Kiss Your Privacy GoodBye......

[Roy]

In article <rr7gpv8kdumo8dlbakukprpchs99s7obdb@news.rcn.com >,
not.deliverable+USENET@appropriate-tech.net says...

> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:45:44 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "-=ô;ö=-"
> <Not.Telling@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > Reprinted from http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16985
> >
> [snip]
>
> I guess you didn't notice this part:
>
> --> © 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
> --> Reproduction by Syndication Service only.
>

But what about this, part of a much longer statement?

> While the full text of many articles can be read on our public website,
> a great deal of our content resides in our members-only, password-
> protected area. And only AlterNet Syndication members may reprint our
> stories. If you'd like to re-print an article without becoming a member,
> please contact us.

Without wishing to take sides, and you're *morally* correct no doubt, I
find this ambiguous. Reprint, to me, seems to imply publishing hard
copy, not an electronic posting repeating something already available to
the general public via the same medium. Equally 'our stories' might be
taken to mean those available in their password protected area.

But posting the URL would have been enough to make the point.

Cheers,

Roy

[sponge]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:22:55 GMT, "-=ô;ö=-" <Not.Telling@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Thank You Jay, for your self-righteous policing of all posts made in
this group..Now you
>can Kindly FO....

Jay did have a valid point though. Probably just as important:

First, it was a rather long article. It traditionally has been
considered bad netiquette to post very long articles when the link or
a summary would od just as well, since some people still pay by
bandwidth. Of course, I'm sure most of us agree that this is not
nearly the problem it was five or ten years ago, so I don't consider
it that big of a deal.

Second, a link probably would have been just as valuable, maybe a
citation of the lead paragraph or two. Most people only read the lead
of most articles anyway.

Third, it's from a source I call that "National Enquirer of the net".
Actually, that source can be better described as being rather
hysterical -- at best, and maybe a little too into the
black-helicopters conspiracy crap. We get enough of the conspiracy
theorists. It really doesn't help our cause that this group seems to
attract UFO fanatics and nuts raving about mind control.

Fourth, that source is brought to you courtesy of RealNetworks.
EEEEEEEWWWW!

FYI, here's an article, also from an little dink news source, but
possibly more relevant, and reasonably substantiated. Oh, and it's not
from the makers of RealJunkbox. :-)
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/benson061003.html

Sponge
Sponge's Secure Solutions
www.geocities.com/yosponge
My new email: yosponge2 att yahoo dott com

[Dick Hazeleger]

sponge wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:22:55 GMT, "-=ô;ö=-"
> <Not.Telling@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Thank You Jay, for your self-righteous policing of all posts
> made in this group..Now you
> >can Kindly FO....
>
> Jay did have a valid point though. Probably just as important:
>
> First, it was a rather long article. It traditionally has been
> considered bad netiquette to post very long articles when the
> link or a summary would od just as well, since some people still
> pay by bandwidth. Of course, I'm sure most of us agree that this
> is not nearly the problem it was five or ten years ago, so I
> don't consider it that big of a deal.
>
> Second, a link probably would have been just as valuable, maybe a
> citation of the lead paragraph or two. Most people only read the
> lead of most articles anyway.
>
> Third, it's from a source I call that "National Enquirer of the
> net". Actually, that source can be better described as being
> rather hysterical -- at best, and maybe a little too into the
> black-helicopters conspiracy crap. We get enough of the conspiracy
> theorists. It really doesn't help our cause that this group seems
> to attract UFO fanatics and nuts raving about mind control.
>
> Fourth, that source is brought to you courtesy of RealNetworks.
> EEEEEEEWWWW!
>
> FYI, here's an article, also from an little dink news source, but
> possibly more relevant, and reasonably substantiated. Oh, and
> it's not from the makers of RealJunkbox. :-)
> http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/benson061003.html
>
> Sponge
> Sponge's Secure Solutions
> www.geocities.com/yosponge
> My new email: yosponge2 att yahoo dott com

Sponge,

Given the subject of this newsgroup... how about posting an article
in cases where sending readers to a site (by means of posting the
link to it) would infringe their privacy? Think of sites with
aggressive ActiveX, persistent cookies or web bugs.

Also, I want to point out that there seems to be something called a
"fair use" policy in the Untied States.. IMO this posting would
fall under such a policy.

Regards to the NG,
Dick