Scared of Your Own Words? 156
RedCedar writes "James Rutt, the CEO of Network Solutions has deleted all of his postings from the Well, apparently for fear of having some of them used against him in news stories. The Washington Post has this story on it. " Regardless of who it is, this is an interesting trend, I think perpuated by The Media in general of focusing on the person. Do you think this will become a more regular occurence? Am I going to have to wipe my own comments? *grin*
Re:Anonymity is a Ruse (Score:1)
As a Registered Representative... (Score:1)
In the old days (well, before the internet), every single letter that we sent out to client's had to be read, and approved by a principle. Mass mailings had to be sent to compliance in New York to be approved. Going on the radio or TV for interviews on the market or whatever topic was universally denied. Essentially, it was very difficult to send out even a simple newsletter.
The reason for this, is that the firm does not want to be sued by someone believing their broker's opinion was the same as that of the company. There is even an archaic law that forbids us to recommend stocks that the company is not recommending.
Nowadays, these rules are still enforced, but you can imagine the problems with brokers having access to e-mail. My firm is planning on rolling out an intranet and accounts for all brokers in about two weeks now. Every message that we send outside the firm goes through New York, which will trigger at such key words as "guarantee" or "hot item".
I was quickly denied a while back when I brought up the idea of running a web site for my clients!
There is also the problem of brokers (like me) posting their opinions on chat, or news groups. For a while, under my user's account, I would post my opinions on certain companies and different strategies I felt were beneficial when it came to investing. I quickly stopped doing so when I heard of a few cases where brokers were fired for doing the same exact thing.
That scares the hell out of me. I would love to post more often on companies mentioned in slashdot, and I would love to help people when securities and investing are written about... but I fear for losing my job.
There is nothing wrong with me voicing and speaking my opinions... but the idea is that, if they are written down, it is possible that my company or I can be held responsible for those opinions.
That is very frustrating, and I hope things change soon.
Heh, Network solutions (Score:1)
Essentially what the story attatched to this article and most stories in question about just about anything (See: Jesse Ventura, convient part about that is that it's in playboy so they can make it out however they want and theres a chance no one 'respectable' in the media will find out) media related, they tend to take exerpts in a manner that 'shades the truth' also known as 'spin'. Now, if this is an archive from 1989 to 1999, you can be damn well sure that whatever he says will not be taken in context.
He kind of has to in order to protect himself otherwise he'll just be a martyr to the mainstream media, god I hate them right now, can you tell? I can see this becomming an exerpt one day on MSNBC.
I gotta give him one thing though, he certainly doesn't have a mainstream taste for women. Which is a good thing because if this keeps up we wont have to look at the glorified hungry who eat nothing all day and are just skeletons with skin tacked on. (See: Ally McBeal) I don't like breaking skin when I tap someone on the sholder, you know? ^_^
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
I can I can! (Score:1)
The key is to not let people know who you are from the start.
Maybe if you follow my urls read my sigs track everything i've ever posted for a few years, then you'll find someone who has my name in an IRC Log, other than that, good luck, and even if you did find it, I have a very common name
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
Re:Definitely a trend (Score:1)
paste
Not useful.
-[ World domination - rains.net ]-
They Look before They Hire (Score:1)
I beleive AOL does news and web searches on everone looking for a job at AOL. I know other companies are doing this.
How have you been in the News? Did your kids win a socker game? Did you buy a new house? Have you been arrested for durnk driving? Do you post to HATE news groups? What does your web site say about you? Do you like guns?
Re:Never use your real name (Score:1)
The true problem is an attitude: We must all remember that people grow up, change their minds, evolve. We learn a lot from mistakes, hopefully, so our mistakes and problems are good things (PRO-blem). There are no pure or innocent people around, we all fuck up, we all evolve. Some faster than others.
Deja.com has archived a few stupid things I once said, but that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing since it also shows how I improved myself. My Slashdot history also gives a lot of insight in my interests and believes, which can be connected to my real life identity by looking up my info. I'm not anonymous, since I try to only say what I believe in, and I'm standing by my believes until I evolve them on my own.
Freedom of speech doesn't only mean you can speak freely and anonymously, it also means you can speak freely and not be threatened in real life. If you only speak anonymously because you are afraid that your opinions are a danger to yourself, then you're actually supporting the media, the misconception that what you (once) said is what you (still) mean. It's as useful as claiming evolution is just an illusion...
Anonymity is important, but not all the time, otherwise you hurt your individuality without noticing - and if the obscurity ever fails, you'll be in for some serious trouble, since you've forsaken the chance to maintain that opinions can change.
Implied Disclaimer: That's what I just said, it might not be what I'll mean at a later time, I retain the right to freely change my mind without any notice. -- this should be OBVIOUS at all times!!
No place to hide (Score:1)
On the internet, everyone can hear you scream
Personally I think its impossible to ever completely cover your tracks on the internet..no matter how diligantly you try..
Internet honesty and personal growth (Score:1)
The best response to anybody dredging up old posts would be to say hey, that was posted N years ago, at the time its how I felt. When I was a kid I wrote letters to Santa too. If you'd like I can probably get some samples from my parents.
The admission would speak better of the person than a futile attempt to remove all traces of their net existance.
I stand by everything I've said online (Score:1)
Re:Never use your real name (Score:1)
Re:stopping post archiving. (Score:1)
--
I wrote the above (Score:1)
Is my karma too low or too high?
unitron(just in case it happens again)
make powerful enemies (Score:1)
Re:I'd never erase my own words (Score:1)
Ahh, you say that now, but what happens when you become CEO of Blue Hat BSD Distributions and someone brings up that post about the dog and the nun you posted back in 97?
--
Re:Protecting our rights on line? (Score:1)
why would the owners of
not to mention that many people around here would stop posting if
didn't this kinda come up awhile back during some talk of a dead tree version of
Re:Protecting our rights on line? (Score:1)
why would the owners of
not to mention that many people around here would stop posting if
didn't this kinda come up awhile back during some talk of a dead tree version of
Re:My solution for old emails and usenet posts (Score:1)
Anyone here who has received spam & trolled thru the headers knows how easy it is to forge return addresses. It requires a bit of effort to identify the location of the actual sender -- & exponentially more to actually identify the creep.
And then we get into the problem that anyone can take a piece of electronic data & manipulate it. Turning a harmless email from Jane Schmoe into a racist death threat is a trivial exercise. (And if you can't figure out how to do it, please leave Slashdot & find another forum more to your level -- like WebTV.)
Quite simply, if someone claims you wrote a given piece of email, the burden of proof is on them, not you.
Online forums, however, are a little more difficult -- but sites *do* get cracked all of the time. And passwords sniffed. Still insist on the accusing party to prove authorship.
Geoff
(or perhaps a cracker pretending to be him)
Re:Never use your real name (Score:1)
Someday when I run for president, I'll have to make up a fake name.
Seriously, in a few years it will be a routine thing to search for politician's postings on Deja.com. That will be a crazy situation, because a lot of them got onto the internet in college. I don't know about everyone else, but I am a far different person now at 30 that I was at 18. If someone were to look up posts that I made back in the 1980's, they would look pretty silly. I don't think it's fair to hold a candidate to higher standards. Words uttered at 18 in the middle of a flame war don't have any real correlation to the actual physical person, maybe two decades later. A lot of people might get tarnished unfairly.
stopping post archiving. (Score:1)
Another way is to add the "X-no-archive: yes" header to your messages. If you are using Mutt put "my_hdr X-no-archive: yes" in your .muttrc (no quotes). This, however, doesn't work all the time. For example, some of the FreeBSD mailing lists are echoed to USENET newsgroups with the X-no-archive stripped out. There is nothing you can really do about this except not post to those mailing lists. Also, there are probably archiving engines out there which ignore X-no-archive just like there are probably web robots out there which ignore robots.txt
Also, you can be sure that governments keep track of all your newsgroup postings. news.cia.gov and so on.
Re:Never use your real name (Score:1)
Re:Never use your real name (Score:1)
Re:Never use your real name (Score:1)
If more of us stood up for our rights, we'd have less trouble with the erosion of our rights.
Well, no wonder he's scared... He runs NSI. (Score:1)
They spam, they obstruct, they suck. Of *course*
he's hiding.
I may be an optimist but... (Score:1)
I envision this press conference in the future where a press guy would dig up something about some politician's occasional visit to a dominatrix. They bring up the question at a press conference. The politician responds, "Yeah, she's a great dominatrix, if you want her phone number, talk to me after the conference."
Perhaps Jesse Ventura is one of the first people to start the trend that direction. He said a whole lot of offensive things in that Playboy article, but his reaction was simply to ask people to judge him by his politics not his personal beliefs. Of course he'll probably be politically burned at the stake for it, but oh well.
In a world where everybody accepts eachother's humanity and their falibility there's no need for secrecy and anonymity. That day's not now, but I can dream can't I?
---
Be affrade be very affrade (Score:1)
I don't mean just surffing but well like posting this message on
People with a public presona may wish not to have unstarilised comments up on
I can make some pritty boneheaded comments some times and thats ok your reading it in context. But if I were Bill Gates and someone snipped my comments I could be made to say anything. If Bill Gates said "Linux is ok for hackers" in a long rant against Linux then bam on the news "Bill Gates says 'Linux is ok'" eventually the comments blur and it becomes "Bill Gates makes postive comments about Linux" a Slashdot artical and MsWindows enters it's finnal days.
Thats techno politics.. government politics is worse. People running for office are often missquoted and not allwase by mistake. Only 1 in a million reporters have some political ax to grind but right now with so many doppleganger reporters who don't check out storys it only takes one to prepetuate a myth.
It's much diffrent from seeing the original on-line quote as on-line the auther controls the context not a third party.
It would help if reporters would just give refrence urls rather than quoting [or missquoting] matereal. With reporters on deadlines it's very easy to misquote and even easyer when the quote is techlaced and the reporter isn't up to speed.
This is why aliases are a good thing (Score:1)
If only he'd used an alias (well, okay, not allowed on The Well...) or an anonymous coward method to express himself, his words would still be there.
How sad.
---
Re:My solution for old emails and usenet posts (Score:1)
I had a friend in college who was 21 when I was 20. He had discovered a liking for scotch, and I had never tried it before, so one night he went out and purchased a massive bottle of Dewars. Cutting out many, many details, my friend and I, along with a third mutual friend, split the bottle three ways - straight up, no mixing or chasing.
I woke up the next morning (with virtually zero recollection of the night before) to find an email waiting in my inbox from one of my friends, asking me if I was drunk. After inquiring about how she knew, she forwarded me the email I had apparently sent her the night before.
I was surprised at how well I had actually managed to type, considering how drunk I must've been to have the large gaping hole in my memory. After a few hours, I had managed to puzzle out almost everything I had written. One sentence still eluded me, however, largely because it did not contain a single vowel.
So that "Dude, I wrote that?" isn't very far fetched.
Re:This is why aliases are a good thing (Score:1)
I have nothing against anonymity, obviously however, there is a problem if the anonymity is abused. Wasn't it funet.fi who used to provide an anonymous posting service for usenet? Didn't it get closed down because of abuse.
Re:This is why aliases are a good thing (Score:1)
In the hands of lower, lamer, individuals, however, the ability to change your identity can lead to havoc.
Real Names have the advantage that you know the person has thought about what they are writing and will be more conservative in their comments.
Usenet & Dejanews (Score:1)
What if, at some future time, world feeling should turn against - say - industrial music, in such the same was as it has been known to against other beliefs, being Jewish for example. Once I have been tracked down and hauled up infront of the powers that be, will the prosecution be using my Usenet posts as evidence against me?
Maybe a slightly extreme example, but it does illustrate a point.
Must go, documentation beckons.
Dave
identity and the 'net (Score:1)
Why do I maintain a second "identity"?
Well, y'see, I have opinions. Lots of them. Some of those opinions could get me in trouble. For example, it's not completely impossible for vendors to unleash their legal beagles on folks who publicly criticize their products. I happen to think that a lot of vendors ship products that are... suboptimal. (Oh, what the hell, just a short rant.)
If I ever get my hands on the design team for DLink print server boxes, I'm going to infect the whole lot of 'em with leprosy, and force them to play hockey every day in the winter (hey, there's a face off in the corner!) and Aussie rules football every day in the summer.
If I was posting under my own name, I probably wouldn't describe a previous boss as a "spineless beancounter who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. In fact, I can't decide which is greater - my personal dislike for him as a human being, or my utter contempt for him professionally".
Or perhaps I'd hesitate to describe the last company I worked for as "a dismal hellhole where they've been so disorganized for so long that they wouldn't be able to do anything right to save their souls".
Ah, I feel better now. But I don't know if my boss would approve of those statements, and some of my customers are oversensitive fsckwits who might get offended or something.
Sure, this isn't bullet proof privacy, I'm sure the cops could find out who I am... But it's anonymous enough for my purposes.
What about quoted posts? (Score:1)
A couple of minutes later, I got an e-mail that said:
"In 1995 I posted a message that you replied to on . In the reply you quote my message. I am now trying to go back and remove all instances of my name from Usenet. If you would kindly send back the DejaNews Nuke form, all you have to do is send the entire thing back to the address which it came from, I'd really appreciate it. If you have any questions please e-mail me."
I went and checked the messages in question, and nothing he said was particularly controversial or anything like that. My responses were quite long and actually pretty good, in retrospect.
I decided not to return the nuke forms, because while he may want to eliminate all of his own words on Deja, he has no right to force me to eliminate *mine.* He posted publicly, and I responded publicly, and he has to deal with that. What's done is done. (The funny thing is that, back when I first heard about Deja, I had all my postings set to no-archive. But apparently some slipped through back then, and now I don't even bother preventing archiving anymore.)
Am I wrong here? I'd love to hear some feedback from the rest of you on this.
Re:What about quoted posts? (Score:1)
Signatures (Score:1)
Do I want to post this comment? (Score:1)
Well, I guess I'm pretty safe this time.
Re: Anonymity and the right to change my mind. (Score:1)
Sure. But it's also silly to judge someone NOW for what s/he said X years before. Different circumnstances: it should be obvious.
We may be choerent for the whole of our life only on a small set of subjects. Otherwise, no one'd be able to change his mind _EVER_.
If the other's opinion drives your life in a significative way and you don't feel comfortable for this, well, probably you pay more attention to others than you pay to yourself.
Re:It's about honesty (Score:1)
Now imagine that your job is at stake for that out-of-context statement.
Now imagine that your statement is headlining the six o'clock news.
Now you've got a Slashdot icon with your face because there have been so many links submitted about you.
It's not about honesty, it's about scale of exposure and the rabidity of the media/public scrutiny.
-t
Re:[ censored ] (Score:1)
> XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
> XXXXXXXXX XXXXX X XX XXXXXX.
>
> At least, that's what I was told.
Hey, you ar the lucky winner of out monthly XXXXX contest. Go to XXXXX [xxxx.xxx] to collect your prize!
Re:This is why aliases are a good thing (Score:1)
Yes, but can you be sure that people are using their *real* real names?
Re:Never use your real name (Score:1)
The problem is that people have not yet realised that their words online are perpetual. I think many people view posting online to be similar to shouting in a crowded noisy room (slashdot feels like this at times). How important can your one quote be when it is among 300 others? In a traditional forum it would not be, but on the internet it could mean the world. I think that once people come to realise this we will see much more order online.
Th benefit of online discussion is getting credit for your ideas, but with this comes responsibility, something which many people choose not to accept.
What's the deal? (Score:1)
(Can't be first post, can it?)
The other stuff to look for in a flame (Score:1)
What would seem to matter more (with regard to posts that a person had reason to delete later) is the context in which a flame was posted, for one, but also inherent questions like why, and to what end one flamed, was one logical and pissed off or just pissed off, and what does it say about the person other than that they were pissed off?
That being said, unless the deleted posts were something like "I harbor secret fantasies of monopolizing DNS service in a way that is hostile to the Internet," or "One day, I will put the wood to that shrew Esther Dyson like she deserves," I don't see the point in this guy trying to erase his past posts -- you can never be sure there isn't an archive SOMEWHERE.
_____
Eagles may soar... (Score:1)
I suppose some people find it easier to erase the past than to have the integrity to admit to their own opinions later. they don't have to agree with them later -- a foolish consistency and all that -- the they should at leat own up to them.
Vietnam war service & Supreme Court nominees (Score:1)
On military service during the various wars, candidates always find some way to explain their actions as honorable. Clinton, Quayle, Bush, ad nauseum all have wriggled like worms. So will politicians with socially unpopular words resurfacing from their past lives.
On nominating Justices, politicians have searched for candidates with a very small paper trail, ever since the Bork hearings. As a compromise, they accept a paper trail that runs through a fairly wide middle of the road. Fall outside that with your Internet posting history, and you won't get nominated either.
On 60's drug use, some claim not to have inhaled, others plead youthful inexperience. Some ask for a statute of limitations. These too will be repeated with Internet words typed in haste.
It's just another case where something happening on the Internet first comes across as new and never before seen, but really everything old is new again.
Or, "History repeats itself, but each time the price goes up" -unknown author
Sure you can (Score:1)
1) allow and trust a central authority to authenticate your mail, and
2) require authentication for all mail
Scenario:
Bob sends me mail. This is a two step process; it is sent via Auth, who signs it and sends me the message and Auth's signature. Now I can ask auth to authenticate the message, and until it expires the message will be authentic. After it expires, I'll still have the message, but it won't authenticate, so by our second assumption, it will be worthless.
Mind you, the two assumptions are a bit much for anyone to swallow, but it could work.
Johan
Re:not me (Score:1)
Nobody knows what's appropriate anymore. Somebody, somewhere, will be offended by something you say; if they live in a jurisdiction where they could sue you, you'll get sued, or disciplined, or fired. It happens all the damned time. Remember the niggardly [cnn.com] incident? A white mayor's aide in Washington, D.C., was discussing how broke the city was and how they needed to make every budget dollar count. Unfortunately, instead of saying "parsimonious" he said "niggardly", and some vocabulary-challenged bozos started screaming "racism" so loudly the aide eventually offered his resignation, which the mayor accepted. So you see, it doesn't even matter what you're trying to say; all that matters is that somebody's perfectly willing to take it the wrong way.
And the potent combination of political correctness and literary deconstructionism can be used to turn you into something you're not, too. If this flap were raised at a university rather than a mayor's office, the poor schub would never, ever, get tenure, on account of being a crypto-racist.
Words have a way of coming back to haunt you, even when they're far too old to matter. Who here remembers the letter a twenty-one year old Bill Clinton wrote his college ROTC advisor a letter opting out of the program? It included the phrase "I loathe the military way of life." In 1992 Rush Limbaugh recorded an uncanny Clinton sound-alike saying "I loathe the military", and that sentence has been used against Clinton for over seven years now. A twenty-one year-old intellectual saying he didn't want to be in the Army while there was an unjust war going on? Who'd've thunk? When you're fifty yourself, do you really want people judging you by the dumbfuck things you said when you were twenty-one? Eighteen? Fifteen?
You can do it to yourself, too: Say you write, "I'm disgusted by Microsoft's acquisition tactics" on a mailing list somewhere, and five years later, while MS is getting ready to offer you three hundred million dollars for your innovative little software package, they decide to do a quick Yahoo [yahoo.com] search on you. They find an archived copy of the mailing list, and suddenly the deal is off. You're out one third of the company's sale price, all because you voiced an opinion about MS's attempt to buy the company that makes your favorite game.
This is the fear that Rutt's given in to. This is the fear we should all give in to, to limit our exposure to liability. This is the duct tape over all our mouths: that no matter what you say on-line, anyone, anywhere, can try to use it against you, and for reasons that don't make sense to anyone but a room full of lawyers, they just might succeed.
--
Re:"Feind Hört Mit" (Score:1)
I was under the impression that German military comms in WW2 were not VOX modulated. I thought that the vast majority was transmitted via code encrypted using the Enigma device. Well, perhaps they used VOX in close range tactical battleground scenarios...
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
iyamsk wot iyamsk, and thats all wot iyamsk... (Score:1)
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
Re:I'd never erase my own words (Score:1)
I'd tell them with a straight face that the post in 98 about the penguin and the priest was better.
I used to live in fear like this. As I approach the ripe old age of somewhere in my mid 40's, I no longer care. I'm confident in my ability to provide for myself and if some ignorant schmuck wants to drive me out of my job by taking something I wrote out of context, it's not my loss. And if my employers allowed this, I would not want to work for them anyway.
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
Re:Ironies... (Score:1)
Hehe, Imagine all those "first-post"ers get denied gainful employment due to "lack of maturity".
Re:mass scribbling on the WELL (Score:1)
now as i go back to the well, the context of many of our discussions will be destroyed. people will read a conversation in which one of my personnas is yelling at a non-existant wall. it makes us both look loonier than we are. so what's interesting is what speculation people might draw from these disconnected comments. i would have not put it past myself (although i haven't engaged jim on the well or anywhere else for a while) to have told him that any of his admittedly provocative comments 'was the most idiotic and reactionary racist tripe i've ever heard'. one can only guess what people will guess.
when all is said and done, i would make it my duty to see that he's not slammed in that regard. i've found him a fine foil for instructive purposes, and i would hate to see him catch heat for being provocative. i have little doubt that plenty folks would like to give him heat he doesn't deserve.
my advice to myself has been to write in lowercase to distinguish my online communications from those which i type up for other purposes. as well, i have anonymized myself in various ways. the chill factor for me is already built in, yet i understand that my speech is subversive, so that gives me courage of a different sort. i hope that it can live on in this context, and i lament the loss of my virtual sparring partner's words.
Definitely a trend (Score:2)
See http://www.disappearing.com. [disappearing.com]
I am being sued for libel! (Score:2)
They are mainly focusing on my website [www.sorehands.cominjury] but in discovery they also pointed to some postings that I made to yahoo and Prairielaw [prairielaw.com].
Even after they filed their countersuit, I have not stopped! What I have posted is either true or opinions that any reasonable person would agree with based on the facts. The underlying facts are posted on the site [sorehands.com].
I would say these things to their face (and did to under oath in depositions). I have had to provide them with more than 200 pages of emails related to the site.
Injured employee wins against Mattel" [sorehands.com]
Re:Never use your real name (Score:2)
I'm also the one who won't pee in a jar for anyone. I'm the one who won't give out my social security number to get a driver's license. I'm the one who won't work for a racist boss, even if it benefits me.
I'm not saying these things to be self-righteous. I'm saying these things because I hope everyone will come to their senses. Who wants to live a life of cowardice? Who wants guaranteed safety? What will you have gained by living such a life?
When the tanks roll through the square, I'll be under one, not in one. If enough of you join me, we won't have anything to worry about. They won't put our names in the history books, but we will be the true heroes of our time.
Re:Never use your real name (Score:2)
Yes, and you will get those jobs over me, without a doubt. And then you will be the one stuck in these ridiculous organizations that don't give a damn about you. The day I put my life back in the hands of HR is the day I decide my life isn't worth much.
Maybe you're young, and maybe some day you will apply to a really different job 20 years from now. These things may come back to haunt you at that point, and you may not want it if you have kids and a wife and mortgage payments.
I'm there already. It took a wife and mortgage payments to make me realize some of what is important in life. Safety and security is over-rated, and worry is a contributor to almost all major health problems.
Re:Living your life in public (Score:2)
People like Jenni have developed unique positions for themselves and that is part of their personality. It may be difficult to throw away a personality and a disadvantage to do so. Its interesting to watch the reaction of those who are famous and those who react to them. It would be silly to think I would know a polition or anyone else on a personal level, just because they (and the families) would be in the news so often.
Re:Never use your real name (Score:2)
There were times when being anonymous was important, but usually, I like to have a name, not a number.
I *want* my words saved (Score:2)
Ironically, my problem is that there aren't *enough* archives to suit me. I wrote a lot in #politics, #religion, and a few other MajorNet/FidoNet forums back when I was 12/13, and I'd love to go rooting through it all now and see how my views/writing have changed. Unfortunately there's only a couple weeks of posts that didn't get deleted from my HDD, and I've never found any public archives. Anyone know of anything?
Eventually, people will be used to transparency (Score:2)
Today, though, I understand Rutt's impulse. I refuse on principle to delete my words from places - I try to think about what I say with the knowledge that it is permanent being a factor. I keep as much of my private self private as I can, and don't sweat the details. My drivers' license has a random number, I deliberately give wacky answers when required to give demographic info, fake phone numbers when possible, etc. I also vary my middle initial a lot to see who's renting my name out to other companies. Anybody who really wants to can find out anything they want to know about me, but I like throwing monkey wrenches in "the system" when I can just for fun...
So it's a shame that he deleted his postings, but understandable in this not-yet-enlightened era.
- -Josh Turiel
This is becoming more and more of an issue (Score:2)
It's only a matter of time until a presidential candidate bows out of the race when someone dregs up a past Usenet post that makes him/her look bad...
[ censored ] (Score:2)
At least, that's what I was told.
--
It smacks of 1984-ism (Score:2)
If we all go around trying to alter or delete past words for fear of the reprocussions, we make ourselves a part of the Big Brother tyranny.
Historians are already worried that the increasing migration of cultural records into electronic form may make it difficult to preserve for future generations. How much worse is the problem to become if all of us are actively seeking to cover up our own past? It brings to mind images of Cancer Man and the Syndicate, who laborously concoct schemes to keep the world from knowing their evils.
What exactly do we have to hide? The admissions of criminal acts? The fact that we may have ingested substances which the state, in all its divine wisdom, has declared unfit for mankind, hence illegal? Or is it something as innocuous as expressing a dislike for a governments, corperations, or individuals whom we view as unsavory?
Being a creature of the net that I am, I have said some things online, in my own web pages, that I am not entirely pround of. However, I don't delete them and pretend as if they had never been said. If people can't handle the fact that I am a human being and may say/write things on the spur of the moment, I'd rather not associate with them anyway. I guess that's why I'll never be a politician.
I would hope that society is more mature than to reject people on something so petty as speaking their mind. Let's practice the 1st Amendment in spirit, as well as following the letter.
I support The Party. I have always supported The Party. I will forever support The Party.
Re:Eventually, people will be used to transparency (Score:2)
Heh heh. When I heard how the supermarkets were misusing the demographic data gathered from customer's use of store discount cards, I threw mine away and got several more under false names and data. Now, I have one card that I just buy Sweet-Tarts (tm) candy with. Another that I use to buy 15 gallons of distilled water at a time.
Best of all, I choose names that are amusing to pronounce so I can hear the checkers say, "Have a good day, Mr. Auoeouuei..."
Re:Definitely a trend (Score:2)
If no such common business practice exists, then it may seem as if a company is withholding evidence when they are not.
Re:It's about honesty (Score:2)
Certainly, and you raise a very good point. The media does a wonderful job of taking things out of context, if only for ratings and yellow journalism. However, if you are a generally honest person, something that has been taken out of context can usually be rebutted.
The point I was trying to make was that even if the media was after me, and were taking everything I said out of context, *I* would know that I was being honest, and doing the right thing, and to me, that's all that matters. I'd rather go to the grave with a little honor and dignity for myself and have the rest of the world hate me, than trying to cover all my tracks and being a liar just so everyone will love me.
It's about honesty (Score:2)
Living your life in public (Score:2)
How will it be though for people like Jenni (Jennicam) who live their lives completely openly. Judging from her diary, I gather that there is some evidence to say that her life has already been affected hugely to the extent where she finds it very difficult to find employment - despite having shown that she is one of the most marketing savvy people on the net.
Will our online words become something we guard closely, afraid of repercussions in later life, or will society's views change, so that people's private lives and work lives become more divorced from each other.
In Sweden where I live, it's common (relatively) to sauna in mixed groups. The trick is to sit and NOT stare at someone else's private parts. (I'm British, so it's a learnt trait
Wishful thinking I'm afraid, but an extremely interesting ethical question in any case.
Re:Never use your real name (Score:2)
Thats why it's important for people to get more perspectives and gain a better look. American culture is finally gaining an understanding that everyone does stupid stuff. We've been fooling ourselves for a long time, but we're growing up. The U.S. is a teenager internationally and acts like it, but recent events and folks like Ventura just might break through the illusions of expectations we've created,....and make the silly posts you made when you were young, looks like the single tiny bits of the big picture they are.;^P
Re:Never use your real name -- Be a coward! (Score:2)
William Gibson described the Sprawl in Neuromancer as "a sick sociological experiment with somebody's finger permanently on the fast-forward button" (approximate quote; I don't have the text with me). One neat thing about the Internet is that it speeds up human interaction. Like biologists use fast-reproducing animals like insects to learn about genetics, we can use the Internet to learn about sociology.
The lesson learned here, as I have seen it: It is easier and better to do the Right Thing in the first place, rather than figure out where to hide the bodies later.
As people, we would often rather be crafty and sneaky than do the simple (and hard) Right Thing. It burns you in code. It burns you in life.
Re:Where does it all lead to? (Score:2)
Yes, imagine the intersection of McCarthyism and the Internet. Frankly, I think that the Internet would have killed McCarthyism a lot faster than it was killed in real life.
Paranoia and authoritarianism is fueled by centralized control of the media. Whenever you see a highly centralized, oppressive government, you always see two things: state-controlled mass media and its opposition, guerilla media/pirate radio.
The Internet is guerilla media in ways that pirate radio can't dream of. Knowledge is power, and nobody should know that better than IT crew. The Internet diversifies the balance of power, making it hard for any one entity to take command.
Can the majority use the Internet to find and persecute the minority? Yes. If Microsoft wants to compile an enemies list, for example, it could do little better than get the active roster of Slashdot users. But on the other hand, the minority can use the Internet to band together. Divide-and-conquer tactics tend to fail against a wired population.
"Feind Hört Mit" (Score:2)
Hmm, I'd say `as long as you are nothing but yourself, on- or off-line, who is going to hurt you' but then I am an incorrigble optimist...
Only the Paranoid Survive. (Score:2)
One of them is "me", and has a fairly typical geekish profile, including USENET postings.
One of me is on Slashdot. You're reading from him now.
The interesting identity is an old version of me who used to hang out with a group of folks who [censored] which, while trendy now, may at some time in the future become unfashionable.
I no longer associate with that last group - not so much because there's anything wrong with [censored], or because I'm no longer interested in [censored], but because I'm hedging my bets against catastrophe. I miss 'em. They were good people, and I made some good friends.
But if you believe - as I do - that the war for privacy and individual rights will ultimately be lost, it was a necessary sacrifice.
My [censored] was pretty mild by today's standards. But it doesn't matter if my [censored] was politics (communism? fascism? democracy?), guns (of any form), sex (of any form that involves pleasure, judging from the religious right), drugs (hey, there are folks advocating prohibition of tobacco and alcohol too!), or rock 'n' roll (industrial music post-Columbine anyone?). If we end up with living in a surveillance state, and folks into [censored] become the scapegoat-du-jour, I could have been targeted for surveillance in a random sweep.
Remember the corollary of the "they came for the foos and I didn't speak up" quotation is that "sooner or later, they'll come for you".
By cutting off that association now, as opposed to "the day the Bad Guys Take Over", I gave myself - and my friends, who may have more integrity and courage than myself - some protection. "Yeah, Mr. Thought Policeman, I used to think [censored] was cool, but I'm better now. I don't know any of my former associates, ain't heard from 'em in years, and your records'll back me up on that. Sorry I can't help you track them down for treatment/reeducation/extermination, as is my civic duty under Neomegalopolis Penal Code Section XVIII.4 Sub-Paragraph (b)."
Yeah, that's spineless cowardice. I sincerely admire the courage of the /. poster who said he'd "rather be under the tanks than riding in them", but when it comes right down to it, how many of us, when push comes to shove, are willing to make that commitment? And how many of us are willing to make that decision on behalf of our families and loved ones well as ourselves?
Frankly, I kinda enjoyed my [censored] days. But I also enjoy my job and my geeky toys. And when I concluded that the halcyon days of a "free world" were almost over, I was forced to ask myself whether I wanted my job and my toys more than I wanted my [censored]. I concluded that there were other forms of fun that I enjoyed more than [censored], and walked away from it.
If I'm wrong about the future, I'll have given up a small part of my life in exchange for more time to spend on other things that I enjoy just as much. A fair trade. But if I'm right, ten years from now, I'll be thanking my lucky stars that I chickened out now and got some experience in living under authoritarianism before it became an essential skill. I'm still not that great at it, but I'm learning and adapting.
It sucks to live in the twilight era of freedom, but there you have it.
"Oh, I know I'm a louse, but I'm a live louse!"
- Daffy Duck
Old posting records can be scary (Score:2)
Another issue is that a search can turn up personal opinions and interests that you don't necessarily want to know about, but can end up biasing your views. I did a search for postings by a programmer I respected and found all sorts of apparently serious discussion in a bestialty group. Ugh. I didn't want to know that. Or what if you find that a job applicant strongly holds views that you disagree with on abortion, gun control, government, the death penalty, or legalization of drugs? How could that not bias your opinion of that person? Yes, it *shouldn't* affect anything, but let's be realistic.
Anonymity is a Ruse (Score:2)
Can you imagine what would have happened if the internet had been around during the Revolutionary War? We would have had a bunch of Anonymous Cowards ranting about some Declaration of Independence in a forum somewhere only to be dismissed. Sometimes you have to put yourself on the front line if you want to be taken seriously.
Re:Where does it all lead to? (Score:2)
Imagine if the net had existed during the McCarthy era in the U.S. A lot of the people making leftist comments about software development could be in for investigation. And having *lots* of trouble getting work.
Another fairly easy thing to imagine is a period of political religious conservatism making life difficult for pagans and atheists.
Or how about political correctness metering?
Thanks to the net, if you're honest, you can no longer hide what you believe. The net makes it easier to persecute you, but it also makes it harder to ignore you, and gives you a voice to protest such persecution. Can you imagine the furor if they started arresting the GNU-lefties?
The real danger here is the quiet stuff personnel departments and insurance companies do before hiring/insuring someone. Even though it is illegal, some may perform a credit check. Even though it is illegal, they may try to obtain medical records. Even though it *should* be illegal they may try to determine your political or religious beliefs thru net postings. I can't say how widespread these practices are, but I've heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence about them.
As our lives become more transparent to the powers-that-be it is essential we demand equal transparency in return from those with the potential to misuse the information.
Re:Never use your real name -- Be a coward! (Score:2)
L.
Re:Never use your real name (Score:2)
Tony,
There is no battle. The reason it's not a good idea to add your name to everything you post is because you may not even know who is looking it up. I know for a fact that many employers search names before considering an interview. And they don't tell you if they don't call you.
No matter what your *own* views are about the bravery of saying that you "won't pee in a jar", the reality is that such language will result in you not even being considered for a job. Many of these decisions are made by human resource personnel who have no clue about your viewpoint, and nor do they give a damn.
Maybe you're young, and maybe some day you will apply to a really different job 20 years from now. These things may come back to haunt you at that point, and you may not want it if you have kids and a wife and mortgage payments.
Personally, I'm not in that situation, but I'm not fond of HR people and their narrow perspective either. We can't predict the future, and I don't trust having my heat-of-the-moment views littered all over the place for misinterpretation.
Basically, my views stand on their own - I don't gain anything by having my real name attached to them. But I have a lot to lose if those views can be misinterpreted or prove embarrassing years or decades from now. You need to think about it. That's all.
L.
This will only get worse (Score:2)
Note - that was just an example - I never posted a Pamela Anderson page of any kind....as far as you know
Amusing Cartoon on This Subject (Score:2)
http://metalab.unc.edu/Dave/ Dr-Fun/df9601/df960124.jpg [unc.edu].
Some societies are way ahead of the USA in this. (Score:2)
If our society ever grows up, this will cease to be a problem; it's impossible to sell scandal sheets when nobody is scandalized. Unfortunately, we seem to be going in the opposite direction these days.
--
Deja Moo: The feeling that
Always be prepared (Score:2)
You'll never see me giving away and information or speaking badly about that big computer company based out of Round Rock for that reason.
I'd never erase my own words (Score:2)
(err, how do I unpost something?)
Future generations may deplore this trend (Score:2)
This seems like yet another outgrowth of the Microsoft Trial. Here at work (not MS) we have been ordered to delete all email older than six months, and I imagine many other companies have enacted similar rules in the last few years. The use of email and other electronic correspondence in ligitation is definately a bad thing in the long term.
Not that this is all that new, even when everything was kept on dead trees it could be subpoenaed and used in evidence. The difference? You had to know it was there, or else you had to go through files and archive boxes by hand. An expensive and difficult process.
Now you can just GREP a hard drive or use Dejanews or Altavista or search a MS Exchange PST file. It is neither difficult nor expensive. An interesting example of why the paperless office may not improve on the old way of doing things. This bothers me a lot, because I am a believer in the digital age.
But the thought of removing personal correspondence from electronic databases bothers me even more. There was a time when people wrote letters the way we now write email; as a method of remaining in constant communication with others. They didn't have telephone, or even telegraph, so they had no other way to carry on conversations over great distances. And many of these people took great care to preserve their letters for posterity, correctly seeing these missives as a legacy of thought and person.
Without this preservation we would not have the access we possess today to the minds of men like Jefferson, Madison and others. Generations later these letters represent important historical documents. Could you imagine if they had decided to purge their files so that the expression of some youthful lack of sense could not be taken out of context or to avoid seeing the letters show up in court?
I repeat, this is a bad thing. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to never say anything, in email or otherwise, that we would be ashamed of. Personally I don't think that is entirely possible -- but I will keep it in mind from now on...
Jack
power is not what it's cracked up to be (Score:2)
I guess some people think it's worth it, though. But do we really want people in control (whether it's corporations or the government) that will so readily back down from their opinions in order to keep their power?
As for the media focusing on individuals, I don't think you can blame the media for that. People in general like to have a real person they can rally around. It's hard to like or dislike an organization. It's easier if you can put a face on it. How much do you think Bill Gates is actually involved in writing code for Win2K? My guess: none. But when we are using it (and, unfortunately, we will) and we get the blue screen of death (and, unfortunately, we will), who's name will we curse?
human://billy.j.mabray/
Say what you mean (Score:2)
People just need to realize the net isn't their living room, it's a lot closer to a crowded mall where anyone can here you.
Re:Where does it all lead to? (Score:2)
Quite the opposite. The core of the problems is that society has stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to anybody under any circumstance.
The problem is not that people don't think before they speak -- people will always do that because they're human. The problem is that people refuse to say "hey you probably didn't think before you said that, forgive and forget."
As others have said, the core of the problem is with the media, who takes every little thing every preson says and blows it out of proportions. The solution is to come down hard on members of the media who resort to such tactics. Make the media think twice before using every silly word anybody says and ruining people's lives, just to make an extra buck.
Re:I can I can! (Score:2)
</joke>
jsm
Re:The media doesn't have a sense of humor. (Score:2)
Being as I am here in Minnesota, I can reflect on Mr. Ventura a bit.
It was frightening to me that as the election returns were being announced, the person Jesse spoke of being his greatest inspiration was "Rocky." Rocky! Someone who isn't even a real person, just a film creation.
Jesse is a flake. The kind of antics he practices in the media would set off "flamebait" and "troll" alarms all over the 'net if he dared express them there.
Last night, I found out my brother-in-law, an all-out Jesse supporter during the election (who worked in Ventura's organization) has pulled the bumper stickers off his truck.
I first met Mr. Ventura at a "Twin Cities Stop-The-Draft Committee" meeting in about 1979. He showed up out-of-the-blue to express his support for the "Don't Register" campaign we were organizing. He's a former Navy Seal. That move made me respect him, but everything he's done since then has been downhill in my opinion. As a Minnesotan (Minneostans are still the only people he represents, but watch out...)
from the guy who wrote the story (Score:2)
Anonymity good, AC's bad. (Score:3)
However, anonymity is not about having no identity: it is about having more than one identity. Superman is anonymous because no-one knows he's also Clark Kent, but it's clear that the guy who rescued the school bus yesterday is the same guy who stopped the nuclear terrorists last week; it's just not known that he's the same guy as wrote the story about the kitten hospital on Tuesday. That's why I don't respect AC's: it's not that they don't give their real names, but that they don't give any name at all: every comment is a "hit and run" comment, and there's no point in responding because even if you hear from them again you won't know about it. I think Slashdot should abolish ACs in favour of special anonymous accounts that don't need a valid email address to be enabled, for the best of both worlds.
For my part, I use my real, legal name. I now wish I hadn't - I'd rather not be *quite* as out as I am about, for example, SM - but I'm known by this name online now and I'm not inclined to change it. But I'd certainly encourage anyone who's started using online public forums recently to come up with a pseudonym (not a silly one, a straightforward one you can live with for a long time) and use it as a matter of course. Who the hell needs to know your real name anyway?
--
Never use your real name -- Be a coward! (Score:3)
I have had an online presense since the 1980s, and have always known that things that I say or that I have said could or would be archived and still around years and even decades later. You never know who might be archiving a USENET newsgroup, or even just messages from you.
I comport my life in that I tend to say what I mean, and mean what I say (and Humpty Dumpty points out that these aren't always the same things!). My opinions may change over the years, but I have rarely said things in public forums that I am sorry for having said... if my views have changed over time, then it's documentation of a learning process!
In the unlikely event that somebody would find such a change in my personal opinions, and would take the effort to try to use my own words against me, my response would be to point out that EVEN *I* CAN MANAGE TO CHANGE MY MIND AND (get this!) evolve better opinions!
For those people who may find themselves ashamed for things that they may have said a few years ago, my feeling is "well... it's your own fault if you said such things in a public forum."
Speaking on USENET, on a "community bulletin board," on Slashdot, or in any other public online forum, is the same as talking to a reporter for a newspaper. Whatever you say will be still be around years later... even after you die (there are newspaper "morgues" that go back many decades!).
The moral is: think before you speak. And most important: Think about the legacy you are leaving behind! I think I am proud of my legacy... even the things that I have done in the past that turned out to be incorrect. After all, everything has contributed in my being the person that is me right now.
But then again, maybe I won't feel this way in a year or so. If not, in the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind!"
--
Re:mass scribbling on the WELL (Score:3)
bandy, booter, blair and now jimrutt are not the only ones to do this over the years, and the reasons and context have been discussed extensively. My guess is that many Well members are uneasy about cases like this but support the right of anyone to do so. On the other side, a few have been vehement about the damage to the flow of discussion (and by inference, to the sense of community) that wholesale removal of postings causes, particularly in topics where the person has been quite active. But my feeling has always been, if you can scribble one posting for whatever reason (and nobody I know of questions that feature), then why shouldn't you be able to do that to all of your postings if you so desire?
jef deserves credit for providing a tool that both makes this more convenient to the user and diminishes the impact on other users.
As for jimrutt, alert Slashdot readers know that I have been quite critical of NSI both before and since he came on board. We've tangled over a number of issues over the years on the Well, but once you look at how he thinks and acts and presents his views (modulo the obvious shit-disturbing comments!), he has genuine integrity. I was not happy with the tripartite agreements announced last week between NSI, ICANN and the Department of Commerce: I think Commerce gave away the store to NSI. But I can't fault Jim for reaching an agreement that is as favorable as he could get for his company. When he first took the job I urged him to focus on dropping the whois database intellectual property claims, and instead get with fixing NSI's obviously broken customer service. To a large degree he is doing that; I'm still not happy with NSI but we have what we have. If the ongoing NSI/ICANN/open registry system can sustain Jon Postel's vision of the net as a resource freely and fairly available to all people, then Jim's professional activities will be vindicated.
But regardless of that, he had the perfect right to scribble his stuff on the Well. Or not.
If y'all are interested in checking out the rather unique place known as the Well [well.com], please come check it out. There are both graphical (Engaged) and command-line (picospan) user interfaces, and a lot of ferment in our conferences, and though it's not quite the hotbed of whatever that we used to be, it's still something of a lab of social online interaction.
--------
The media doesn't have a sense of humor. (Score:3)
Example: The new biography of Ronald Reagan is out, and in it the biographer called him an "apparent airhead". For the last two weeks all I've seen interviews was "OOh! You called him an airhead!" "You called him an airhead!". Reagan's whole family has denounced the biography over just that one word.
Example: Just in the paper today there was a short article on Eric Idle and Monty Python. He was quoted as saying "I have discovered I really don't mind doing Monty Python, providing none of the others are around", and at the end of the article they had to mention one of Idle's spokespeople saying he was really just trying to be funny.
Example: Jesse Ventura. That wacky governor of Minnesota has gotten into way too much trouble trying to be funny. Remember how he said he wanted to be reincarnated as a 36DD Bra? How he thinks religion is for weak minded people? He's had to backtrack for the entire time he's in office over some of the stuff he's said.
Nobody has a sense of humor, and frankly, I'd be afraid to have any of my old messages show up if I became a public figure. Geek humor is very strange, and very difficult to understand, and waay too easy to take seriously. I like to tell dead baby jokes, call people idiots, and be an all around misanthrope/misogynist. I would be dead meat if some of my old messages popped up and the media got it's hands on them.
My solution for old emails and usenet posts (Score:3)
Then, if someone corners me about an old post, I'll look it over, with a puzzled expression on my face, and finally say.
"Dude, I wrote that? I must have been blitzed on some serious 'cid at the time, whoa!"
George
Where does it all lead to? (Score:3)
However, on the other hand is the point that people should think before the speak. Quite often that is the core of the problems. Especially when you are a figure of power, high standing, or just well-known, it is important to be careful with what you say or write, because of course people will interpret things, and quote you on what you say. If you have thoughts you wish to express, but you don't want them to be thrown back at you as in 'You said
So if people would take a bit more accountability into consideration when writing things, or when giving interviews or speeches, etc... And if the media could perhaps stick a bit more to reporting rather than scandal and headline hunting, things would look alot better.
Sounds like the hopes of a dreamer, right?
Anonymity (Score:3)
As far the "Media" focusing on individuals is concerned, I think that this is something that we all do. It is easier for us as individuals to focus on specific individuals. In regard to bands, for instance, people tend to focus their attention on the vocalist as an individual, even if the band is truly a collective effort.
Re:Eagles may soar... (Score:3)
<optimism>
This does make me wonder: how long will it be before someone turns the openness of their opinions into an asset? If the media try to spin some comment out of context it could easily backfire if that entire context is available for the asking; the publication or reporter who tried this might wind up zeroing their own credibility. And imagine what might happen if the public starts using the Net as a way to check on the views of candidates. Who's going to be more "real" to a discerning electorate: someone who's been on the record for years, or someone whose carefully-tailored platform appeared ex nihilo on their campaign web site last week?
</optimism><normal_cynicism>
"Discerning electorate"? What was I thinking. Never mind!
--
Deja Moo: The feeling that
mass scribbling on the WELL (Score:3)
Never use your real name (Score:5)
Who knows, maybe the ideology or F word may be out of fashion and make you look like an idiot. Or maybe your writings were never very sombre to start with.
Another good reason is that you don't want to land up in a collected database. Information is always collected. Just check up your name on whowhere.com or similar engines - you may be in for a shock.