[PLUG] Posting history crisis...

Ronald Chmara ron at Opus1.COM
Tue May 29 05:54:35 UTC 2007


On May 28, 2007, at 4:05 PM, someone wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 09:54 -0700, Michael Rasmussen wrote:
>> Rogan Creswick wrote:
>>> Double indents indicate someone <plug_1 at robinson-west.com> wrote:
>>>> Why is the list being archived indefinitely anyways?
>> It's the way of the net.
> I see no reason why a system allowing you to indicate,
> "I don't want post X which I submitted to this list archived,"
> can't be discussed here.

So, Scientologists (or whoever) could, say, redact everything posted  
to a list they didn't like, by impersonating users?

> A python/perl/php based engine could show you all of your old
> posts and allow you to set an archive preference.  From that,
> a search for other posts quoting one you don't want archived
> can be done so that those posts will get cut as well.

So, not only censoring *your* own individual words, but *also* the  
words of others? I'm pretty sure that won't fly. Reality is not  
something people will happily allow others to re-write.

Personally knowing a few people who participated in the Froistad  
matter (to save you some googling, he confessed in an online email  
listserv to intentionally murdering his own 5 year old daughter,  
years after it was thought to be an accident), I can say with some  
certainty (after much discussion with them) that once a cat is out of  
the bag, there's no getting rid of it. Once somebody has hit send,  
and "published" their message, they might as well have printed it in  
a thousand copies, and nailed it to telephone polls, mailed a copy to  
the library of congress, and hand-delivered a copy to their mother.

Have an editorial: <http://psychcentral.com/froistad.htm>

>>>> Surely, I'm not the only one concerned about this who has
>>>> posted here before.
>> Part of knowing that lists (the vast majority of, not just this  
>> one) are
>> archived indefinitely is coming to a degree of tolerance.   
>> Everyone has
>> embarrassing bits archived out there someplace. It does promote an
>> acknowledgement that no one is perfect all the time.
> Accomodating someone's wishes is sometimes seen as a sign of
> respect.

Froistad: Can you remove my online murder confession?
List Manager: uhm, no. You published it to thousands of hard drives  
all over the world. Any of the places you chose to publish to, by  
posting, can make their personal archives public at any time..... See  
you in 25-30 years.

> The more comfortable people are communicating over
> the Net, the more effectively they will use it.  In this age
> of rampant identity theft and growing concerns about the Net
> becoming a toxic treatise on everyone who uses it, I see that
> the matter of what should be archived and made accessible is
> a growing one.

If there is rampant identity theft, there can also be rampant false  
requests of removal (in your proposed scheme). So, an enemy could  
request all posts of yours be removed, except for the joke you made  
involving sheep and cliffs.

As far as private communications systems, that are *not* archived,  
those certainly do exist (in a few places), but all parties have to  
agree to not capture or store that information. When you're deep  
inside certain industries (such as working with TOP SECRET or Q  
information) releasing that data is enforceable by 10 years of jail,  
per infraction.

Everything else, by default, is slowly getting archived (in the US)  
for SARBOX reasons, liability reasons, and system restoration reasons.

> Civil liberties fanatics scream about having photos of people
> taken at the Super Bowl to filter out terrorists, but I guess
> if someone doesn't want to be archived here that this isn't
> considered a valid privacy concern.

If you don't want to be archived, you need to have a pre-arranged  
agreement with all parties involved that they will not archive....

It's not that far from being taped at the super-bowl. If you don't  
want to have your actions recorded by anybody with a camera there,  
don't go there.

If you want to be on an email list without anybody archiving the  
list, you have to be on a list where all parties agree to not  
archive, and there is some form of enforcement/penalty for doing so.

>> What problem would that be?  That in the future someone will find  
>> out I didn't
>> consult the man page and asked a brain dead syntax question?  That my
>> knowledge is limited and I know there's lots of someones who know  
>> what I need
>> to know and will share?
> Must we discriminate against people in public who ask simple and/or
> unnecessary questions?

Yes.

If your post history is 95% asking questions, and 5% answering  
questions, people will know ahead of time that you are more  
interested in having others do your work than doing it yourself and  
helping others. It's discrimination against people who are unhelpful  
to the community, against "vampires" who want to suck from F/OSS  
rather than pull their own weight.

There is an actual solution to this, of course.

Spend more time helping others, as compared to asking others to help  
you.

If somebody googles you, and sees 300 helpful responses, and one  
silly question, they will know that you will be capable of helping  
them. If they see 300 posts about breaking into machines, and only  
one post about preventing breakins, they will again have an accurate  
picture.

-Bop





More information about the PLUG mailing list