Re: The Real Netiquette

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by oj, Oct 21, 2005.

  1. oj

    oj Guest

    > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > : 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.
    oj, Oct 21, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Trent SC

    The new 'real' netiquette (draft)

    Trent SC, Oct 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    447
  2. Rich Wilson

    The Real Netiquette

    Rich Wilson, Oct 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    540
    Lick my Decals off, Baby! uh Clem...
    Oct 22, 2005
  3. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    355
  4. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    559
  5. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    502
Loading...

Share This Page