Re: Seriously on the Netiquette
> > > > I have checked the real netiquette, and it has changed a lot since I last read it.
> > > > My main concern is that Google does not respect privacy, and here is Rule 8
> > > > asking people to respect privacy.
> > > >
> > > > I wrote that we own the messages, certainly the poster, and yet Google archives
> > > > and distributes messages. Though Google claims that a message is still owned
> > > > by the poster, it archives them as a private business, and distributes them for the
> > > > public, be it my mother's posts or anybodies, a certain privacy is being disrespected.
> > > > Why? Because what probably the real netiquette fails to mention, is that most
> > > > messages are of discussions regarding personal, private interests. And distributing
> > > > such materials infringes on human dignity. I don't know how to explain it better
> > > > today, I wrote about this, and there is not much we can do really, other than
> > > > perhaps acknowledge that Google is indeed in violation of people's privacy.
> > > > Not everybody wishes to make history with every keystroke typed. Some turn
> > > > to usenet for a question, a question, as this one, is really a question about why
> > > > Google sells what is not for sale. Some threads may be of general interests, but
> > > > Google cannot declare usenet and all its threads as a historical significance that
> > > > MUST be archived and shared and distributed freely. The simple answer is NO.
> > > > No, because I have seen Ceaucescu wishing the same street camera system for
> > > > applied to all people. How much clearer can I get?
> > > >
> > > > From the original version, rule #8, and as always, companies are not asked to
> > > > abide to the netiquette:
> > > >
> > > > Rule 8: Respect other people's privacy
> > > > Of course, you'd never dream of going through your colleagues' desk drawers. So naturally you wouldn't read their email
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, a lot of people would. This topic actually rates a separate section. For now, here's a cautionary tale. I
> > > >
> > > > The case of the snoopy foreign correspondent
> > > >
> > > > In 1993, a highly regarded foreign correspondent in the Moscow bureau of the Los Angeles Times was caught reading his
> > > > email. His colleagues became suspicious when system records showed that someone had logged in to check their email at times
> > > > they knew they hadn't been near the computer. So they set up a sting operation. They planted false information in messages
> > > > another one of the paper's foreign bureaus. The reporter read the notes and later asked colleagues about the false
> > > > Bingo! As a disciplinary measure, he was immediately reassigned to another position at the paper's Los Angeles bureau.
> > > >
> > > > The moral: Failing to respect other people's privacy is not just bad Netiquette. It could also cost you your job.
> > >
> > > COMMON PEOPLE, REVOLUTION! Why not? See that's the problem.
> > To the melody of "we are the world":
> > We are the sheep, we are the nobodies, we are the big mouths, but nothing ever happening.
> > We are newgroup posters, we're only here to talk,
> > We're never do a thing that would make us use our brains,
> > We are the sheep, we we are the posters,
> > We are the ones that never make a single difference,
> > There are people sighing, and others sighing too,
> > Just don't expect us use our heads as we are done with you.
> > We are the sheep, we are the posters,
> > As long as Google archives us and thus
> > we herd as... ****it
> > We are the sheep, we are the nobodies,
> > please don't tell us what to do or else we'll, what?
> > I forgot the question.
> Let's look at another one, Rule number 3 from the old netiquette:
> Breaking the law is bad Netiquette
> If you're tempted to do something that's illegal in cyberspace, chances are it's also bad Netiquette.
> Some laws are obscure or complicated enough that it's hard to know how to follow them. And in some cases, we're still establishing
> how the law applies to cyberspace. Two examples are the laws on privacy (see Rule 8 and "Email Privacy -- a Grand Illusion" on
> 125) and copyright (see "Copyright in Cyberspace" on page 133).
> Again, this is a book on manners, not a legal manual. But Netiquette mandates that you do your best to act within the laws of
> society and cyberspace.
> Rule 3: Know where you are in cyberspace
> Netiquette varies from domain to domain
> What's perfectly acceptable in one area may be dreadfully rude in another. For example, in most TV discussion groups, passing on
> idle gossip is perfectly permissible. But throwing around unsubstantiated rumors in a journalists' mailing list will make you very
> unpopular there.
> And because Netiquette is different in different places, it's important to know where you are. Thus the next corollary:
> Lurk before you leap
> When you enter a domain of cyberspace that's new to you, take a look around. Spend a while listening to the chat or reading the
> archives. Get a sense of how the people who are already there act. Then go ahead and participate.
In my netiquette I wrote: Stick to the topic of the thread as ignoring the topic is very humiliating to the
originator of the thread. See I focus on different sides, based on my experience, more like a users
guide than a moral standpoint. Moral standpoint, why treat the whole netiquette as religion, that's one
of the mistakes of the netiquette. You remember at use? Citizens at use (with cameras on their foreheads)?
There is a problem with people becoming Internet citizens in their behaviors. Well, this is where the Orwellianism in the
whole thing comes out really, and the crimes against humanity behind it all, of what it all has become. Nicholae
Googlescu Googorwell's company and his private paradise venture on the global Internet.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.