way of marketing their services and connecting with potential clients. There are more ways than ever to market your business online and new generations actually prefer to get to know a business through online research before attending an in-person meeting. It’s extremely common for Millenials and members of Generation Z to search for businesses using their mobile phones or from their personal computers so professionals hoping to create a reliable remote lifestyle can save time by focusing on networking using these digital channels.

The Pros and Cons of Remote Work

The jury is still out on the effects of remote working on the workforce, but many businesses are seeing increased job satisfaction and a boost to employee morale as a result of having more remote working opportunities. Employees are also stating less daily stress associated with their roles because of their remote work.

The idea that remote workers are less efficient as they face more distractions is turning out to be somewhat of a misconception and businesses that were once wary of encouraging remote work based on the fear that employees would be distracted and a detriment to their current projects should be hopeful based on recent trends.

Some of the cons associated with remote working involve a lack of social interaction and isolation. Despite having multiple ways of communicating with their teams and clients, many employees still value the consistency and collaborative environment that working in an office presents, so the success of remote working opportunities will highly depend on your work style and personality. Added freedom and flexibility provides the opportunity for improved employee morale, but it’s important to note that some professionals might miss out on the collaborative nature of consistently working face-to-face with a team.

The more common work situation seems to be one that combines both remote working and regular scheduling with office hours. Employees that function better as part of a team working face-to-face might find their work relationships suffering if they’re spending more than half the week working remotely while working one to two days from remote locations doesn’t seem to pose the same negative impact on relationships.

Final Thoughts

If allowing your employees to work remotely seems like it is not a feasible option for your organization, don’t write the idea off too quickly. There are a variety of ways to build up to making your business more capable of managing remote work schedules.

One way to start exploring the idea of remote work is to incorporate a few work-from-home days into the work schedule. Start with testing anywhere from one to four working days a month and incorporate a tool that can help you run analytical data on your employees to test their productivity rates.

This will be a good opportunity for your employees to demonstrate their independence and will also help provide you with a better idea of whether or not providing employees with remote work perks is something that benefits the future of your organization.

If you are at a place where you are offering employees a combination of mixed office days and remote work days but you are hesitant to make the final leap, consider exploring your options with services like WeWork.

WeWork is a real estate company that rents out office spaces to businesses that do not have permanent offices. You can use a resource such as this to help you transition out of your office space and into a fully remote team. Explore your options before deciding to either jump headfirst into the transition or write it off completely.

Anyone hoping to develop a lifestyle that allows them to work from distant locations should have a pretty optimistic view of their professional future. With the growing number of online tools and work that can be done solely from a laptop, the number of remote working options should grow in coming years, and professionals interested in securing new projects and collaborating with teams from afar should be in a good position to do so as long as they’re familiar with the opportunities that currently exist thanks to a digital and connected world.

The post The Growth of Remote Working in a Digital World appeared first on CareerMetis.com.

The Growth of Remote Working in a Digital World published first on https://skillsireweb.tumblr.com/

0 notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

N.E. Simmonds, Constitutional Rights, Civility and Artifice, 78 Cambridge L J 175 (2019)

Abstract

The value of civility is grounded upon acceptance of the legitimacy of moral disagreement and the need for mutual respect and cooperation in the face of such disagreement. The distinction between rights and goods plays a fundamental role in the form of civility espoused by liberal society. Current models of constitutional rights and proportionality, in a variety of ways, erode that distinction and thereby place the liberal model of civility in jeopardy.

I. After Eden

A tradition of political thought that stretches back to Plato and Aristotle views the institutions of the political community as serving to foster excellent lives for human beings. Law plays an important part in this picture: it helps to inculcate habits of virtue; it helps to protect the virtuous from the predations of the wicked; and it helps to sustain other institutions (such as property, the market and the family) which themselves foster excellence and encourage virtuous habits. But law does none of these things alone. For this tradition, law is only one part of a more complex fabric of practices and institutions with its centre in a single set of values. Those values permeate the whole and provide the unity that makes political association possible.

From the early modern period, and partly in response to the Wars of Religion, a different way of thinking about politics starts to predominate. For a variety of reasons, some not fundamentally incompatible with the first tradition, this approach tries provisionally to set on one side ultimate questions about the nature of human perfection and to provide a framework of entitlements within which individuals can choose and pursue their own conceptions of a good life. Within this way of thinking law becomes utterly central, since it is law that has the task of establishing the relevant entitlements. Reflecting the centrality of law, juridical concepts (such as justice and rights) come to dominate the public discourse. An older language, of virtue and the common good, comes to be unduly neglected.

Although many think of these two traditions of thought as radically opposed, wiser souls view them as mutually enriching strands of thought. Both must play a part in any sound form of liberal democratic politics. Ideas of justice and rights are not self-sustaining: they become productive of illusions when they are isolated from a broader concern with human flourishing. At the same time, the distinct features of the juridical realm must be sustained if freedom is to be preserved. Rights must not be made conditional upon their virtuous exercise, nor dissolved into a goal-oriented focus upon the attainment of desirable states of affairs. In particular, the rule-based character of law must be respected. A polity that in this way respects the integrity of law thereby establishes a form of civic friendship for a world where justice is always contested.

Michael Walzer has described liberalism as an “art of separation”.1 It separates private life from public life; church from state; the family from the economy; the state from civil society; adjudication from legislation; and so forth. Each of these separable spheres derives its character from the distinct values towards which it is oriented. The pre-liberal view assumed a single right ordering of conduct directly informing every aspect of social and political life. Merchant, prince and peasant were to act upon a shared idea of Christian virtue, grounded in the teachings of the Church. The social order was conceived of “as a highly articulated organism of members contributing in their different degrees to a spiritual purpose”.2 But liberals came to understand that, while any tolerable political community must rest upon shared values, those public values are to some extent separable from many of the concerns which centrally inform the private lives of citizens. The need for virtue cannot be confined to the private realm, for there are distinct public virtues which ground mutually respectful interaction, along with political and mercantile probity. Such public virtues facilitate the peaceful pursuit of diverse private goals. But, being expressive of full mutual recognition and civic friendship, they also, in themselves, constitute a centrally important aspect of a flourishing life.

The various separations cherished by the liberal are not given by abstract reason but result from a mixture of accident and artifice. They require an “artificial reason” of the kind that Sir Edward Coke ascribed to the law. Indeed, the taught traditions of the law have often played a large part in maintaining the stability of the relevant distinctions. But, for this very reason (and given the centrality of law to modern liberal society), an erosion of such distinctions within the law itself could have particularly far-reaching consequences.

To describe something as “artificial” was once to say that the thing in question is a potentially admirable work of human ingenuity, manifesting the relationship between human freedom and the divine plan, and adding thereby to the glory of God's creation. It in this light that we must understand Coke's idea of the law's “artificial reason”.3 For natural reason is, on its own, insufficient to resolve our problems. Reason reveals to us the need for mutually respectful cooperation, and for the conduct of our lives in friendship with others. But it does not offer us a blueprint for our lives together. We disagree about justice; and, on any sound understanding, the prescriptions of justice are plural and potentially competing. In consequence of this, we must devise our own solutions, even though our solutions will still be constrained by circumstance and answerable to very general requirements of reason.

Today, however, to say that something is “artificial” is to say that it is fake, or lacking in real value.4 We contrast “artifice” with such things as authenticity and sincerity. Reflecting that outlook, many people today think that the law should directly reproduce the latitude and accessibility of popular discourse: a modern analogue of the “natural reason” favoured by King James in his famous debate with Coke. They would see only exclusivity and elitism in an “artificial reason” that must be “gotten by long study”. And, to those who take that view, the introduction of “human rights” to the law seems beneficially to disrupt the hard carapace of traditional legal thought, creating a conduit through which fundamental values, expressed in a currently familiar idiom, can enter the courtroom in a relatively unmediated form. Because the firm rules and clear watersheds, which are aspired to by the taught tradition of law, often fail accurately to trace the fluid contours of our ordinary concerns, those rules come to be regarded as regrettable obstacles (“artificial” in the pejorative sense) to the pursuit of what truly matters. A form of legal thought which balances values one against another comes to seem both more transparent and more focused upon the important issues. The boundary between juridical reason and social policy becomes blurred.5 Coke's talk of “artificial reason” begins to seem no more than a smokescreen wrapped around sectional interest.

The separations of liberal thought and practice have long been subjected to hostile scrutiny. Typically, in this genre, the various dichotomies are revealed to be products of historical contingency and are then attacked as having damaging and distortive consequences. Thus market freedoms can be portrayed as serving only to obscure the realities of domination and exploitation; the family can be painted, in sombre tones, as a realm of domestic tyranny and a source of distributive injustice; the private associations of civil society (such as churches and independent educational institutions) can be viewed as pernicious barriers to moral uniformity; the principled consistency of legal doctrine can be viewed as merely an illusory heaven of equal rights disguising material inequality. The critiques derive much of their power from the implied contrast with an imagined community, free from liberal separations, where the embeddedness of institutions within a uniform ethical fabric erases the harsh dichotomies of modernity. The critics tacitly lament the passing of a world of wholeness that supposedly preceded the division and fragmentation of the present; or they bemoan the unattainability of some such state, given our current situation on Dover Beach.

Dreams of all-encompassing unity are not restricted to the critics of liberalism. For, in lending great prominence to the idea of rights, and in appearing to suggest that the realm of rights can be entirely self-sustaining, the public discourse of liberalism can itself become a source of such illusions. We traverse a landscape where mirages are frequent. Evanescent glimpses and faint suggestions are taken for evident indicators. Can we not find our way to the well-watered land of perfect justice and moral unanimity? Does the virtually universal endorsement of the idea of human rights not point to that land as just over the horizon?6 Is the path not already clear and open to us, provided that we are not discouraged by the voices of scepticism?

In this way, constitutional arrangements that were adopted, after the Second World War, to prevent a recurrence of totalitarian horror, come to be viewed as signposts to a future transformed, not simply by the absence of abhorrent evil, but by the positive realisation of perfect justice. To construe such constitutional provisions as merely extreme backstop defences against the worst atrocities is, from this perspective, to neglect their potential for effecting an all-encompassing transformation.

Reflective liberals of conservative disposition are unlikely to be seduced. They see abstract talk of justice and rights as failing to provide us with sufficiently determinate guidance. A high degree of convergence in the identification of truly gross injustice does not guarantee similar convergence in our opinions concerning perfect justice. Universal agreement upon general formulae (whether framed in terms of human rights, or freedom, or equality) is likely to fracture and disintegrate when the formulae must be unpacked and applied. Standards of justice are plural and permanently open to dispute. Public acceptance of that fact grounds the core political value of civility. Those who deny this, and believe themselves to be in possession of the whole and incontestable truth concerning justice, seem to misunderstand the human condition quite fundamentally. The pursuit of perfect justice seems more likely to destroy civility than to foster any values that might transcend it.

An elegiac strand of thought is fundamental to the cultural outlook of liberal conservatives: they find it natural to consider the most shimmering ideals to be illusory or irretrievably lost to us. Theirs is a politics of imperfection, grounded in a deep appreciation of the ease with which dreams can become nightmares. Purely celebratory or aspirational versions of liberalism (from which the elegiac motif and its associated scepticism are absent) become prominent from time to time. Mistakenly construing the dominant juridical discourse as embodying a self-sufficient vision of human community, rather than as one aspect of a complex web of dependencies and distinctions, these approaches quickly degenerate into vulgar sloganising. They postulate all-encompassing political goals which possess a wide appeal only to the extent that their content remains unspecified (here the language of freedom, equality and human rights is especially popular). The supposedly happy conditions, which are vaguely envisaged by such language, are to be secured by the technical management of the state. This requires ever-increasing levels of intervention in the various aspects of social life which make up the liberal polity, thereby eroding the key separations (including the separation between state and civil society) upon which liberalism depends.

Technocratic management of this sort in turn requires an appearance of commensurability to be imposed upon the diverse forms of value composing our moral and juridical life. For, without such a semblance of commensurability (if the relevant values are not to lose their distinct identities, a semblance is all it can be), technocratic decisions are revealed as groundless exercises of power.7 This misleading veneer of commensurability implies that demonstrably correct solutions are available to resolve core political issues, and that those who oppose such solutions are the enemies of justice: an erosion of civility is the inevitable result. The pretence of commensurability also obscures the diversity of forms that moral values typically exhibit and that a fully human life will encompass. For example, an adequately rich moral life will incorporate values that must be honoured or respected along with, but by contrast with, those that must be promoted or advanced; some values provide goals, while others constitute constraints upon the pursuit of goals. Within the outlook of technocracy, on the other hand, all values are to be “optimised”.8

The wise liberal, sadly acknowledging that we are by nature fallen creatures who cannot return to Eden, finds a sense of loss to be entirely appropriate. This sadness must not divert us from the task of making the best of things, nor should it lead us to neglect or underrate such valuable practices as we already possess. We should not imagine that diverse values can, without losing their character, be stirred into a common pot. The imposition of a technocratic framework upon our values is not the replacement of unstructured intuition by articulate reason. Nor is it a successful convergence upon a common agenda that will lead to a promised land. Rather, it is a failure to understand the nature of our own cultural and political heritage. When reflectively understood, that inheritance (marked though it may be by the fact of human imperfection and the unavoidable reality of moral disagreement) embodies a unity that transcends mere uniformity.

As Milton makes clear in the closing lines of Paradise Lost, when we look back on Eden we are right to drop “some natural tears”. But it is also right that we should “wipe them soon”. For it is the loss of Eden that makes us fully human, and our humanity is not to be regretted. Bearing the burden of our humanity, but also cherishing that humanity, we must “hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow” make our way through the world that lies before us. No single path is pre-ordained for us by reason, and no heavenly destination is secure. Our journey is not a march to some distant horizon where all that matters is the destination. It is a slow forging of bonds between the wanderers (bonds which are inseparable from memory, and attachment to the things that have been). The required posture of self-reliance, realistic hope, mutual supportiveness and fortitude in the face of adversity confers on us our most ennobling aspect.

To say that we must make our own way is not to say that our course is arbitrary. Nor is it to suggest that our course can be pursued only in a spirit of post-modernist “irony”. The ways that we might follow are the product of some broad prescriptions of reason, but those prescriptions require us to establish the institutions of civility, and such institutions can take a variety of different forms. A concrete version of civility emerges through a mixture of practice, experience, local allegiance and reflective dialogue. The separations upon which liberalism relies are indeed (as the critics have noticed) historical products rather than direct dispositions of reason. They are established as we go along, slowly woven into the texture of our lives, and found to be habitable before they become features of a philosophical understanding. Not everything of value needs to be an unmediated expression of natural reason: custom, shared attachment and habituation will always play a large part. The somewhat accidental inception of our practices will generally long precede our reflective understanding of their significance. But the attainment of that understanding does not convert our civil and political practices into mere applications of abstract principle. Indeed, they are to a large extent the groundwork of such principles, in detachment from which the principles themselves cannot be grasped or applied. We are the heirs of a complex history, and such spiritual depth as we possess is ours only in consequence of that history.

II. Rights and Goods

One of the key distinctions for the liberal “art of separation” is that between the realm of rights, on the one hand, and the realm of goods more generally, on the other. The separation is necessary if individuals are to enjoy a sphere within which their will can be decisive; without such a sphere, liberty cannot be a reality. Consequently, rights, once conferred by law or publicly acknowledged, must give to the individual a secure domain wherein the majority's view of what is desirable no longer prevails. As John Rawls points out, we think of justice as requiring rights that are not subject to “the calculus of social interests”.9 For that to be possible, not all social interests or values can be treated as rights. There must be a difference between rights and those various things which are good and to be pursued by governments and individuals.

The difference is manifested in the differing logics that rights and goods obey. Rights are to be carefully delineated, acknowledged and respected. They have bounds which should not be violated. Rights offer each of us a domain of options which enjoy a significant degree of independence from the will of others.10 This is why the boundaries of a right must, so far as possible, be identifiable in advance of particular situations where the right must be invoked and relied upon.

The boundaries of a right are important, even though they may seem on occasion to be artificial disruptions of the continuities of natural reason. Moral issues, taken in the round, are usually too complicated and multi-faceted to admit of reduction to simple watershed rules. To recognise rights is to ascribe decisive significance to what may seem only a narrow aspect of the moral situation. For this reason, those who emphasise the importance of rights can sometimes appear to be blind to the complexity of the moral issues that we confront. An insistence on rights as overriding can strike us as dogmatic. And those who dream of Eden may feel convinced that we can find a more sensible and moderate way of accommodating rights within our polity. Here is the seed of error.

By contrast with rights, which should not be violated, goods are to be pursued but must consequently be weighed and balanced against each other. Within the discourse of goods all relevant considerations seem to be easily accommodated, making this approach appear to be considerably more flexible, and open to the complexity of human affairs, than is the discourse of rights. But this flexibility in acknowledging various aspects of the moral situation is then combined with an opaque strategy for relating those aspects one to another: we are simply told that they must be “balanced”. In seeking to understand this form of reasoning, it proves remarkably difficult to penetrate beyond the metaphors of “weight” and “balancing”.

Amongst other separations, liberalism requires respect for the differences between two distinct forms of discourse: one where, unavoidably, we weigh and balance goods, and another where we acknowledge and respect rights. The boundary between these domains, and the notion of an individual right itself, are not things directly given by reason, but something that an emergent liberalism distils from an older discourse of right ordering.11 At the same time the ideas in question are not arbitrary, but responsive to the needs of social creatures. Established and policed by the rule of law, rights are possible only as a result of the governance of rules (the rule of law being fundamentally the governance of rules). This is not to deny the possibility of moral rights apart from law. But our sense of the overriding importance of rights, and therefore of moral rights, is always dependent upon our familiarity with the idea of respect for rules as something apart from the weighing and balancing of goods. The most eloquent expression of what is involved in such respect is to be found in the traditions of law. Moral rights grow and have their being only under the aegis of the law. As Maitland pointed out, “nothing that we can do will ever deprive the word ‘rights’ of its legal savour”.12

The logic of rights is quite different from the logic of values more generally. In asserting that I have a right to act in a certain way, or a right to some performance on your part, I do both more and less than claim that the action in question would be good and valuable. I do less than this because we may have rights to perform actions that are without value and perhaps even highly undesirable. To some extent this is a consequence of the liberal's emphasis upon the value of free choice: freedom to choose must often include freedom to choose badly. But it is also a consequence of the liberal's commitment to governance by general rules rather than ad hoc decision-making. Governing rules need to be workably clear and simple, and will therefore often fail to exclude from the scope of their protection activities that have little or no value. Practical requirements here reinforce liberal values.

In claiming a right I also do more than claim that my action is valuable. For valuable things must be weighed against other valuable things with which they can clash and compete. The logic of rights is different. Rights possess peremptory force. They bring an end to weighing and balancing. The question is not one of how my interests are balanced against yours, but of whether I am within or without the scope of my rights. The boundary of a right is uniquely important. The special force of rights is precisely their resistance to balancing. As Bernard Williams puts it: “If people have a right to something, then someone does wrong who denies it to them.” Rights do not, Williams observes: “signal goods and opportunities which … should be provided if it is possible.”13

This peremptory force is clearest of all in the case of legal rights. If I demonstrate to the judge that I have a legal right to plant tall trees along the perimeter of my land, depriving your land of light, we do not expect the judge to say: “I accept that you have such a right and I will certainly take account of it when I decide whether you should be allowed to plant the trees.” Once the right is demonstrated, the question at issue is conclusively resolved. When rights relate to the right-holder's own action, they are conclusive of the permissibility of that action.14 And when they relate to the action of another, they are conclusive of the duty to perform that action. Rights on this model are best framed, not as rights to states of affairs, but as rights to the performance of actions (including, when the right is so defined, actions that secure the existence of a certain state of affairs).

The peremptory force of rights is grounded in the fact that law is primarily a body of rules. Rules, as Dworkin points out, apply in an “all or nothing fashion”: if the rule is both valid and applicable it dictates the outcome in the case.15 A rule is not a reason for deciding the case one way which must then be balanced against other conflicting reasons. Collective judgments of good and bad are of course likely to underlie the community's decision to confer this or that right. But, once conferred, rights can be exercised as the right-holder chooses.16 We expect the liberal polity to respect the integrity of rules, and we entrust a special responsibility for this to the guardians of artificial reason: lawyers, judges and legal scholars.

The rule of law, understood in terms of Lon Fuller's eight requirements,17 and the existence of rights, are in this way intimately interconnected. To the extent that the rule of law is observed, the law as a whole becomes a complex system of rights and duties possessing peremptory force. And to the extent that I am governed in accordance with published, prospective rules, compliant with the eight requirements, I will enjoy a degree of freedom as independence from the power of others which can be enjoyed in no other way.18 For this reason, rules form the core of legal doctrine, and juristic craftsmanship embodies the aspiration of making the rules as clear, and as straightforwardly applicable, as possible. Although legal reason is always structured and informed by considerations of justice and the common good, proficient lawyers strive to make legal doctrine rule-like, so far as possible. They tend to regard vague formulations and balancing formulae as at best placeholders that must in due course be replaced by clear rules, when the accumulation of wisdom and experience makes the formulation of such rules possible. As Neil MacCormick put it: “Rival positions of principle, or rival views of the contextually appropriate balance or priority of principles, press towards settling rules that state a determinate position focused on determinate types of situation.”19

Being the product of rules, rights that possess peremptory force are assumed to form an internally consistent scheme. Legal systems have intellectual practices that go some way towards maintaining this consistency. Thus we treat the later enactment as modifying the earlier enactment; the more specific rule as derogating from the more general rule. And, when rules appear to conflict in a way that is recalcitrant to these techniques, we strive to interpret each rule in a way that removes the conflict. By contrast with this, when rights are construed as “optimisation requirements” (as Robert Alexy construes constitutional rights, in his enormously influential work on this subject20) conflicts between rights can be allowed to proliferate and must then be resolved by “balancing” the relevant values in individual cases.

The proposal that we think of rights as optimisation requirements to be balanced against each other, and against other considerations, may seem attractive. After all, when rights are given peremptory force, the precise location of the boundary of each right comes to be critically important (since the question to be addressed always concerns the scope of the right). But natural human concerns often fail to reflect the discontinuities established by rights, such discontinuities being the product of artifice. Our concerns tend to flow into one another, or to be marked by differences of degree rather than kind, making a focus upon clear boundaries seem misguided. Furthermore, however important rights may be, they are not absolute and are not the only things that we care about.21 We care about many different things and sometimes we are forced to choose. So why not acknowledge this situation more clearly, by thinking of rights as factors to be weighed in a balance rather than as possessing peremptory force? Why concern ourselves with the precise (and, therefore, somewhat artificial) boundary of each right, when we could treat each right as simply flagging up an area of concern that may have quite vague and indeterminate limits? Why not think of the political community as an undifferentiated field of competing values, governed by natural reason, rather than as an assemblage of distinct practices each with its own internal logic? Do the artificial distinctions that we have inherited really matter? Can a deeper moral unity not be achieved if those distinctions are abandoned?

In the face of such proposals, one who insists upon a particular usage (e.g. one who insists that rights must possess peremptory force) can appear to be merely dogmatic, as if they are simply invoking our ordinary usage and seeking to render that usage static and invulnerable to the flexibility of dialogue. The outright rejection of such dogmatism can seem sensible.

An understanding of the nature of rights, however, should never be detached from the broader political and juridical philosophy which gives to such an understanding its point. My aim, therefore, is not dogmatically to assert and cling to a traditional meaning, as if meanings are set in stone. Rather, the aim is to deepen our grasp of distinctions that have, in the past, been respected and embodied in our practice, and to give some indication of why those distinctions matter. This is not an exercise in dogmatic lexicography, but a contribution to the liberal art of separation.

III. Moral Rights

Of course, as I have already acknowledged, we may speak of moral rights as well as legal rights. Indeed, the centrality of law to the liberal vision of political community causes juridical notions, such as “justice” and “rights”, to become dominant within public discourse. But here we find a dangerous dynamic within liberal society. For the emphasis upon the importance of rights within a liberal political community creates a popular culture wherein the language of rights can come to colonise every aspect of the moral discourse. To refuse to express a moral concern as a matter of “rights” is now regarded as failing to take that moral concern seriously. Older moral concepts, such as “virtue” and “the common good”, have an antiquated sound for modern ears. They are very little understood and may even have a vaguely troubling resonance for many. We find ourselves asking whether an emphasis on virtue might not be incompatible with the liberal's celebration of personal freedom. Or we ask whether an emphasis on the common good might not endanger individual interests that compete with the common good.

The delicate ecology of our inherited moral discourse is thus placed at risk by the steadily burgeoning discourse of rights. This is most certainly regrettable. For, apart from the other losses that the development entails, when all moral concerns are expressed as involving “rights”, we lose any sense of the precise way in which rights possess a special moral force. Rights come to be thought of as simply important interests that are to be balanced against other interests. The exact bounds of a right cease to be of real importance, since the right is fundamentally a factor to be weighed in a balance rather than a clearly defined domain of enforceable entitlement. Or, worse still, an assertion of “rights” is thought of as simply a demand, indicative of strength of feeling but nothing more. A corrosive moral subjectivism here goes hand in hand with a public encouragement of intransigence.

The neglect of, or misunderstanding of, such concepts as “virtue” and “the common good” is equally lamentable. For liberal democracy depends upon the virtue of its citizens: in particular the virtues of tolerance, mutual civility and respect for the inherited practices that constitute the polity. The proper functioning of political institutions is seamlessly connected to the common courtesies that inform daily intercourse. A declining emphasis upon the virtue of citizens suggests a belief that politics is exclusively a struggle concerning the use of governmental power, rather than a matter which centres upon civil relations obtaining between citizens.22 But liberal democracy is unlikely to survive the emergence of a culture where citizens accept no need for personal virtue, no requirement of common civility, and expect all problems to be resolved by technocratic solutions.

Similarly, the common good is not some sort of aggregate which can sensibly be contrasted with individual rights. It is not something that can be measured by economic indicators or by surveys of self-reported well-being. It is not the fruit of technocratic intervention. It is, at its core, an orderly structure of rights and practices grounded in the virtue of citizens. It must be oriented towards justice, but in a manner that acknowledges the contested nature of perfect justice and is therefore respectful of established laws. The common good is not the complete good for individuals, but nor is it merely an instrumentally important necessity. As an expression of civic friendship, it is an essential constituent of individual flourishing: a constituent which can only be realised in common. It is the form of friendship obtaining between citizens who are independent yet mutually supportive. Our lives would be impoverished, and not simply impeded, without it.

Misunderstanding these things, we are in danger of losing our path. To possess a distinct role within moral discourse, rights must possess a peremptory force analogous to that of legal rights. They must be treated as conclusive of the issues that they govern. A liberal society requires legal rights (primarily the rights conferred by ordinary laws) that are not optimisation requirements but peremptory constraints upon such requirements. Such an understanding of the nature and status of legal rights is threatened when our seemingly most prominent and important rights, namely constitutional rights, lack peremptory force. Rights must be insulated from the calculus of social interests: they must not become factors within that calculus. Such rights depend upon the art of separation. And respect for the relevant separation is an expression of civic friendship.

The profligate invocation of moral “rights” erodes significant distinctions and undermines mutual civility. Imbibing the general sense of rights as urgent and overriding, while ignoring its juridical substance, the insistence upon framing virtually every moral issue as one concerning “rights” simply spawns an unwillingness to moderate demands or to concede the possibility of error. When every important interest comes to be spoken of as a right, the distinct logic of rights is obscured. In this way, the more celebratory and strident understandings of liberal values become the enemies of liberalism, destroying the political fabric that nurtured them. Haunted by a dream of moral wholeness, we too easily fall prey to an empty sloganising which obliterates the established allegiances upon which civility depends. Setting our gaze upon remote horizons, we neglect the value of our familiar inheritance.23 We allow the liberal “art of separation” to dissolve in a toxic monoculture of asserted but illusory rights.

IV. Constitutional Rights

After 1945, it was considered desirable to do something to prevent a recurrence of regimes resembling the Third Reich. Constitutional rights seemed to be part of the answer, and both the German Basic Law and the European Convention on Human Rights included a catalogue of such constitutional rights, drafted very much with the Third Reich in mind. The rights were not limited to the traditional civil and political liberties (the kind of rights that are thought to bolster the functioning of democracy). Nor were they framed, for the most part, by reference to permitted or required actions. Rather, they sought to identify certain fundamental human interests which were to be insulated from the most extreme hazards of legislative and governmental supremacy. This was a new turn in our politics and it posed some very new questions.

The solution was found in defining rights very broadly but making the majority of such rights subject to limitation by reference to certain specified legitimate state objectives. The various possible bases for limiting rights are themselves framed broadly, so that they include practically all of the relevant considerations upon which any government could legitimately act. Given the historical context in which these documents emerged, one might well have expected that they would be construed as aiming to prevent only the most gross injustices; and, given their drafting, one might have assumed that this was to be achieved by restricting governments and legislatures to actions genuinely motivated by a concern for legitimate state objectives (thereby ruling out such things as the evident persecution of particular ethnic or religious groups).

Instead of adopting such a reading, the courts concluded that the rights in question were to be applied only via a doctrine of “proportionality”. Under this doctrine, the encroachment upon the right must not only be strictly necessary to the advancement of a relevant governmental objective, but the latter advancement must also be sufficiently important to justify the particular encroachment involved. The approach immerses the courts in the task of weighing and balancing what are acknowledged to be entirely legitimate state objectives; and the core question to be addressed concerns, not the sincerity of the legislature's ostensible purpose, but the soundness of the value judgments upon which their legislative decision rests. This model has been adopted in many jurisdictions around the world. The German Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights, the Israeli Supreme Court, and the Canadian Supreme Court have all become highly influential exponents of what has been described as the “global model” of constitutional rights.24

That description is not intended to suggest that all of these regimes are fundamentally the same, but that they do have some important and distinctive features in common. The description may also seem appropriate for a further reason. The interpretation of rights in both the German Basic Law and the European Convention on Human Rights (and in constitutional documents from a number of other regimes) reflects the general way in which rights are framed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are, for the most part, framed and interpreted as protecting fundamental interests of the right-holder rather than by reference to specific actions (permissible actions of the right-holder or required actions of a correlative duty-bearer).25 And this common feature may suggest, as an ultimate guiding possibility, a monistic understanding of the relationship between international and domestic law, with the entire global structure centring upon human rights.

While it has its critics, the global model of constitutional rights also has many enthusiastic admirers. The reasons for the popularity of this model are not far to seek, even if we set on one side its suggestion of being a step on the way towards a rights-based global legal order. For it mirrors closely the popular culture of rights mentioned earlier, where rights come to be thought of as simply weighty interests that feature in a process of weighing and balancing. The popular discourse of rights, having developed in the shadow of the law, now threatens to become a parasite which fully colonises its host.

V. An Illusory Distinction?

My argument depends upon a contrast between the domain of rights and rules (on the one hand) and the domain of goods and balancing (on the other). But it might be suggested that the contrast is overdrawn. For, in the first place, some rules are framed in terms which require balancing: the most obvious example being rules that employ concepts such as “reasonableness”. However, given the task of interpreting and applying such rules, lawyers have often tended to develop, through precedent, subsidiary rules that unpack and concretise the requirements of “reasonableness”. This tendency (which some will consider undesirable) illustrates the way in which legal thought is normally guided by the orienting idea of law as a system of rules: lawyers have traditionally, and rightly, resisted the idea of official discretion unrestricted by rules and have seen it as part of their responsibility to develop and articulate the law in the form of rules.

Robert Alexy envisages something similar happening, in the long term, in relation to the balancing of rights against governmental objectives, under his “Law of Competing Principles”. This law states, in Alexy's formulation, that “The circumstances under which one principle takes precedence over another constitute the conditions of a rule which has the same legal consequences as the principle taking precedence”.26 The suggestion is that, through the steady accumulation of judicial decisions on the applicability of constitutional rights, a body of rules will slowly emerge. Those rules would in turn give rise to rights possessing genuine peremptory force.

Even if Alexy was correct about this, we could scarcely rest easy with a deferral of secure rights into the indefinite, and probably quite remote, future. Nor are the current indications especially encouraging. Decisions on proportionality are often closely focused upon the specific facts of individual cases. Indeed, the proportionality doctrine does not seem to embody or encourage a sense of the lawyerly responsibility to develop and articulate workable rules for the guidance of future decisions. Judges cannot, of course, justify decisions by reference to non-universalisable features of the case (such as the date on which it was decided) since a requirement of universalisability is inherent in the very idea of justification. But they can justify their decisions by reference to complex assemblages of universalisable features, so that no workable rule which is likely to apply in future cases will emerge. And there are good reasons for expecting judges to adopt that course of action. For, if they allow binding subsidiary rules to develop, they will be abrogating for the future the very considerable political power that the balancing model gives them. Are we to ignore the possibility that judges may not wish to lay the shackles of law back on their own limbs, having once tasted the pleasures of political power without political responsibility?

In the light of these considerations it would be foolish to dismiss the worries that many commentators have about the largely discretionary character of constitutional rights decisions under the doctrine of proportionality. The fact that legal scholars might hope, in due course, to distil some rules from a long course of discretionary judicial decisions is no substitute for the judges feeling a responsibility to articulate such rules, and adhere to them, in the first place. Yet we find that enthusiastic admirers of the proportionality approach, far from urging judges to undertake such a responsibility, are inclined to be critical of the search for “very sharp, categorical distinctions” and “rigid and unbending rules”.27

It might be alleged that my picture of legal reasoning as rule-application is itself flawed. For rules are frequently modified in the course of application, and this is frequently done in the application of deeper legal principles. While rules apply in an “all or nothing fashion”, theorists such as Dworkin speak of the law as involving “principles” in addition to rules: principles have a dimension of weight and are to be weighed against each other. Furthermore, Alexy analogises constitutional rights to principles in other areas of law such as private law, viewing them both as “optimisation requirements”. So, from this point of view (it might be argued), the contrast between ordinary legal doctrinal thought and the balancing process established by the global model of rights is much less substantial than I am suggesting.

But, in private law, principles are not best understood as serving interests or states of affairs that are describable independently of the principles. The principle that “no man shall profit from his own wrong” does not aim at any situation other than the one that consists in people not profiting from their own wrongs. The principle that “contractual rights must be exercised in good faith” governs the standards obtaining within the contractual relationship, but it does not aim to advance any independently identifiable state of affairs that is likely to flow from that principle-defined relationship. The principle volenti non fit injuria aims to specify what will and will not count as a legal injury, but does not aim thereby to advance some situation that could be defined in terms not involving the ideas of “injury” and “consent”. We may loosely speak of the judge in the private law context as “balancing” such principles one against another. But a more enlightening picture would be one of the judge or jurist seeking to frame rules that are appropriately respectful of the relevant principles. Even when the rules seek to advance certain goals in an instrumental fashion, the content of the rules will often be shaped by principles (perhaps by a plurality of partially competing principles) which are to be honoured and respected rather than advanced. The language of “optimisation” obscures this important difference.28 Here we see the imposition of a technocratic language upon juridical practices informed by more traditional moral conceptions.

It should be added that principles in private law are themselves extrapolated and generalised from the existing legal rules. They serve to give greater determinacy to the legal rules by ensuring that the interpretation and application of individual rules is informed and controlled by the system of laws as a whole. The articulation of principles proceeds on the basis of an assumption that, to enjoy legitimacy, the legal rules must be aimed at implementing some coherent conception of justice and the common good. Constitutional rights, by contrast, need have no organic connection with the existing legal rules.29 They are introduced by enactment and their point is not to stabilise the interpretation of rules but to measure those rules against an independent standard. Alexy's analysis of constitutional rights and legal principles as both being “optimisation requirements” is therefore inherently misleading.

VI. Justice and Mutual Civility

Because constitutional rights are now required to be balanced against legitimate governmental objectives, their precise bounds are given less importance. The scope of the rights tends to spread until practically the whole law is entangled with issues of constitutional or human rights. This is especially true of those jurisdictions where the relevant catalogue of rights includes a general right to liberty. The tendency is greatly augmented by doctrines of “horizontal application”. The phenomenon may be referred to as “the radiating effect” of rights.

These very extensive rights now lack peremptory force: they settle nothing but are simply important considerations to be taken into account in a balancing process. We may well wonder whether anything is left here of the idea of “a right”. The distinct logic of rights decomposes into the general balancing of values one against another.

Thus the editors of a recent volume of essays on the subject tell us that rights have now been “overtaken” by the idea of proportionality.30 One critical commentator has perceptively suggested that the entire catalogue of constitutional rights might be replaced by a simple provision to the effect that the law must observe the principle of proportionality.31 And one very enthusiastic advocate of the current law tells us that we need to “abandon the idea that rights hold a special normative force” and should adjust our expectations concerning rights.32

This is not simply a matter of constitutional rights falling short of the ideal we might have hoped for. If that were the case we might well say that they are not perfect, but they are better than nothing and we cannot see a way to improve them. The radiating effect of rights, and the doctrine of horizontal application, mean that practically the entire law comes to be subject to the proportionality test. So it is not just that we have got only part of what we might have wanted: constitutional rights but without the peremptory force of ordinary legal rights. We have in principle subjected all legal rights to a test of weighing and balancing against other values, thereby abandoning the distinctive logic of legal rights.

And here the heart of the problem may become clearly visible. The idea of “proportionality” is now standardly construed in a technocratic fashion that implies some form of commensurability (even if it is only the largely empty form of comparing degrees of seriousness of encroachment upon the relevant values). This is especially so when rights are thought of as “optimisation requirements”. But, if we set on one side the technocratic outlook that is suggested by such talk of proportionality, it might be said (as Aristotle might say) that proportionality is justice: a law which perfectly acknowledges all relevant interests and considerations, and exhibits respect for them in an appropriate way, is a perfectly just law.33 Is the core idea underlying the new law of constitutional rights simply the idea of justice? A constitutional doctrine that allows the judges to strike down laws (or require the amendment of laws) whenever they consider them to be unjust seems to be an experiment fraught with danger. For we disagree about justice. To say this is not at all to espouse a non-cognitivist position which says that there is no truth concerning justice. It is simply to say that arguments concerning justice are not algorithms; and, even if there is a truth, reasonable people will disagree about what the truth may be. This is not a contentious claim but a trite one. It is vital that we understand this, for it is the basis of the mutual civility upon which any liberal society must be built.

If we are to have rights, we need a shared set of rules. We need, as Finnis puts it, a shared plan for the common good.34 A liberal society will favour a plan that establishes clear rules and avoids the conferment of extensive discretionary powers upon public officials (including judges). Hence the efforts of legislators, judges and jurists to articulate law in the form of a system of rules.35 And, failing a degree of unanimity which is highly unlikely in a modern liberal society, some of those shared rules will be regarded by many as less than perfectly just. Mutual civility, grounded in a wise acceptance of reasonable disagreement concerning justice, then requires compliance with rules even though we may consider them unjust. Our compliance with the law is the primary expression of our civility or civic friendship.36

Mutual civility, and the requirement that the laws must be obeyed even when we consider them to be unjust, together rest upon the thought that my own views concerning justice may be mistaken. This thought in turn rests upon an idea of moral truth, for if there is no possibility of truth (if, for example, moral judgments are simple expressions of feeling without cognitive content) there can be no possibility of mistake. At the same time, the acknowledged possibility of error is an acknowledgement that moral arguments are not algorithms but depend upon an irreducible element of individual judgment that will vary from one person to another. By contrast with this, an entrenchment of proportionality doctrine at the heart of our law seems to imply a more technocratic view within which the systematic application of a prescribed analysis yields conclusions that do not admit of reasonable dispute. The falsehood thereby placed at the heart of our legal and political culture means that we build upon insecure foundations, permanently open to excoriating critique.

One thing that mutual civility does not require is compliance with enacted rules that are themselves a clear breach of mutual civility: rules which are so grossly unjust that no reasonable person could possibly consider them to be just; rules that could not plausibly be claimed to be good faith, albeit misguided, attempts to articulate the requirements of justice. This is perhaps the idea behind Gustav Radbruch's proposal that truly grossly unjust enactments should not be regarded as law at all.37 Like the drafters of the German Basic Law and the European Convention on Human Rights, he had in mind the experience of the Third Reich. Radbruch viewed his formula as a proposal for extreme situations going well beyond the disagreements of ordinary democratic politics. He particularly emphasised the need for compliance (by judges as well as citizens) with rules that are considered to be unjust, though not grossly so.

Legal rights enjoy peremptory force in virtue of mutual civility. They should not be equated with the “absolute” rights of the natural law tradition. Mutual civility finds expression in many ways, but one of them is the rule-based character of laws and the willingness of all citizens (judges included) to respect that character. An understanding of, and respect for, the rule-based character of law should be central to any decisions regarding the law-making effect of a statute, or a constitutional document: for how can one determine the law-making effect of such a document without considering the essential nature of law?38

One of Radbruch's contemporary defenders is Robert Alexy, who is also the author of by far the most influential monograph on rights in the German Basic Law, a monograph that has exerted a huge influence upon the global model of rights more generally.39Yet, in spite of his defence of Radbruch, Alexy seems to forget a large part of Radbruch's message when he turns to the subject of constitutional rights. For Alexy argues that, in applying proportionality doctrine, no weight is to be attached to the fact that the allegedly offending enactment has indeed been published as a law by the proper law-making authority. To give the mere positivity of the law any weight in this context would, in Alexy's view, negate the priority of the Constitution over ordinary parliamentary legislation.40

Alexy's view is clearly question-begging, since it simply assumes that the proportionality doctrine, unmodified by any distinct concern for the need for certainty in law, is an appropriate test of constitutionality. Yet that is the very question in issue. Sound or not, Alexy's argument is influential and shows us the way the wind has been blowing, for a very long time.

Judges have been faced with the task of interpreting and applying constitutional documents which appear to create constitutional rights with one hand and then abrogate them with the other. This situation is perhaps regrettable. The documents might have been construed differently, as requiring genuine pursuit of legitimate state objectives rather than as inviting a judicial assessment of competing values.41 Possibly, the relevant documents should have been drafted along different lines so as to facilitate the courts in giving constitutional rights hard edges and peremptory force. More probably, the idea of judicially enforced constitutional rights, framed by reference to fundamental protected interests, is attractive in the abstract but proves to be flawed when we consider the problems surrounding its implementation. The current situation, however, is unlikely to be reversed. So what should the judges now do? How should the judges interpret the various constitutional documents that gave rise to the global model of constitutional rights? My principal aim in this essay is to offer an analysis of the current situation and its illusions, not to prescribe solutions. But I might justly be criticised if I were to say nothing whatever about possible strategies for ameliorating that situation. The remarks which follow are therefore sketchy and speculative in intent.

One thing that judges might try would be to arrest the radiating effect of rights and give each right (and, consequently, the proportionality test) a narrowly limited domain. This would avoid the destabilising effects that constitutional rights can at present have upon practically the entire body of laws. Since we disagree about justice, a great many laws can (not wholly unreasonably) be challenged as unjust; and such challenges can always be framed as arguments about proportionality, provided that some of the interests encroached upon can be brought within the scope of a constitutional right. Attempts to restrict the scope of rights will, of course, face serious problems. But the problems may not be insuperable, and some attempt in this direction should be made.

Alternatively, or additionally, judges might try to develop, through their decisions on proportionality, a clear body of rules (reflecting Alexy's “Law of Competing Principles”) and not simply very general balancing guidelines. Judges might in this way acknowledge their duty of fidelity to the idea of law, understood as a system of rules and rights (both constitutional rights and ordinary legal rights) with peremptory force. They would contribute to the maintenance of a legal tradition within which determinate rules and doctrines are central: what Finnis has described as “the vast legal effort to render the law … relatively impervious to discretionary assessments of competing values”.42 The development of such rules, however, will inevitably be the slow growth of time if it occurs at all; and, while time passes, the judges may become increasingly accustomed to, and comfortable with, their new and more free-wheeling role. As explained above, judges could easily avoid creating such rules and might well be expected to cling tenaciously to the power that they enjoy in the absence of such rules.

Finally, and particularly if (as is quite likely) the above strategies prove to be too difficult to implement, judges might replace the proportionality test with what might loosely be thought of as a test of gross disproportionality or (perhaps better) gross injustice.43 In other words the question should not be “is this law unjust?” but “is this law so grossly unjust that no reasonable person could consider it to be just?”. This test should be construed as resembling the formula proposed by Gustav Radbruch, as his own proposal for avoiding a repetition of the horrors of the Third Reich. And, in the case of the German Basic Law and the European Convention on Human Rights, it would come closer than the present doctrine to capturing the original aims of the drafters, those aims being the prevention of a recurrence of abhorrent evil, and not the conferment on judges of a perfectly general power to review the justice of the laws. Radbruch's formula contemplated situations in extremis. It is unavoidably vague, but an objection grounded upon vagueness can scarcely lie in the mouths of those who advocate the doctrine of proportionality, which is no less vague and (in not being limited to extreme situations) of far wider scope and with far wider implications.

The virtues of a test of gross injustice, by comparison with the present law, are twofold. In the first place, it confines the impact of vague balancing tests to the extreme margin, leaving a broad swathe of ordinary political contexts where the rights conferred by statute or common law can enjoy genuine peremptory force without the constant risk of being overturned in a constitutional challenge. There can always be extreme situations where we are forced to choose between core values even though some of those core values may be of a kind that cannot without loss be integrated in a balancing or optimising framework. But, if the distinctive character of such values is to be preserved, one must try to ensure that the approach that is forced upon us in extremis does not become a feature of the value's diurnal role. Rights which possess peremptory force, but which may have to be set aside in situations of extremity, are not thereby reduced to optimisation requirements, or interests to be weighed in a general calculus of considerations.

Second, and very importantly, a doctrine along the lines of Radbruch's formula could represent a public articulation and endorsement of the value of mutual civility, rather than (as at present, under an unmodified proportionality test) a violation of mutual civility in the name of a supposedly perfect justice.

Some view me as pushing at an open door. I have been told by colleagues that a concern for truly gross injustice is what we have at present. Those who adopt this interpretation of the doctrine see the courts as already exercising the necessary severe self-restraint in applying the test of proportionality. I must confess that I do not share their understanding of current events or current doctrine. It is true that, in the law of the European Convention on Human Rights there has been talk of a certain “margin of appreciation”. But this is normally linked to claims concerning the need for local communities to judge their own needs and circumstances if perfect justice is to be achieved. I see no acknowledgement here of the demands of mutual civility, or of the fact that mutual civility demands a willingness to comply with (and to enforce) laws that some will, not unreasonably, consider to be unjust.

Others appear to be rightly concerned about the capacity of proportionality doctrine greatly to enlarge the power of the judges.44 Thus Kai Moller proposes a test of “reasonableness” as opposed to “correctness”.45 But proposals of this sort, by working within the general framework of proportionality doctrine, appear to rest upon an endorsement of the idea that rights are optimisation requirements rather than peremptory constraints. They may seek to check the dangerous growth of judicial power, but they nevertheless do so within an intellectual framework that is in danger of obliterating the distinctive character of rights. The approach that I am advocating, by contrast, wholly rejects the idea that rights are optimisation requirements, while acknowledging that the binding force of rights is dependent upon a degree of mutual civility being respected and maintained. Outside of extreme situations of truly gross injustice, ordinary legal rights can then continue to enjoy peremptory force. Constitutional rights should be understood as providing a framework of positive law within which the issue of gross injustice can be addressed.

There are those who will say that evil must be nipped in the bud, and that this requires the courts to intervene as soon as the law appears to depart from justice: one cannot afford to wait for the evil to reach a truly gross level. But those who argue this way allow the fear of evil to become an evil in itself. They abandon the attainable virtue of mutual civility in pursuit of an ideal that fails to acknowledge the broad scope of reasonable disagreement. We do not inhabit the Garden of Eden, but a fallen world where we disagree. Nor do we seek eventually to find our way back to Eden. Rather, we willingly accept the burden of our humanity, and seek to make our habitation in full acknowledgement of our limitations. We aim to establish and strengthen the bonds of friendship within a world where individual reason is an imperfect guide. These are the basic facts of the human condition which require from us the virtue of mutual civility, and which make that value of greater relevance than perfect justice.

We should be careful not to place at the heart of our law and politics an institutional violation of mutual civility, whereby those with power (in this case, the judges) are willing to employ that power to overturn the reasonable, even if somewhat misguided, judgments of their fellow citizens. For, if we do that, how can civil compliance be expected of our citizens? What value can the judges invoke, as a basis for the binding force of their own (frequently contestable) decisions, when those decisions appear to deny the possibility of reasonable disagreement concerning justice?

If laws are disobeyed (whether by citizens or judges) on the grounds of their injustice (as opposed to gross injustice of a kind that violates mutual civility) this must be as a well-judged act of civil disobedience designed to draw attention to the law and combined with a willingness to accept the resulting punishment, or other consequences (resignation being the appropriate course of action for judges), as entirely legitimate. Civil disobedience can in this way be fully compatible with, and even serve to reinforce, the value of mutual civility.

The institutions which embody and express mutual civility are a product of artifice, informed by time and experience. Consequently, there is no blueprint for liberal democracy, and certainly not one that can be arrived at by pure theoretical reflection. For this reason I do not offer a set of detailed prescriptions, but merely some suggestions concerning the way in which our present unhappy situation might be ameliorated. Nevertheless there are certain aspirations which should shape the character of a liberal democracy. If I had to identify some of those aspirations I would say that they include (1) the rule of law, understood in a relatively austere way as governance by rigorously enforced rules compliant with Lon Fuller's eight requirements; (2) secure rights with peremptory force (itself a consequence of the rule of law understood in that austere sense); and (3) the practices of mutual civility, understood as requiring, amongst other things, respect for and compliance with established laws which we may consider to be of imperfect justice. All of these aspirations, it seems to me, are endangered by the currently influential model of constitutional rights.

Footnotes

1 Walzer, M., “Liberalism and the Art of Separation” (1984) 12 Pol.Theory 315CrossRef | Google Scholar.

2 Tawney, R.H., quoted in Rogan, T., The Moral Economists (Princeton and Oxford 2017), 47Google Scholar.

3 Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 12 Co.Rep. 64, 77 E.R. 1342, [1607] EWHC K.B. J23.

4 See Rawls, J., Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy (Cambridge, MA 2000), 52Google Scholar.

5 A blurring which is encouraged by the most influential theories of law. See note 38 below.

6 See Moyn, S., The Last Utopia (Cambridge, MA 2012)Google Scholar.

7 Such a semblance of commensurability may consist in no more than a formally structured requirement that one should assess the “importance” of different values, or the “seriousness” of various possible encroachments upon such values. This is a characteristic feature of the doctrine of proportionality which now forms an integral part of the law of constitutional rights.

8 Alexy, R., A Theory of Constitutional Rights, translated by Rivers, J. (Oxford 2002)Google Scholar. Reliance upon the language of “optimisation” (or similar language) need not involve a direct denial of the diversity of forms of value. Rather, the language can be deployed in such a way as simply to abstract from the relevant differences. But such abstraction is itself an implicit denial of the importance of those distinctions.

9 Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, revised ed. (Oxford 1999), 4Google Scholar.

10 See Simmonds, N., Law as a Moral Idea (Oxford 2007), 104–09Google Scholar.

11 The history and significance of this emergence is much disputed. See Brett, A., Liberty, Right and Nature (Cambridge 2003)Google Scholar; Tuck, R., Natural Rights Theories (Cambridge 1981)Google Scholar; Tierney, B., The Idea of Natural Rights (Grand Rapids, MI 1997)Google Scholar; Strauss, L., Natural Right and History (Chicago 1953)Google Scholar.

12 Maitland, F.W., A Historical Sketch of Liberty and Equality (Indianapolis 2000), 90Google Scholar.

13 Williams, B., In the Beginning Was the Deed (Princeton 2005), 64Google Scholar. We might wish to correct Williams's formulation in one respect. Rather than saying that one who denies a right to the right-holder “does wrong”, it would perhaps be better to say that the right-holder “is wronged” when their right is denied to them. Both formulations make it clear that a right is not simply a good to be optimised. But the latter formulation is compatible with the view that there may be situations where the violation of a right is justifiable, in spite of being a wrong to the individual concerned. This helps to distinguish rights with peremptory force from the absolute rights of the natural law tradition. There is a further respect in which legal rights possess peremptory force without being absolute: their binding force is dependent upon their basis in mutual civility. See note 21 below.

14 Here I ignore certain complexities. For example, rights hold against other juridical persons. Thus I may have a right as against my neighbour but not in relation to some governing authority that requires planning permission for the planting of tall trees. Furthermore, rights can be Hohfeldian powers or immunities rather than claim-rights or liberties. Like claim-rights and liberties, powers and immunities are peremptory with respect to the issues that they govern. None of this affects the general point being made in the text.

15 Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously (London 1977)Google Scholar, ch. 2.

16 Hence the French doctrine of “abuse of rights” has sometimes been regarded as an illiberal subversion of the entire notion of a right: see Lawson, F.H., Negligence in the Civil Law (Oxford 1950)Google Scholar. But see MacLeod, A.J., Property and Practical Reason(Cambridge 2015)CrossRef | Google Scholar, chs. 6, 7.

17 Fuller, L., The Morality of Law, revised ed. (New Haven 1969)Google Scholar, ch. 2.

18 See Simmonds, N., “Law as an Idea We Live By” in Duke, G. and George, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence (Cambridge 2017)Google Scholar; Simmonds, Law as a Moral Idea.

19 MacCormick, N., Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1994)CrossRef | Google Scholar, xi.

20 Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, p. 54.

21 As will become clear later in this essay, legal rights with peremptory force should not be equated with the absolute rights of the natural law tradition (rights which must in no circumstances be encroached upon). Theocentric natural law positions can argue that the future of the world is God's responsibility, while man's responsibility is one of obedience to God's law. But, in the absence of a belief in divine providence, a belief in absolute rights can seem puzzlingly fanatical. Legal rights are not absolute but bind in virtue of the value of mutual civility. When mutual civility genuinely breaks down, or the limits of mutual civility are exceeded, legal rights lose their peremptory force. See also note 13 above.

22 Jeremy Waldron has recently remarked upon the “drastically unmediated proximity” that obtains between individuals when they ascribe only instrumental importance to existing political structures. See Waldron, J., Political Political Theory (Cambridge, Mass.,2016), 15CrossRef | Google Scholar. We might think of this “unmediated proximity” as the absence of mutual civility.

23 See Simmonds, N., “The Bondwoman's Son and the Beautiful Soul” (2013) 58 Am.J.Juris. 111CrossRef | Google Scholar.

24 Moller, K., The Global Model of Constitutional Rights (Oxford 2012)CrossRef | Google Scholar.

25 This is reflected in the idea that even those rights which might seem to impose only negative duties nevertheless require states to take positive steps to protect the relevant interests. Amartya Sen argues that, when rights are conceived of as defining or restricting permissible actions (rather than in terms of desirable outcomes), the rights conferred must nevertheless be selected by reference to their probable outcomes and are therefore parasitic upon the identification of desirable outcomes: Sen, A., The Idea of Justice(London 2009)Google Scholar, ch. 14. Even if this is true (which I doubt) it does not alter the fact that rights defined by reference to permissible and impermissible actions (or choices) can be given peremptory force, while the ascription of such force to rights defined by reference to outcomes is likely to be very problematic.

26 Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, p. 54.

27 Beatty, D.M., The Ultimate Rule of Law (Oxford 2004), 41CrossRef | Google Scholar. It must be conceded that the US Supreme Court (Beatty's example of a rule-based approach) has not been very successful in articulating and adhering to such rules.

28 See note 8 above.

29 The likelihood of any such organic connection is considerably reduced by the fact that the bulk of ordinary legal rights are rights to specific actions: liberties to perform actions, or claim-rights to the performance of such actions by determinate others. Constitutional rights, by contrast, tend to be rights to independently describable states of affairs, or to the performance of an indeterminate range of actions by indeterminate others. I include some further remarks on this (and other related matters) in “Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law” (2016) Analisi e Diritto 251.

30 Huscroft, G., Miller, B. and Webber, G. (eds.), Proportionality and the Rule of Law (Cambridge 2012)Google Scholar, 1.

31 Webber, G., The Negotiable Constitution (Cambridge 2009), 4CrossRef | Google Scholar.

32 Moller, The Global Model of Constitutional Rights, pp. 73, 5n.

33 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book V.

34 See Finnis, J., Natural Law and Natural Rights, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2011)Google Scholar; Finnis, J., Collected Essays, Volume 4: Philosophy of Law (Oxford 2011), 12CrossRef | Google Scholar.

35 As noted by MacCormick, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory; and Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights.

36 “(I)n complex societies, law is the only medium in which it is possible reliably to establish morally obligated relationships of mutual respect even among strangers.” Habermas, J., Between Facts and Norms, translated by Rehg, W. (Cambridge 1996), 460CrossRef| Google Scholar.

37 For the best defence of Radbruch's position, see Alexy, R., The Argument from Injustice (Oxford 2003)Google Scholar.

38 In this essay, in the interests of simplicity, I try to avoid becoming entangled in the philosophical debate surrounding law's nature. It is, however, worth making a few remarks by way of clarification. In recent decades legal education has been influenced by a theory which claims that the interpretation and application of texts such as statutes and constitutions, beyond their “core of settled meaning”, involves open-ended policy choices. The approach rests upon a denial of the reflexive character of law (i.e. the need for doctrinal legal thought to be guided by reflection upon the idea of law). That denial, however, is misguided (as I have endeavoured to demonstrate in some of my other writings). A judge seeking to give effect to a statute or constitution must ask what the law-making effect of that document might be, and this necessitates reflection upon the nature of law. General policy considerations, if unconnected to the essential nature of law, are not, in themselves, pertinent in this context. On the other hand, the maintenance of law's peremptory force, and the avoidance of its collapse into a system of official (judicial) discretion, is of central importance. The judge's duty of fidelity to the idea of law (which is one manifestation of the duty of mutual civility incumbent upon every citizen) therefore requires the judge to seek an interpretation of constitutional rights that preserves, so far as possible, the peremptory and rule-centred character of law.

39 Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights.

40 Alexy, R., “Comments and Responses” in Klatt, M. (ed.), Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy (Oxford 2012), 331Google Scholar.

41 Such an interpretation is in many ways the most natural one to adopt. While undoubtedly creating problems of its own, it does at least focus judicial attention upon the issue of outright evil, and acknowledges the moral priority of mutual civility over this or that contestable idea of perfect justice.

42 Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights, p. 319.

43 The term “gross disproportionality”, although I have employed it elsewhere, is less than ideal since it appears to imply a continued reliance upon the proportionality approach as conceived in the current doctrine, with the latter's implicit suggestion of some form of commensurability or monotonic comparison. For this reason, the term “gross injustice” is preferable.

44 Meanwhile, many celebrate and seek to extend that power by invoking the image of a “dialogue” between the courts and the legislature. The image gains plausibility from the fact that adjudicative reasoning should properly be guided by an assumption that the established rules serve some coherent conception of justice. This is a feature of adjudicative reason that Dworkin has chosen to describe in terms of “collaboration” and “partnership”: see Dworkin, R., Justice for Hedgehogs (Cambridge, MA 2011), 136Google Scholar. But (as was pointed out above) it is the object of constitutional rights to provide a point of critical leverage upon established rules, not to explicate the conception of justice implicit within such rules. In this context, courts function as the critical censors of the legislature, not as their dialogic partners in a common project.

45 Moller, The Global Model of Constitutional Rights, ch. 5.

#law #civility #custom #artifice #narrative #constitutional rights #civil rights #constitutional law #communication #politics #rule of law #moral rights #justice #liberalism #free expression #liberal society #norms

0 notes