Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

Anthony Atkielski atkielski.anthony at wanadoo.fr
Fri May 6 11:42:31 PDT 2005


Bart Silverstrim writes:

> Yeah, cuz, we wouldn't want the archives to be referenced for people
> who are looking for help on topics, after all.

Do you think that subscribers would refuse to grant permission to have
their posts archived?  If so, doesn't that say something to you about
archiving posts without their permission?

> Do they need to issue a specific list of "what to do" when using
> FreeBSD or interacting with the community?

Yes, legally.  If you don't tell them, it's not their responsibility.
And if you do things for which you need permission without asking for
and obtaining permission, it's your responsibility.

> And how many people would actually follow it ANYWAY?

It doesn't matter.  It's a question of protecting oneself legally.

> Most don't even read the @#%# EULA on the software they install
> on their home computer.

Nevertheless, they agree to be bound by it when they check the little
box that says "I accept."

> Most users out there still think they OWN their operating system ...

Some people think that they own any messages posted on their servers.

> How about people use common sense before joining lists and posting to
> them, and take some responsibility for the things they do?

Common sense says that when you subscribe to a list, your posts are seen
only by other people on the list, not by the entire world.

> It's certainly no secret that these posts are archived out there ...

It doesn't have to be a secret; subscribers must still agree to it.

It's no secret that software is copyrighted; however, software companies
still force users to accept a EULA so that they cannot claim that they
didn't know they were licensing copyrighted material.

It's no secret that most computer systems are not open to everyone;
however, sysadmins (at least those who know what they are doing) still
must put messages in login procedures that advise users of the
restricted character of access to the system.  Otherwise intruders could
say that they didn't know access was restricted.

> Better yet start
> some arguments with the governments and businesses that are video 
> taping people with security cameras on street corners and inside 
> stores.

Many jurisdictions require that persons on private property be apprised
of any video recording, precisely because of the privacy implications.
Persons attending a concert that is being videotaped also must be
apprised of this on their tickets; their consent to recording cannot
necessarily be presumed.

-- 
Anthony




More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list