Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE!

[Bart Silverstrim]

On May 6, 2005, at 2:42 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> 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?

Obviously some subscribers can't be bothered to actually read the FAQ 
on the subscription page.  I know, how about someone make all the forms 
you seem to want here?  One form to say people can archive your 
post...another for allowing searches from outside sources...another to 
allow people to have it on their own mail client, in case they keep it 
for reference...maybe another to allow/disallow printing?  How about 
one for replying?  Would that still entail another form to allow people 
to quote you in their reply?

Face it.  You implied the consent by signing up, and if you had some 
common sense and actually read the material on the site you KNEW about 
the archives and claiming otherwise makes you look foolish.  It has 
been the standard MO for people to point questioners to reading the 
handbook then the FAQ's then go Google then use the mailing lists.  If 
you're too lazy to research this and not bright enough to figure out 
what is implied as "common knowledge" from these things, then they 
can't help that person.  In my time on the Internet using mailing lists 
and usenet groups it had been recommended that people lurk for awhile 
and go through archives before posting.  Evidently this is too obscure 
a concept for some people to grasp.

>> 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.

Ah...they're too stupid to take responsibility for their actions?  Is 
that what you're saying?

My step daughter climbs a tree in the neighbor's yard.  By your way of 
thinking, if she falls and breaks her leg, I should sue the neighbor.  
Common sense says that it wasn't the neighbor's fault, I knew she was 
there, she knew she was taking that risk, and if she falls, it's her 
fault.

The neighbor has nothing to worry about with me.  Evidently you're a 
different story.

> And if you do things for which you need permission without asking for
> and obtaining permission, it's your responsibility.

Sure.  Look up fair use.  The FreeBSD people have nothing to worry 
about because people like you already whined about this many moons ago 
and thus the concepts of fair use and implied consent was cited.  Look 
in the Wikipedia on fair use, and at 
www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/implied-consent.htm for implied 
consent.  If you never bothered actually figuring out how the majority 
of tech lists work or actually reading the materials and links at the 
FreeBSD site, then it's not their fault you're too dense to figure out 
there exists an archive of mailing list materials.

>> And how many people would actually follow it ANYWAY?
>
> It doesn't matter.  It's a question of protecting oneself legally.

Great.  Let's pollute the mindshare with more crap to add to the noise. 
  It helps train people to ignore it in the future so people like you 
can start slipping your own pet clauses into the rules.  Politicians 
have been taking advantage of that for awhile now...make so just cruft, 
crud, and noise that people won't tell what's good from what's crap 
because they ignore it, and now you can claim "well it was there in the 
fine print all along..."

Maybe you're a budding spammer?

>> 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."

That's legally questionable now.

What's funny is that some businesses don't even read their own 
boilerplates anymore.  And it's been rendered so ineffective that they 
do stupid things, like "opening this package means you agree to the 
enclosed license agreement".  How can you agree to it if you can't read 
it?  Duh.

How many other people on this list are daft enough to agree with that 
line of argument, that the legalese on the paper Joe Average is 
expected to understand is effective and useful and is fully enforceable 
now?  In Anthony's future, it seems that everyone would need to employ 
a lawyer to review everything people do to make sure they fully 
understand their rights and what is being signed away and what's going 
to happen if they do X or sign up for Y or buy Z.

Does anyone remember a time when people were expected to take 
responsibility for their own actions?

>> Most users out there still think they OWN their operating system ...
>
> Some people think that they own any messages posted on their servers.

Legally, they do, if they're your employer.  Remember your emphasis on 
reading those agreements?

Archives aren't profiting from your copyrighted words.  There goes most 
of your argument to stop them. I can't think of a reason they'd WANT to 
claim your words as their own...so there goes the majority of your 
legal wrangling that was left to work with.  You do own the copyright, 
it's acknowledged by those who properly quote, and more to the point, 
the archives are the equivalent to the artist or author who takes his 
or her work, seals it in an envelope, then mails it to him or herself 
without opening it to prove it was their work on that date.  The 
archives PROVE you wrote it and when!  IT ACTUALLY HELPS ENFORCE 
COPYRIGHT CLAIMS!

>> 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.

Not when the site with the subscription information tells you there are 
archives.

And common sense tells you that you shouldn't bitch about privacy after 
you send your words out to $DEITY-knows-how-many strangers in the first 
place.

>> 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.

Implied consent.  And fair use.  How'd you THINK those messages were 
getting in the archives?  Magic?  If you're that worried about it, why 
didn't it occur to you that you weren't asked if you'd like to be 
included in those magical archives?

> 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.

You must not be a sysadmin or you'd know that 99% of users don't know 
they're licensing software.  They think they own it.  Why?  Because 
they have clickclickclickclick syndrome.  They CAN claim they didn't 
know because so many idiots pollute people's time and mindshare with 
legalese that they don't care about.  They just want to get the job 
done.  All your disclaimers and EULAS are just more yadayada to them.   
I know of one case where a EULA was found enforceable...but you don't 
hear about too many of these cases.  A EULA is a contract, and if you 
don't understand the terms of the contract, there are circumstances 
where you cannot be held liable for signing it because you were too 
ignorant to understand what you were signing away.  Well, how many Joe 
Averages know what they're doing with EULAs?

Maybe you should mull over issues like those at 
http://interactionlaw.com/id12.html .  Or 
www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000478.html .

Maybe you should also take the above argument and balance that with 
what I originally said about the archives existing and being pointed to 
RIGHT IN THE FAQ that the site asked users to read FIRST.  In plain @#% 
English.  No legal mumbo jumbo.  If anything, even the most dense who 
can follow directions should have known what they were getting into, 
far more clearly that someone having to read a disclaimergreement.

> It's no secret that most computer systems are not open to everyone;

Maybe someone should tell that to an open-source group, and to the 
people signing up to lists having something to do with a group that 
believes in free exchange of information.

> 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.

Damn...if the claim isn't there on a big sign that you're not allowed 
on the premises of a bank after hours, how was I supposed to know I 
wasn't allowed to break the window and go in to find some money laying 
around?

What about the cemetery that didn't have fencing and a sign every ten 
feet saying you're not allowed there after sundown?

Those darn legal loopholes!

>> 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.

Many, not all.  AND you're not required notice in public.  It's where 
you can NOT REASONABLY expect privacy.  You can't sue some vacationer 
for getting you in their vacation video.

> 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.

Yeah, because reasonable people would never fathom why there may be 
recordings and pictures taken at a concert.