«

> > > > > > 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
> > > either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, a lot of people would. This topic actually rates a separate section. For now, here's a cautionary tale. I
> > call
> > > it
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > coworkers'
> > > > > > email. His colleagues became suspicious when system records showed that someone had logged in to check their email at
> times
> > > when
> > > > > > they knew they hadn't been near the computer. So they set up a sting operation. They planted false information in
messages
> > > from
> > > > > > another one of the paper's foreign bureaus. The reporter read the notes and later asked colleagues about the false
> > > information.
> > > > > > 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
> > page
> > > 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.
>
> Ok, let's take another random rule:
>
>
> Rule 9: Don't abuse your power
> Some people in cyberspace have more power than others. There are wizards in MUDs (multi-user dungeons), experts in every office,
and
> system administrators in every system.
>
>
> Knowing more than others, or having more power than they do, does not give you the right to take advantage of them. For example,
> sysadmins should never read private email.
>
>
> For more on the abuse of power in the milieu of computer networks, see "Egregious Netiquette Violations" on page 83. For more
about
> privacy, see "Email Privacy: a Grand Illusion?" on page 125.

A sect. A sect is a sect is a sect.