Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 2:35 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Bart Silverstrim writes:
>
>> A) You sent messages to unknown hundreds or thousands of people on the
>> mailing list, all of which could have a cached copy of your messages,
>> and now wonder about privacy?
>
> I've explained the differences before; perhaps I need to explain them
> again.
>
> When you sign up to a mailing list, you implicitly give permission to
> distribute your posts to other members of the list.  You do _not_ give
> permission to have your posts archived, and you do _not_ give 
> permission
> to have your posts published and made accessible to people who are not
> on the list.

The point is privacy.  You complain at a lack of privacy after sending 
messages to an unknown number of strangers to begin with.  And because 
it's a technical forum, anyone who spends ten minutes of research after 
wondering about it will know about the archives, especially since the 
defacto answer for some on this list is READ THE ARCHIVES.  It ranks 
right up there with "READ THE HANDBOOK".

If you don't like it, unsubscribe and chalk it up to experience.  
Otherwise, you're just trolling or bitching to bitch about something.  
This falls under fair use.

And it's just idiotic to send messages to all these anonymous people 
only later to complain about privacy loss.  You're sending information 
to strangers over a mailing list.  Is there something wrong with you?  
Your issue isn't archiving and searchability...this isn't a chatlist.  
Anyone who does even a HINT of looking around before belching a 
question to the list knows about the mailing list archives.  What did 
you THINK was going to happen?  That your posts wouldn't get put into 
the archives because you're special?

Let's see...www.freebsd.org...mailing lists...It says, clear as day, 
"Before posting to any list, please learn about how to best use the 
mailing lists, such as how to help avoid frequently-repeated 
discussions, by reading the Mailing List Frequently Asked Questions 
(FAQ) document."  From there, it has as a QUESTION are the ARCHIVES 
AVAILABLE.  YES.  It gives the link.  The entire tone of the document 
talks of openness and sharing.  WHY WOULDN'T THAT MEAN IT IS SEARCHABLE 
BY SEARCH ENGINES??  It's supposed to give answers to people's 
questions on the OS.  Apparently you seem to think this is some kind of 
shadow cabal that conspires to keep noobs out of the ivory towers, 
implied by your "I want to ask people to volunteer their time to help 
me with my questions but DON'T TELL ANYONE I didn't know the answer in 
the future" type of attitude you're conveying.

Hmm...could it be that people aren't actually taking five minutes to 
read material before barreling through and belching the question on the 
forefront of their mind?  Hmm...

>> B) The archives are searchable and referenced, and you claim you 
>> didn't
>> know that despite the number of self appointed upper-echelons that
>> reply with a curt "Look in the archives" type answer?
>
> It has to be part of the confirmation process.  You have to require 
> that
> members accept these terms in order to subscribe.

Are you daft?  How many people read the EULA on the software they think 
they own?  You honestly think they're going to read some "legalese" 
disclaimer on a subscription list?  People are volunteering their time 
and experience to help people out here.  Above, I outlined the process 
you get to sign up to a mailing list right from the FreeBSD list.  Any 
idiot could have found it if they can read English.  It stated the 
answers to this right there.  In fact, if you follow the directions and 
actually read the material it told you to, it stated the material there 
that your messages would get archived.

On top of that, it's a technical mailing list.  It's IMPLIED, if you 
have been a sysadmin or technologist for more than a month and on the 
Internet as a sysadmin for more than a month.  You should KNOW this by 
then.

> Do you really think that software companies and major Web sites have
> those little check boxes that say "I accept" just for decoration?

You mean opt-ins?  Those are the only ones I've run across.  Check 
boxes for EULAs or agreements that the vast majority of people don't 
bloody READ because it is full of legalese.  It's questionable now if 
EULAs are even fully enforceable.  One company put in a reward if you 
read their EULA and told them you found the monetary reward part.  It 
took months for someone to notice it.

I just outlined the follow-the-lines for signing up for the mailing 
list...you know, the links that tell you to check the FAQ first, where 
it tells you about the archives?  Obviously you didn't read it or 
didn't comprehend it to now complain that your messages are archived.

>> C) Your words are being re-mirrored by being embedded inside other
>> posts that REPLY to your messages.  You honestly think that a 
>> volunteer
>> is going to delete your messages AND all messages referencing your
>> name?
>
> You don't need a volunteer, you just need software to do it.  And it's
> not hard to write.

Really?  If it's that easy to do so, why don't you write some software 
to re-format email so it's not top-posted?  I'd love to find that 
material.

Because you don't have the right to delete other people's words when 
replying to your message.  But then you're also altering the work of 
that person's work by deleting, selectively, the material you don't 
want in there.

>> There should be.  We'll call it The Law of Common Sense.
>
> The law of common sense says that you don't agree to anything that 
> isn't
> in writing and does not proceed _inevitably_ from that to which you
> agree.  Archives and publication are not inevitable consequences of
> being on a mailing list, therefore you must agree to them explicitly.

Guess you should have looked right at the material presented before 
signing up.  It was all there.  Every list I've been on for tech has 
had searchable archives.  Even USENET is archived.  Even web pages are 
archived.  You put it out in public, it's fair game.  No one is 
stealing your copyright, it's not robbing you of income, and no one is 
claiming your words as their own or making a profit from it.

It is not common sense to require every aspect of your life be legally 
entitled and bound by terms and agreements.  It's attitudes like that 
that spawn those asinine warning labels found on every damn product out 
there in America now.  "It didn't tell me that my little boy couldn't 
fly after putting on a Superman costume!  How was little innocent me 
supposed to know that?"

>> None on the list that I know of is actively digging into your
>> background or prying more secrets from you regarding your personal
>> information ...
>
> What makes you think they would notify you if they were?

Would you like to borrow my tin foil beanie, or are you afraid I have 
an RFID mounted on the back of it?

>> The way the Internet works isn't a secret.
>
> This policy is not "the way the Internet works."

Ooh, please do inform us how it works out there for "normal mailing 
lists", since the "Way the Internet works" is, I agree, too vague for 
you.  I seem to be routinely running into this as the routine way tech 
lists work...you sign up, you post, you get lots of people saying read 
the damn archives, in some lists they point to some bible of sorts like 
the Handbook for the FreeBSD lists.  That alone implies your messages 
are archived, no?  What, you didn't take five minutes to do a google or 
archive search before belching your questions to the list??  Gee, I 
wonder why listmoms get frustrated.  You couldn't be bothered to 
actually search for an answer before imposing your time on a volunteer 
on the list?  Maybe the archiving is a price you pay for laziness.  
Because it was NEVER HIDDEN from you.  This wasn't a surprise someone 
was waiting to spring on you.  So I guess you'll have to deal with it!