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.


    Google. The most extreme human rights violation 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:
    479
  2. Rich Wilson

    The Real Netiquette

    Rich Wilson, Oct 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    568
    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:
    374
  4. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    582
  5. oj

    Re: The Real Netiquette

    oj, Oct 21, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    516
Loading...

Share This Page