«

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > : 2. Archiving usenet messages violates civil rights.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevent, even if it were somehow true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All usenet messages are inherently archived, that's how usenet
> > works -
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message must be assigned to some form of permanent storage so
> others
> > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read it later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Police records are archived too. But there are laws that people
who
> > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behaving fine for a long time, their records may be dropped.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Postings are communicated to uncountable numbers of computers,
> each
> > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which then saves its own copies the messages so the users of
that
> > > system
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can read them later at their convenience. Each computer keeps
the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > messages for whatever period of time the computer owner finds
most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appropriate for the convenience of the people using that
computer
> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > access and read the messages.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's perfectly fine. I agree. That's how it was designed. There
is
> > > > nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong with that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't like that then don't post anything.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That, I like. I have no problem with what you are saying here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Ok, it starts from here, and... ends with millions of crimes, as
> severe
> > > as
> > > > > > crimes
> > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > humanity.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Info:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Law. Google Groups Beta is already an illegal product by law, and
> > easily
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an illegal product in California, and Google is a Californian based
> > company.
> > > > > > Groups
> > > > > > > > Beta
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > violates civil rights. Archiving by law is not allowed. This is not a
> > court,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > prove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it as illegal. I am not going to go to court, but Groups Beta's
> archiving
> > > > proves
> > > > > > > > > illegal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Archiving discussion forums wasn't illegal last year, but its illegal
> > today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. What kind of usenet archiving style is illegal? Can Universities
> archive?
> > > > Yes,
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't provide a full public access to their archive. You may think,
that's
> > > > > strange,
> > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do that? Full public access to the usenet usenet does prove to be a
> > "corrupt"
> > > > > idea.
> > > > > > > Why?
> > > > > > > > > Its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something megalomaniacal, but hard to explain. The point is we can find
> very
> > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > laws,
> > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prove this and that and that, and we could find that "what Groups Beta
> does
> > is
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > illegal",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and not only they shouldn't do what they do, but they really cannot do
it.
> > So
> > > > what
> > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of archiving is illegal? Am I mumbling like a professor? The answer is:
> > > Specific
> > > > > > > purpose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > archiving is allowed, but general purpose and granting full access to
> usenet
> > > > > > (historic
> > > > > > > > > > > > archiving)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not allowed, by law, or at least not by a business entity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So a long analysis may follow, on who's right, who's wrong, why, what,
what
> > for,
> > > > who
> > > > > > > > cares,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and this and that...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Specific law: If someone does identity theft, people should have the
right
> to
> > > > > restore
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > caused by the identity theft crime. Google does not guarrantee that as a
> result
> > of
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > crimes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people can remove the damage from their archive. Google claims, that in such
> > cases
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should resolve such problems between each other in court, as Google never
acts
> > as
> > > a
> > > > > > > mediator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between people's problems caused online. California recognized, that such
> > problems
> > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > effect the company running the web site, and they must assist in the removal
> of
> > > > > personal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information regarding identity thefts (including name, address, credit card
> > > number,
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'personal' that shouldn't belong on the websites). So this California law,
> > called
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > antiphishing law, overrules Google's black and white policies, but, as it
> turns
> > > out,
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a catastrophic result to their Groups Beta product. I'll explain that in
> detail
> > > > > > tomorrow,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps. Right now I am going to throw up a little.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I messed up a sentence:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Specific law: If someone does identity theft, people should have the right
to
> > > > restore
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > problems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > caused by the identity theft crime. Google does not guarrantee that as a
result
> of
> > > > *any*
> > > > > > > > crimes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people will be able to remove the damage caused by any crime from their Groups
> > > > archive.
> > > > > > > Google
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > claims, that in such cases people should resolve such problems between each
> other
> > in
> > > > > > court,
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Google never acts as a mediator between people's problems caused online in
their
> > > > > archive.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (this is very brief explanation)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California recognized, that such problems indeed effect the company running
the
> > web
> > > > > site,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they must assist in the removal of personal information regarding identity
> thefts
> > > > > > (including
> > > > > > > > > name,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > address, credit card number, anything 'personal' that shouldn't belong on
their
> > > > > websites).
> > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California law, called the antiphishing law, overrules Google's black and
white
> > > > > policies,
> > > > > > > but,
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it turns out, with a catastrophic result to their Groups Beta product. I'll
> > explain
> > > > that
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > detail
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tomorrow, perhaps. Right now I am going to throw up a little.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding: Basically Google must act as a mediator. You need to be familiar with
> Google
> > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand what that means, and what this conflict really... who cares, right?
> > Sorry.
> > > > > NoGood
> > > > > > > > > night.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Continuing: The anti-phishing law simply states that websites should remove any
> > personal
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > upon request, and failure to do so is a civil rights violation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I contacted Google, and told them that my identity was stolen, for the sole
> purpose
> > > of
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > molesting me, and to have those messages removed. Google replied that the don't
> care,
> > as
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't mediate and they can only remove messages that I myself posted. They told me
> > that
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have those messages removed, I must sue that person, and have the court order him
to
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those messages removed. Meanwhile the guy used my name and email to post so many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > messages, that people replied, and even if he would have those messages removed,
> other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people's replied quoted that message, and in no time the damage became simply not
> > > > > removeable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I couldn't sue a thousand people who replied to him. It was just ridiculous, the
> whole
> > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > California recognized that Google must cooperate by the removal of these posts as
> not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing so is a civil **** you. So cutting the story short, Groups Beta is illegal,
> the
> > > > whole
> > > > > > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course as an intelligent person, you never needed to seek for laws to understand
> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what Google does with Groups Beta is like Orwell's 1984, something that should never
> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed in the first place. Though the original netiquette warns that archiving is
> done,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > publishing discussions that are made from the comfort of people's homes is an
extreme
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > human rights violation. But that's where the case continues...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, nobody cares. Only those many many educated who raised their voices about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > privacy when DejaNews began commercial archiving in 1995 and publishing usenet as a
> whole.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the whole thing is really a giant human rights privacy violation. Not what the
> > > netiquette
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was saying about archiving, but what DejaNews, and later Google does. Its not allowed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Humanity is injured by such products, and humanity is very big.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A big human, juicy human rights violation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drink juice. Huma huma. Huma huma huma. Drink juice.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where are those million people from 1995 who screamed up incredibly all over the world
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when DejaNews began archiving. My people. And they are the people who are not here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because this place is a human end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WHERE ARE YOU!!!!! ???
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WHERE ARE YOU!!!! ???
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I went to research and found that no educated person would ever post to usenet.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All the educated agree on that. Why would I ever go to usenet - they say - use is for ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I can't say)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (the intelligent calls usenet use)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use... USE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm so alone... in the land of U.S.E. Crimes Against Humanitee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't it bother you that you are archived in such a spitty down on you forms by Google?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you people don't understand what I am saying.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm so alone... in the land of U.S.E. Crimes Against Humanitee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you people@use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you jesusians
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you servants
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > google your boss
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > google say: don't be evil (that is Google's ounding logo. Don't be evil.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is the ancient Catholic Church, and the big one is making you behave well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because you are watched.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but, you people have no problem with that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a crimes against humanity zone territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have no idea what I am talking about... that's so sad. But according to you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people this is your world, and not mine. Especially not mine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mass human rights violations, International Crimes Against humanity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commercializing usenet is not the problem. Making a customer service
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dependency to the entire usenet is a problem. But anyway, read the new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'real' netiquette. I am not going to explain it all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "OK, Google is a religion. Call me not religious. Well, that's not enough for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > me. I need a revenge."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Just read the new netiquette, and you will understand that its much better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I'll shut up and die humanly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Crimes Against Humanity. Do you want me to prove it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The new netiquette here mentions International Crimes Against Humanity, but just
> > > > > > > > > > > mentions. Its an international crimes against humanity, because people's human
> > > > > > > > > > > rights are being violated by Groups Beta world wide. People have no choice,
> > > > > > > > > > > Google decided to do what they do, and usenet is not the same 'excellent'
> > > > > > > > > > > as its original design and purpose was. Why not? Because now, far primarily by
> > > > > > > > > > > Google, the entire usenet is commercialized and people cannot ignore the presence
> > > > > > > > > > > of Google regardless which newsgroup access product they use. Now everything
> > > > > > > > > > > posted to usenet is archived by Google, organized, and published for the public to
> > > > > > > > > > > access. Its commercialized. So we can't ignore that anything posted will be
> > > > > > > > > > > certainly made available to the public. And in 50 percent or so of the cases,
> > > > > > > > > > > what is posted, will remain forever undeletable. Google receives millions of
> > > > > > > > > > > message removal requests to their archive. The explanation to the problem lays
> > > > > > > > > > > in psychology. People care about their privacy and people change their minds.
> > > > > > > > > > > But unfortunately, what goes into Google's archive, if not 50 percent of the time,
> > > > > > > > > > > cannot ever be removed. It doesn't really matter in practice that one uses
> > > > > > > > > > > X-No-Archive. If people reply, forget that feature. And discussions are
> > > > > > > > > > > that. People post, and others reply, and quotes are made, and everything
> > > > > > > > > > > becomes quickly entangled inside message trees called threads. One message
> > > > > > > > > > > is on top of the other, and you can't remove the one from below. So basically
> > > > > > > > > > > what this means, that if you decide that you want to remove all your posts
> > > > > > > > > > > under an email address from Google's Groups Beta archive, you have very little
> > > > > > > > > > > chance to succeed in that idea. So Google does not respect privacy. They don't.
> > > > > > > > > > > They have two privacy features (X-No-Archive and deleting one's own messages
> > > > > > > > > > > that help, but these features just help). The problem is that not only that Google
> > > > > > > > > > > is by far the primary violator of privacy regarding usenet, but that violating
> > > > > > > > > > > privacy on mass scales is not allowed. I don't know how to explain that. Due to
> > > > > > > > > > > the size usenet represents... as its one of the core founding features of the Internet,
> > > > > > > > > > > and due to the International aspects, and due to commercializing something that is
> > > > > > > > > > > International and Global, really cannot be privatized as a whole. Anyway the
> > > > > > > > > > > violation of human rights due to the magnitude of Google's intrusion on international
> > > > > > > > > > > territory is so huge, that Groups Beta is a violator of 'international human crimes'.
> > > > > > > > > > > Human dignity cannot be intruded on with such a mass privacy violation, commercializing
> > > > > > > > > > > something that is global and international, and public, its not allowed. Basically Google
> > > > > > > > > > > violates everything the International Spirit is about, which is about respecting international
> > > > > > > > > > > territory, and not violating something that is usually considered a crimes against humanity
> > > > > > > > > > > elsewhere. But you people didn't know that, did you?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Imagine if everybody who talks in the streets in the USA must carry a wireless net camera,
> > > > > > > > > > and send the chat to my company, and any disputes over what is recorded should go through
> > > > > > > > > > my customer service department. Well people say, well this is the Internet. Its not the streets.
> > > > > > > > > > That is simply not true. This is an Internet street where people talk.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Orwell, man, and that's an extreme human rights violation. The most extreme crime in the world.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Google. The most extreme human rights violation in the world.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WHERE ARE MY PEOPLE!!!! ??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The College come, revenge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 10/21/2005
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gazillions_of_tavarishes@use_with_cameras_on_their _foreheads is not my style of building
> > > > > > a new world.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello.
> > > > >
> > > > > How are you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doing fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where are you going?
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't say. (pointing at camera)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, at use, tavarish.
> > > > >
> > > > > At use!
> > > > >
> > > > > (going on their ways)
> > > >
> > > > At use, tavarish!
> > > >
> > > > Good day at use!
> > > >
> > > > I see you are jolly today!
> > > >
> > > > Quite indeed, jolly jolly, thank you.
> > > >
> > > > Can I ask a question?
> > > >
> > > > Is it of any use?
> > > >
> > > > Of course.
> > > >
> > > > Go ahead, tell me.
> > > >
> > > > So who is usenet for?
> > > >
> > > > For us, of course, who else.
> > > >
> > > > And who are we?
> > > >
> > > > We are at use!
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.
> > > >
> > > > At use tavarish.
> > > >
> > > > At use indeed! Jolly on!
> > > >
> > > > (aparting)
> > >
> > > Child getting his first 'at use' forehead camera.
> > >
> > > Child touching camera on his forehead: Mommy, who made us like this?
> > >
> > > Mommy: Well, AT USE made us like this. Congratulations. You are now officially at use.
> > > At use! (waving bye), go to the streets, go go, try out your new camera, and I'll check you
> > > right here on our home computer, an AT USE compatible computer, at use my child!
> > >
> > > Child: At use mommy!
> >
> > Kid goes out to the street. He is seeing a group of people telling a tavarish: "Tavarish,
> > you are not allowed on this street any more. You are plunked, and killfiled, and
> > we are making an official record of the event. Please take your now humiliated life at use
> > elsewhere. You are of no more use here any more.
>
> Someone on the street: Hey kid, be a good boy at use, you don't want to end up like
> that man over there, being thrown out of this street. At use, kid!
>
> Kid: Thank you for the advice, at use, tavarish.

"I am simply throwing out the old AT USE oriented netiquette, and I say no more 'at use'
*cameras* on net streets on people's foreheads. Welcome to the the new netiquette."