«

> > > > > > "Google, distribute your mothers' usenet messages, not others'."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These messages are ours, not Google's. We are the world. We are the children, Google
> > > > > > is not our message daddy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, it is illegal to infringe and distribute messages that in general contain questions of
> > > > > specific personal interests to daily life. In a way its like distributing emails or phone
> > > > > conversations. There is an immense human rights violation to what Google does, because
> > > > > of what the intent of the original usenet was, and what it became after many people around
> > > > > the world raising their voices when DejaNews announced usenet archiving and private
> > > > > distribution of usenet.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Google, distribute your mothers' usenet messages, not others'."
> > > > >
> > > > > Piracy is nice in the movies, but in real life, its a serious human rights problem, at the least,
> > > > > and this problem effects all message "contributors". Should we all be at use at all times
> > > > > and be sectlike contributors to usenet and its netiquette?
> > > > >
> > > > > In the Sunstitute Netiquette, I wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (We need to reconsider, and tell Google that they shouldn't archive and distribute
> > > > > usenet messages, as that infringes on personal rights of privacy on the great sea,
> > > > > of the Internet. Maybe not so great when it turns out that Google is the primary
> > > > > private archiver of usenet at large, and abusing basic humanity with its piracy scheme.
> > > > > Unfortunately I am speaking the realm, that standing up against a great privacy infringment
> > > > > is the correct thing, especially in the days that a company is running a class action
> > > > > lawsuit against Google's piracy of millions of books they scanned from public libraries.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Google, distribute your mothers' usenet messages, not others'." People are alive,
> > > > > and not, that, which Google wants people to be not people, but sectlike contributors
> > > > > to their mad piracies."
> > > >
> > > > Archiving messages which are of personal interests and conducts, are just like Orwell's
> > > > 1984 or Ceaucescu's street cameras. A severe violation of human rights, in fact, such
> > > > human rights violations are in general considered dictatorships and acts of crimes against
> > > > humanity (in the USA considered crimes against the public, or against the civilians, and
> > > > thus a civil rights violation.)
> > >
> > > Contunuing: In reality, Google infringing on public privacy matters is Google Orwellianizing
> > > the public with its pirating spirit. They are one of a kind company. When Microsoft has
> > > one privacy leak (security leak) in their products, its a headline. But a different kind of
> > > privacy is violated by Google, one that unilaterally creates an open and shared and a distributed
> > > and privately controlled environment over the usenet as a whole, with a customer service
> > > to usenet as a whole, invalidating other smaller-sized usenet products, setting unilateral...
> > > am I a human rights lawyer already? Just because I am taking a human rights shot at this
> > > megalomania, and see the reality involving this privacy abuse and its sadistic empirical
> > > corporate ... bla bla
> >
> > I mean the right thing to do is to immediately stop Google's human rights orwellian abuses
> > on the Internet. But hey, unregulated, so we cannot expect piracy spirited companies
> > to not abuse this new sea, which naturally attracts pirates, as Gold is plenty, including in
> > this thread too.
>
> ... or just be a contributor to Google's piracy operations like everybody else. A suckup to
> a real crime.

Human rights crimes for net suckups, distributing and selling mother's messages.