Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scared of Your Own Words?

Hemos posted more than 14 years ago | from the deleting-yourself dept.

The Media 156

RedCedar writes "James Rutt, the CEO of Network Solutions has deleted all of his postings from the Well, apparently for fear of having some of them used against him in news stories. The Washington Post has this story on it. " Regardless of who it is, this is an interesting trend, I think perpuated by The Media in general of focusing on the person. Do you think this will become a more regular occurence? Am I going to have to wipe my own comments? *grin*

cancel ×

156 comments

Re:This is becoming more and more of an issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631580)

Don't think so.

It has already happened in Spain (sort of). Mr. JM Aznar (current Prime Minister) was found to have sent a letter to the press in the early seventies (when he was a teenager) claiming for stricter adherence to the genuine principles of the local version of fascism.

But after 1975, almost everybody ignored everybody else's past unpolite sayings for democracy's sake.

So when it was unveiled in the 90s, it was just a quick laugh. Or maybe a skillful stroke of spindoctoring. (Don't suspect CIA or MS)

Anyway I am posting this anonymously, just in case. Thanks Rob (supposing you are not logging IPs)

not me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631583)

i don't know if this is a first post or not; i'm posting it anonymously just in case i make an ass of myself. better anonymous than brave, right?

well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631586)

it sucks that people feel like they have to leave no evidence of their thoughts.
I think the media is out of control in terms of taste and there will be a cultural backlash.

Dejanews *IS* echelon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631589)

Dejanews is actually an NSA storehouse of all internet news content. They're tracking us. Collecting every word we post. Dejanews ignores cmsg cancel messages. Everyone go out and look up all of your own posts. See how stupid you were when you were new to the 'net? Can't believe you said that? Does your own posting history smell of a psychological profile of oneself? And how would you interpret that self profile? Scary isn't it?

Re:Dejanews *IS* echelon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631590)

As a member of both the amiga.advocacy and os2.advocacy USENET groups back in their early 90's prime days, I must admit that I would be pretty much unemployable by any company who would look me up on the various search engines. (Unless they want someone with strong opinions on computer technology, who is not afraid to say so). For this reason I now always post using assumed names or anonymous coward. I also have MANY assumed names so that no one of them draws too much attention.

Should be Required Reading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631591)

The article should be required reading for all slashdot posters. Perhaps it's wishful thinking that getting people to read the article and think about this would lead to fewer flame wars...

The mystification of the Media! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631595)

<Conspiracy Theory>

Okay.. I Have wondered for some time. Who really runs the Media?

We speak of the Media as a large gelatinous oozing unit that is apparently the Bane of the world.

Surely all media people(groups) have different amounts of media influence. Thus some one person must be more of a driving force than another?

Right now all you ever hear is 'the media' and at a glance it would appear to be a large and unruly mob out to destroy our way of life.

I am thinking perhaps this is not the case. Unfortunately I am not sure who really runs the media but I am definately sure they enjoy the atmosphere that exists

The way media works now it reminds me of the way the wooden 'O' from shakspeare's when a Richer person privileged enough to sit in the upper decks would drop a morsel of food and enjoy the chaos that ensued

But then we are all in the pit now not striving to be above the lawyers and the 'mystical media' we are just there chugging along with them.

</Conspiracy Theory>

Re:power is not what it's cracked up to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631596)

Actually, I think we'll be cursing Linus Torvalds for the BSOD in Windows 2000. Because he stole away a lot of the mindshare, and look what it left us.

(and of course I am posting this anonymously- some people don't have a good sense of humor)

Not just public figures... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631599)

Certainly, employers now make regular use of searches to find out about prospective employees. This practice seems to be fairly common and well entrenched, so it's not just the famous that need to be concerned about the impact of what might have been said or posted, or the fact something posted long ago might come back to haunt you. This is a concern for one and all.

Re:Anonymity is a Ruse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631607)

Can be a useful ruse though... I don't recall any particular examples from during the American Revolution (not much need to publish when in the middle of a war, is there) but in 1787 - 1788 the Federalist Papers were published anonymously, to great advantage. -Publius

As a Registered Representative... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631608)

The internet has really caused in upheavel in my industry: The full-service brokerage Industry.

In the old days (well, before the internet), every single letter that we sent out to client's had to be read, and approved by a principle. Mass mailings had to be sent to compliance in New York to be approved. Going on the radio or TV for interviews on the market or whatever topic was universally denied. Essentially, it was very difficult to send out even a simple newsletter.

The reason for this, is that the firm does not want to be sued by someone believing their broker's opinion was the same as that of the company. There is even an archaic law that forbids us to recommend stocks that the company is not recommending.

Nowadays, these rules are still enforced, but you can imagine the problems with brokers having access to e-mail. My firm is planning on rolling out an intranet and accounts for all brokers in about two weeks now. Every message that we send outside the firm goes through New York, which will trigger at such key words as "guarantee" or "hot item".

I was quickly denied a while back when I brought up the idea of running a web site for my clients!

There is also the problem of brokers (like me) posting their opinions on chat, or news groups. For a while, under my user's account, I would post my opinions on certain companies and different strategies I felt were beneficial when it came to investing. I quickly stopped doing so when I heard of a few cases where brokers were fired for doing the same exact thing.

That scares the hell out of me. I would love to post more often on companies mentioned in slashdot, and I would love to help people when securities and investing are written about... but I fear for losing my job.

There is nothing wrong with me voicing and speaking my opinions... but the idea is that, if they are written down, it is possible that my company or I can be held responsible for those opinions.

That is very frustrating, and I hope things change soon.

Heh, Network solutions (1)

Shanoyu (975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631609)

For the first time I actually have some respect for NS, although he did remove his postings they are, essentially, a private discussion between him and the other members of 'the well'.

Essentially what the story attatched to this article and most stories in question about just about anything (See: Jesse Ventura, convient part about that is that it's in playboy so they can make it out however they want and theres a chance no one 'respectable' in the media will find out) media related, they tend to take exerpts in a manner that 'shades the truth' also known as 'spin'. Now, if this is an archive from 1989 to 1999, you can be damn well sure that whatever he says will not be taken in context.

He kind of has to in order to protect himself otherwise he'll just be a martyr to the mainstream media, god I hate them right now, can you tell? I can see this becomming an exerpt one day on MSNBC.

I gotta give him one thing though, he certainly doesn't have a mainstream taste for women. Which is a good thing because if this keeps up we wont have to look at the glorified hungry who eat nothing all day and are just skeletons with skin tacked on. (See: Ally McBeal) I don't like breaking skin when I tap someone on the sholder, you know? ^_^


-[ World domination - rains.net ]-

I can I can! (1)

Shanoyu (975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631610)

I have.

The key is to not let people know who you are from the start.

Maybe if you follow my urls read my sigs track everything i've ever posted for a few years, then you'll find someone who has my name in an IRC Log, other than that, good luck, and even if you did find it, I have a very common name :)


-[ World domination - rains.net ]-

Re:Definitely a trend (1)

Shanoyu (975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631611)

Cut

paste

Not useful.


-[ World domination - rains.net ]-

They Look before They Hire (1)

mgrennan (2067) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631612)

Your right. You can't hide.

I beleive AOL does news and web searches on everone looking for a job at AOL. I know other companies are doing this.

How have you been in the News? Did your kids win a socker game? Did you buy a new house? Have you been arrested for durnk driving? Do you post to HATE news groups? What does your web site say about you? Do you like guns?


No place to hide (1)

LordChaos (2432) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631614)

...Somewhere, someone will have cached it, copied it, given it to their grandmother
On the internet, everyone can hear you scream
Personally I think its impossible to ever completely cover your tracks on the internet..no matter how diligantly you try..

Internet honesty and personal growth (1)

substrate (2628) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631615)

I think the more honest thing would have been to leave the posts up. I've posted responses to many things here on slashdot over the last couple of years, I wouldn't remove any of them. In some instances I've posted things that were wrong. In other instances I've posted views that don't hold with my current views. Some of these views have been modified by especially eloquent posts by others on slashdot. That's personal growth, its nothing to be ashamed of. I'm semi-anonymous in that I don't post under my real name and I've removed my email address not too long ago (thanks to a rather hostile email bombing response to one of my postings) but the persona is still me. A couple of friends have figured out that this is the persona I post under. I don't worry about this, it just means that I'm honest about my opinions and don't let the facade or moderation modify my views.

The best response to anybody dredging up old posts would be to say hey, that was posted N years ago, at the time its how I felt. When I was a kid I wrote letters to Santa too. If you'd like I can probably get some samples from my parents.

The admission would speak better of the person than a futile attempt to remove all traces of their net existance.

Re:stopping post archiving. (1)

larien (5608) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631618)

X-no-archive is used a lot by a certain group of monks in a certain usenet group (if you don't know what I mean, you don't deserve to know). Past posts in that group have been dredged up to haunt their writers. The group is there to rant about the stupidities of management, software vendors and a whole host of other idiots. Some of these idiots don't particularly like to be attacked in this manner. I think sackings have resulted from this as well.
--

Re:I'd never erase my own words (1)

mischief (6270) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631621)

never never

Ahh, you say that now, but what happens when you become CEO of Blue Hat BSD Distributions and someone brings up that post about the dog and the nun you posted back in 97?

--

Re:Protecting our rights on line? (1)

revnight (8980) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631622)

one of the fine print bits at the top of each /. states specifically that the owners of the site DO NOT own the words of posters...

why would the owners of /., or any other site, want to place itself in legal comment because of a statement that someone that they have no control over made.

not to mention that many people around here would stop posting if /. tried to claim a posters words as property of the site.

didn't this kinda come up awhile back during some talk of a dead tree version of /.?

Re:Protecting our rights on line? (1)

revnight (8980) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631623)

one of the fine print bits at the top of each /. states specifically that the owners of the site DO NOT own the words of posters...

why would the owners of /., or any other site, want to place itself in legal trouble because of a statement made by someone that they've no control over?

not to mention that many people around here would stop posting if /. tried to claim a posters words as property of the site.

didn't this kinda come up awhile back during some talk of a dead tree version of /.?

Re:My solution for old emails and usenet posts (1)

llywrch (9023) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631624)

An easier response would be, ``I don't recognize that email. Someone must have forged it & made it look as if it came from me."

Anyone here who has received spam & trolled thru the headers knows how easy it is to forge return addresses. It requires a bit of effort to identify the location of the actual sender -- & exponentially more to actually identify the creep.

And then we get into the problem that anyone can take a piece of electronic data & manipulate it. Turning a harmless email from Jane Schmoe into a racist death threat is a trivial exercise. (And if you can't figure out how to do it, please leave Slashdot & find another forum more to your level -- like WebTV.)

Quite simply, if someone claims you wrote a given piece of email, the burden of proof is on them, not you.

Online forums, however, are a little more difficult -- but sites *do* get cracked all of the time. And passwords sniffed. Still insist on the accusing party to prove authorship.


Geoff
(or perhaps a cracker pretending to be him)

Re:Never use your real name (1)

PD (9577) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631625)

I always use my real name on the internet.

Someday when I run for president, I'll have to make up a fake name.

Seriously, in a few years it will be a routine thing to search for politician's postings on Deja.com. That will be a crazy situation, because a lot of them got onto the internet in college. I don't know about everyone else, but I am a far different person now at 30 that I was at 18. If someone were to look up posts that I made back in the 1980's, they would look pretty silly. I don't think it's fair to hold a candidate to higher standards. Words uttered at 18 in the middle of a flame war don't have any real correlation to the actual physical person, maybe two decades later. A lot of people might get tarnished unfairly.

stopping post archiving. (1)

mattc (12417) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631626)

You can remove your posts from dejanews archive by going to http://www.dejanews.com/forms/nuke.shtml .. unfortunately this is just one of many such archiving services and I doubt you'd ever be able to get them all. [dejanews.com]

Another way is to add the "X-no-archive: yes" header to your messages. If you are using Mutt put "my_hdr X-no-archive: yes" in your .muttrc (no quotes). This, however, doesn't work all the time. For example, some of the FreeBSD mailing lists are echoed to USENET newsgroups with the X-no-archive stripped out. There is nothing you can really do about this except not post to those mailing lists. Also, there are probably archiving engines out there which ignore X-no-archive just like there are probably web robots out there which ignore robots.txt

Also, you can be sure that governments keep track of all your newsgroup postings. news.cia.gov and so on.

I may be an optimist but... (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631631)

My hope is that perhaps as more and more people get online and consider it a medium for unveiling there most personal thoughts, that the existence of those thoughts will be more publicly accepted. Let's face it, we all have thoughts we don't want others to know anything about because we're afraid of how they'll react. But if everybody knew everybody else's dirty little secrets what would it matter?

I envision this press conference in the future where a press guy would dig up something about some politician's occasional visit to a dominatrix. They bring up the question at a press conference. The politician responds, "Yeah, she's a great dominatrix, if you want her phone number, talk to me after the conference." :)

Perhaps Jesse Ventura is one of the first people to start the trend that direction. He said a whole lot of offensive things in that Playboy article, but his reaction was simply to ask people to judge him by his politics not his personal beliefs. Of course he'll probably be politically burned at the stake for it, but oh well.

In a world where everybody accepts eachother's humanity and their falibility there's no need for secrecy and anonymity. That day's not now, but I can dream can't I? :)

---

Be affrade be very affrade (1)

Felinoid (16872) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631632)

This could scare people from participating in the Internet.
I don't mean just surffing but well like posting this message on /. and you reading it.. and maybe you'll comment on it.. mod it or just call me a duncehead and move on.
People with a public presona may wish not to have unstarilised comments up on /.

I can make some pritty boneheaded comments some times and thats ok your reading it in context. But if I were Bill Gates and someone snipped my comments I could be made to say anything. If Bill Gates said "Linux is ok for hackers" in a long rant against Linux then bam on the news "Bill Gates says 'Linux is ok'" eventually the comments blur and it becomes "Bill Gates makes postive comments about Linux" a Slashdot artical and MsWindows enters it's finnal days.

Thats techno politics.. government politics is worse. People running for office are often missquoted and not allwase by mistake. Only 1 in a million reporters have some political ax to grind but right now with so many doppleganger reporters who don't check out storys it only takes one to prepetuate a myth.

It's much diffrent from seeing the original on-line quote as on-line the auther controls the context not a third party.

It would help if reporters would just give refrence urls rather than quoting [or missquoting] matereal. With reporters on deadlines it's very easy to misquote and even easyer when the quote is techlaced and the reporter isn't up to speed.

This is why aliases are a good thing (1)

Otto (17870) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631633)

Having to go an erase all you thoughts and writing's for the last ten years just because you got promoted? How ridiculous. How foolish, as well.

If only he'd used an alias (well, okay, not allowed on The Well...) or an anonymous coward method to express himself, his words would still be there.

How sad.

---

Re:My solution for old emails and usenet posts (1)

Shadowlion (18254) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631634)

Funny story on that.

I had a friend in college who was 21 when I was 20. He had discovered a liking for scotch, and I had never tried it before, so one night he went out and purchased a massive bottle of Dewars. Cutting out many, many details, my friend and I, along with a third mutual friend, split the bottle three ways - straight up, no mixing or chasing.

I woke up the next morning (with virtually zero recollection of the night before) to find an email waiting in my inbox from one of my friends, asking me if I was drunk. After inquiring about how she knew, she forwarded me the email I had apparently sent her the night before.

I was surprised at how well I had actually managed to type, considering how drunk I must've been to have the large gaping hole in my memory. After a few hours, I had managed to puzzle out almost everything I had written. One sentence still eluded me, however, largely because it did not contain a single vowel.

So that "Dude, I wrote that?" isn't very far fetched. :)


Re:This is why aliases are a good thing (1)

GC (19160) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631635)

I guess not. But in the case of The Well, which is a pay-for service, there is some vetting. You need to give them a cheque or credit card details, which bears your identity. Obviously it's easy to deceive people on the net, and it is more of an issue, because there is seldom a way of tracking this down.

I have nothing against anonymity, obviously however, there is a problem if the anonymity is abused. Wasn't it funet.fi who used to provide an anonymous posting service for usenet? Didn't it get closed down because of abuse.

Re:This is why aliases are a good thing (1)

GC (19160) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631636)

Aliases have a down side too, in that anyone can dump their old identity and resurface under a different one. I did this when I left university, eight years ago. Simply to disassociate myself with comments that I might have left on Usenet which might come back to haunt me in a corporate environment.

In the hands of lower, lamer, individuals, however, the ability to change your identity can lead to havoc.

Real Names have the advantage that you know the person has thought about what they are writing and will be more conservative in their comments.

Usenet & Dejanews (1)

WasterDave (20047) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631637)

I saw a similar post on usenet, probably alt.peeves ages and ages ago about dejanews and worry about it storing the history of our lives. Me, I'm more interested in hiding some newbie limpings with MFC (I was young), but this poster had a much more valid point:

What if, at some future time, world feeling should turn against - say - industrial music, in such the same was as it has been known to against other beliefs, being Jewish for example. Once I have been tracked down and hauled up infront of the powers that be, will the prosecution be using my Usenet posts as evidence against me?

Maybe a slightly extreme example, but it does illustrate a point.

Must go, documentation beckons.
Dave :)

identity and the 'net (1)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631638)

I know exactly where he's coming from, that's why this Slashdot account doesn't use my name.

Why do I maintain a second "identity"?

Well, y'see, I have opinions. Lots of them. Some of those opinions could get me in trouble. For example, it's not completely impossible for vendors to unleash their legal beagles on folks who publicly criticize their products. I happen to think that a lot of vendors ship products that are... suboptimal. (Oh, what the hell, just a short rant.)

If I ever get my hands on the design team for DLink print server boxes, I'm going to infect the whole lot of 'em with leprosy, and force them to play hockey every day in the winter (hey, there's a face off in the corner!) and Aussie rules football every day in the summer.

If I was posting under my own name, I probably wouldn't describe a previous boss as a "spineless beancounter who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. In fact, I can't decide which is greater - my personal dislike for him as a human being, or my utter contempt for him professionally".

Or perhaps I'd hesitate to describe the last company I worked for as "a dismal hellhole where they've been so disorganized for so long that they wouldn't be able to do anything right to save their souls".

Ah, I feel better now. But I don't know if my boss would approve of those statements, and some of my customers are oversensitive fsckwits who might get offended or something.

Sure, this isn't bullet proof privacy, I'm sure the cops could find out who I am... But it's anonymous enough for my purposes.

Do I want to post this comment? (1)

Johannes K. (27905) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631642)

Good points in the article. Am I sure I want to post the comment I'm writing now? How long does /. archive comments, anyway? What if I ever get famous? Did I say anything I might regret later?

Well, I guess I'm pretty safe this time.

Re: Anonymity and the right to change my mind. (1)

ianezz (31449) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631643)

> This is one of the reasons why the ability to be anonymous on the Internet is important

Sure. But it's also silly to judge someone NOW for what s/he said X years before. Different circumnstances: it should be obvious.

We may be choerent for the whole of our life only on a small set of subjects. Otherwise, no one'd be able to change his mind _EVER_.

If the other's opinion drives your life in a significative way and you don't feel comfortable for this, well, probably you pay more attention to others than you pay to yourself.







Re:It's about honesty (1)

twrayinma (32969) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631644)

The problem with your point of view is that you've never had to endure the scrutiny that the media subjects people to. Is there anything you've ever said that, taken out of context, would make you look bad?
Now imagine that your job is at stake for that out-of-context statement.
Now imagine that your statement is headlining the six o'clock news.
Now you've got a Slashdot icon with your face because there have been so many links submitted about you.

It's not about honesty, it's about scale of exposure and the rabidity of the media/public scrutiny.

-t

Re:[ censored ] (1)

knarf (34928) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631645)

> XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXX
> XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
> XXXXXXXXX XXXXX X XX XXXXXX.
>
> At least, that's what I was told.

Hey, you ar the lucky winner of out monthly XXXXX contest. Go to XXXXX [xxxx.xxx] to collect your prize!

This message is sent only to people who have an interest in our products. The mailing list is created with our sophisticated InterScam interest filter package.

Re:This is why aliases are a good thing (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631646)

Yes, but can you be sure that people are using their *real* real names?

Re:Never use your real name (1)

spencerogden (49254) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631647)

I think that a lack of anonymity is a good thing. Especial in online forums such as slashdot. The fact is that the old saying, "think before you speak" still holds, perhaps more so because as the article says, "the internet does not forget." At the end of the day accountability is a good thing, it leads to more thoughtful discussion and less irrational, knee-jerk posting.

The problem is that people have not yet realised that their words online are perpetual. I think many people view posting online to be similar to shouting in a crowded noisy room (slashdot feels like this at times). How important can your one quote be when it is among 300 others? In a traditional forum it would not be, but on the internet it could mean the world. I think that once people come to realise this we will see much more order online.

Th benefit of online discussion is getting credit for your ideas, but with this comes responsibility, something which many people choose not to accept.

What's the deal? (1)

digitalwanderer (49695) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631648)

What's the big deal about accountability for your own words? Annonymity is an illusion.

(Can't be first post, can it?)

Eagles may soar... (1)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631650)

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

I suppose some people find it easier to erase the past than to have the integrity to admit to their own opinions later. they don't have to agree with them later -- a foolish consistency and all that -- the they should at leat own up to them.


Sure you can (1)

jovlinger (55075) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631652)

you could do it; but it requires that you
1) allow and trust a central authority to authenticate your mail, and
2) require authentication for all mail

Scenario:

Bob sends me mail. This is a two step process; it is sent via Auth, who signs it and sends me the message and Auth's signature. Now I can ask auth to authenticate the message, and until it expires the message will be authentic. After it expires, I'll still have the message, but it won't authenticate, so by our second assumption, it will be worthless.

Mind you, the two assumptions are a bit much for anyone to swallow, but it could work.

Johan

Re:not me (1)

theonetruekeebler (60888) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631653)

Whoever called this flamebait is completely missing the point, even if it was a first post(tm). The whole concept of posting anonymously ties in with the discussion here; what's under discussion is people being so afraid of having what they say held against them in the wrong context that it never gets said at all.

Nobody knows what's appropriate anymore. Somebody, somewhere, will be offended by something you say; if they live in a jurisdiction where they could sue you, you'll get sued, or disciplined, or fired. It happens all the damned time. Remember the niggardly [cnn.com] incident? A white mayor's aide in Washington, D.C., was discussing how broke the city was and how they needed to make every budget dollar count. Unfortunately, instead of saying "parsimonious" he said "niggardly", and some vocabulary-challenged bozos started screaming "racism" so loudly the aide eventually offered his resignation, which the mayor accepted. So you see, it doesn't even matter what you're trying to say; all that matters is that somebody's perfectly willing to take it the wrong way.

And the potent combination of political correctness and literary deconstructionism can be used to turn you into something you're not, too. If this flap were raised at a university rather than a mayor's office, the poor schub would never, ever, get tenure, on account of being a crypto-racist.

Words have a way of coming back to haunt you, even when they're far too old to matter. Who here remembers the letter a twenty-one year old Bill Clinton wrote his college ROTC advisor a letter opting out of the program? It included the phrase "I loathe the military way of life." In 1992 Rush Limbaugh recorded an uncanny Clinton sound-alike saying "I loathe the military", and that sentence has been used against Clinton for over seven years now. A twenty-one year-old intellectual saying he didn't want to be in the Army while there was an unjust war going on? Who'd've thunk? When you're fifty yourself, do you really want people judging you by the dumbfuck things you said when you were twenty-one? Eighteen? Fifteen?

You can do it to yourself, too: Say you write, "I'm disgusted by Microsoft's acquisition tactics" on a mailing list somewhere, and five years later, while MS is getting ready to offer you three hundred million dollars for your innovative little software package, they decide to do a quick Yahoo [yahoo.com] search on you. They find an archived copy of the mailing list, and suddenly the deal is off. You're out one third of the company's sale price, all because you voiced an opinion about MS's attempt to buy the company that makes your favorite game.

This is the fear that Rutt's given in to. This is the fear we should all give in to, to limit our exposure to liability. This is the duct tape over all our mouths: that no matter what you say on-line, anyone, anywhere, can try to use it against you, and for reasons that don't make sense to anyone but a room full of lawyers, they just might succeed.

--

Re:"Feind Hrt Mit" (1)

quonsar (61695) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631654)

sure does sound a lot like the message on WWII German communications equipment. They used microphones with the message "Feind Hört Mit" (the enemy is listening!) written on them.

I was under the impression that German military comms in WW2 were not VOX modulated. I thought that the vast majority was transmitted via code encrypted using the Enigma device. Well, perhaps they used VOX in close range tactical battleground scenarios...

======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison

iyamsk wot iyamsk, and thats all wot iyamsk... (1)

quonsar (61695) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631655)

Popeye the Sailor expresses my opinion on this issue perfectly, and provides a perfect response to anybody attempting to throw some post back in my face.

======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison

Re:I'd never erase my own words (1)

quonsar (61695) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631656)

Ahh, you say that now, but what happens when you become CEO of Blue Hat BSD Distributions and someone brings up that post about the dog and the nun you posted back in 97?

I'd tell them with a straight face that the post in 98 about the penguin and the priest was better.

I used to live in fear like this. As I approach the ripe old age of somewhere in my mid 40's, I no longer care. I'm confident in my ability to provide for myself and if some ignorant schmuck wants to drive me out of my job by taking something I wrote out of context, it's not my loss. And if my employers allowed this, I would not want to work for them anyway.

======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison

Re:Ironies... (1)

j a w a d (66763) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631657)

Uh oh. Once upon a time I submitted a "First Post"... I'm sorry, I apologize.

Hehe, Imagine all those "first-post"ers get denied gainful employment due to "lack of maturity".

Scared of your own shadow! (1)

Feral Wylde I (75279) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631659)

In simple terms I know I can be tracked, tagged,
bagged, categorized whatever. I personally
believe that if you cant tell someone something
to their face then step away from the keyboard.

At the end of the day I have to be able to look
myself in the mirror, nothing else, nothing less.

"Root(Deity) hates cowards" Unknown
(Substitute your favority deity}

PS I love the put down the chalupa option on the
latest poll.

Re:Dejanews *IS* echelon! (1)

TheKodiak (79167) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631660)

Sadly, I can't see how stupid I was when I was new to the net - I can't even find my relatively recent teedotbee postings on deja, certainly none of the old as*. I sure do remember how terrified everyone was the day dejanews unveiled itself to the world, though. Which is weird - believing in security through obscurity is one thing, but security in hoping nobody has a camera?

Re:Anonymity (1)

Syndicalist (80223) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631661)

What you say is true, but given that he is as you
say a semi-public figure, as opposed to a wholly
public figure like a popular actor or the President, there's unlikely to be much general interest in what he's saying. And the Meeja, especially tabloids, are interested in shifting papers, so frankly I don't think Rutt has too much to worry about. Unless he starts does something like come out as a full fledge Klan member or admits to criminal practices, in which case the public does indeed have a right to know.

Look at it this way: So much crap is spouted on the Internet each day that unless someone specifically sets out to bring down Rutt, they're unlikely to find anything incriminating. If they do set out to bring him down, they're liable to find what they need Internet or no.

Protecting our rights on line? (1)

deefer (82630) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631662)

IANAL, but is there no way here that sites like /. cannot issue some sort of Open Speech policy?
Something like /. owning our comments, although we are allowed free access to them.
So, any comments to be taken from the site by external agents must be confirmed by the person who wrote them. This enables the author to see the context in which they will be used, before they are published. There you have it - free speech you can put your name to, that cannot be hijacked by the press wolves.
Or is this too much like having your cake and eating it?
Hopelessly naive I admit, but maybe finer minds than mine can make it work...

Re:Protecting our rights on line? (1)

deefer (82630) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631663)

Yeah, thx, I can read...
I didn't mean /. be responsible; surely there must be a way of asserting distribution rights whilst leaving culpability with the author. Don't forget, lawyers get paid for weasel wording - be nice to see it work in our favour for a change?
I was driving at sites like /. being able to host free speech whilst offering some kind of legal umbrella for those who want free speech but do not want it taken out of context.

Re:I'd never erase my own words (1)

ezzewezza (84083) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631664)

if someone brought up that post (how'd you know about that one, btw?) then I would simply shrug it off. If people want to go dredging up my past thoughts on nuns and dogs and other stuff like that, then there's nothing I can do to stop them other than to not exist. I don't lead a perfect life nor do I try to pretend to. If they want to bring back stuff I said, then they will bring back any "dirt" on me that they can get their hands on.

Be careful what you say (1)

smoondog (85133) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631666)

Sure, comments can be used against you, so make sure you say what you mean (or you say it anonymously :) ).

I once (in '94) posted a funny message to a usenet group. Last year, I found someone who had taken that message and put it on their website. It was no big deal, of course, because I don't care where my usenet posts go, but it was kind of an eye opener.


-- Moondog

Ironies... (1)

Amokscience (86909) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631667)

Imagine if acting like a moron at Slashdot came back to bite you...

Accountability versus Privacy (1)

MDX-F1 (87940) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631668)

I've been reading an awful lot of posts which say, in essence, "It's important to be accountable, if you didn't want people to know about it, you shouldn't have said it!". This sounds like a fairly reasonable sentiment. Newspapers and magazines don't print letters from fake names after all. However, the internet is a different beast, and I'll tell you why I think that.

The problem with archiving comments on the internet is this: 99% of casual internet users I know treat it like a "virtual watercooler". They express their opinions without any particular reservations, just as they would around an office watercooler. The difference is, this is archived forever for all to see. Children are an even thornier problem. High school kids say alot of stupid things in lunch rooms at school. But comments made in school don't get archived for later retrieval when they run for president. I doubt many AOL-using 14 year-olds realize this. It would be terribly unfair to penalize someone for something they said 20 or 30 years earlier, but this is reality after all.

I see only two possible solutions to this. Either society has to become completely open and accepting of all viewpoints, or we need ways (laws?) for people to erase previous comments, and stop them from being archived. I somehow think the second solution is slightly more practical. Accountability is important in many situations, but it's also important to consider the special circumstances which arise with new forms of communication.

Re:"Feind Hrt Mit" (1)

Mija Cat (94021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631669)

"Loose lips sink ships".

All parties to WWII ran spy networks and therefore all parties also encouraged paranoia in their general population.

Not a new thing (1)

Mija Cat (94021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631670)

Actually, the press has been butting into peoples' private lives since there has been a press. It's only in the last few decades they've cultivated the whole "free and impartial" crock.

A truly free and impartial press would look a hell of a lot more like the internet than the New York Times.

A simple rule for online communications (1)

xgray (96047) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631672)

Think twice. Type once.

Unfortunately the current media climate has given us two bad choices -anonymity or self-censorship. Either way it amounts to living in fear and in a free society that's very bad.

-stephen

Re:This is why aliases are a good thing (1)

kim (98035) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631673)

It is way too easy to post on a spur of mind, and not carefully consider what you say. I guess if you know this is how you are then an alias might be a good thing to use.

On the other hand, if you do change aliases, you won't have any background under your new alias for others to view your comments against. If you are saying something obvious I can certainly use my own judgement, but I also find it useful to read others opinions for the purpose of expanding my own views. Before I'd feel comfortable about adopting anyone's opinions I would like to get to know them (e.g. on the net by reading what they've posted before).

Now maybe I should go and search for myself on deja.com to refresh my memory on what I've said in the past... :-)

Re:Definitely a trend (1)

Schnedt (99690) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631676)

On a Windows machine [alt][shift][printscreen]. Or on a *nix desktop, xwd > gotcha.xwd in an xterm. No way it's gonna seek out and destroy bits out of my bitmaps.

Re:Eagles may soar... (1)

Schnedt (99690) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631677)

Actually (off-topic) Bald Eagles usually soar when they spot some road kill or other carrion they can scavenge, or another smaller predator whose kill they can steal.

The Bald Eagle is more colorful than the Buzzard, but is in other ways very similar.

Makes me laugh whenever I see a team, a country, or a military body with a big eagle in their logo. I then wonder wether it's a truck-flattened racoon that their mascot is swooping down onto.

Re:Not a new thing (1)

Schnedt (99690) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631678)

The internet?

Which part of the Internet?

There are a number of places that look very similar to the New York Times. This [nyt.com] place for instance.

Definitely a trend (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631681)

Check out the front page of today's (Oct 7, 1999) USA Today. There's a story [usatoday.com] about Disappearing Inc., a San Francisco start-up that offers an e-mail time-out service. Add their software to your e-mail program and you've got e-mail that becomes unreadable after a certain date. The article talks about the software as a lawsuit defense system.

See http://www.disappearing.com. [disappearing.com]

I am being sued for libel! (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1631682)

Mattel / The Learning Company / Microsystems Software is suing me for libel based on my words on the web!

They are mainly focusing on my website [www.sorehands.cominjury] but in discovery they also pointed to some postings that I made to yahoo and Prairielaw [prairielaw.com] .

Even after they filed their countersuit, I have not stopped! What I have posted is either true or opinions that any reasonable person would agree with based on the facts. The underlying facts are posted on the site [sorehands.com] .

I would say these things to their face (and did to under oath in depositions). I have had to provide them with more than 200 pages of emails related to the site.

Injured employee wins against Mattel" [sorehands.com]

Re:Never use your real name (2)

Tony Shepps (333) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631683)

I always use my real name. I understand why some people wouldn't, but I'm ready to do the battle of defending my own rights, and as such, everyone else's rights as well.

I'm also the one who won't pee in a jar for anyone. I'm the one who won't give out my social security number to get a driver's license. I'm the one who won't work for a racist boss, even if it benefits me.

I'm not saying these things to be self-righteous. I'm saying these things because I hope everyone will come to their senses. Who wants to live a life of cowardice? Who wants guaranteed safety? What will you have gained by living such a life?

When the tanks roll through the square, I'll be under one, not in one. If enough of you join me, we won't have anything to worry about. They won't put our names in the history books, but we will be the true heroes of our time.

Re:Living your life in public (2)

dattaway (3088) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631685)

Having a public personality should not be too difficult, unless greed is the only useful skill. The trick is to make one's self valuable to society. There is a saying in small towns that the worst thing that can happen to a person is if nobody knows them. Granted, there will be rough times and the downward spiral or two, but this builds character.

People like Jenni have developed unique positions for themselves and that is part of their personality. It may be difficult to throw away a personality and a disadvantage to do so. Its interesting to watch the reaction of those who are famous and those who react to them. It would be silly to think I would know a polition or anyone else on a personal level, just because they (and the families) would be in the news so often.

Re:Never use your real name (2)

dattaway (3088) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631686)

I have been posting on usenet news for several years and have found much, but not all have been archived. My floppies may have not lasted over the years, but many of my posts have. Many were good posts and then there were the ones that made me feel like I was looking at my own ass. But one thing is for sure, I have never regretted using my identity.

There were times when being anonymous was important, but usually, I like to have a name, not a number.

I *want* my words saved (2)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631687)

Granted, I've said a lot of stupid things in the past, said a lot of them in public forums, and plan to continue doing so in the future... but anything I post publicly I intend to be read publically, damn it, and I hope to be able to either stand behind or apologize for any of it if it's ever brought up in the future.

Ironically, my problem is that there aren't *enough* archives to suit me. I wrote a lot in #politics, #religion, and a few other MajorNet/FidoNet forums back when I was 12/13, and I'd love to go rooting through it all now and see how my views/writing have changed. Unfortunately there's only a couple weeks of posts that didn't get deleted from my HDD, and I've never found any public archives. Anyone know of anything?

Eventually, people will be used to transparency (2)

jht (5006) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631688)

Right now, there's a generation of people who "understand" that you really have no privacy left in this society, and most of them are under 35 (they came of age during the PC era), give or take a few years. People growing up today don't really expect privacy, they're used to targeted junk mail, credit reports, demographic data being pulled up on them, and leaving a trail on the web. As these younger generations move into control over society gradually, the public attitudes that lead people like Rutt to delete as much of themselves as possible will change. Since everyone is transparent themselves, they won't be as inclined to look at a 10 year-old posting and cry "gotcha!" (the old "people in glass houses" thing, in the future, everyone will live in a glass house).

Today, though, I understand Rutt's impulse. I refuse on principle to delete my words from places - I try to think about what I say with the knowledge that it is permanent being a factor. I keep as much of my private self private as I can, and don't sweat the details. My drivers' license has a random number, I deliberately give wacky answers when required to give demographic info, fake phone numbers when possible, etc. I also vary my middle initial a lot to see who's renting my name out to other companies. Anybody who really wants to can find out anything they want to know about me, but I like throwing monkey wrenches in "the system" when I can just for fun...

So it's a shame that he deleted his postings, but understandable in this not-yet-enlightened era.

- -Josh Turiel

This is becoming more and more of an issue (2)

Booker (6173) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631689)

Places like DejaNews, while great resources, also have some privacy implications. Who is this person? What else is he interested in? How long has he been on the 'net? What sorts of things does he buy and sell? What software packages does he use? Is he involved in pornography? Etc... Many of these questions can be answered in part by using the archive search features on DejaNews. Sure, when you post to Usenet, you are giving up a lot of privacy. But when you consider that the archive goes back for *years* the implications are bigger than you might think at first glace.

It's only a matter of time until a presidential candidate bows out of the race when someone dregs up a past Usenet post that makes him/her look bad...

[ censored ] (2)

mischief (6270) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631690)

XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX [xxxx.xxx] XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX X XX XXXXXX.

At least, that's what I was told.

--

Re:Definitely a trend (2)

A Big Gnu Thrush (12795) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631693)

At the company where I work, a program trolls through our email and deletes anything older than a few months. The idea isn't to prevent any record under any circumstances, but to provide a common business practice which can be helpful if subpoenaed (?)

If no such common business practice exists, then it may seem as if a company is withholding evidence when they are not.

It's about honesty (2)

vitaflo (20507) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631695)

I guess I feel that if someone is deleting things they've said, for fear that they may be cast in a bad light, then they probably shouldn't have said them in the first place. This is why I don't mind if people were to find out what I posted or sent to someone, because frankly, I have nothing to hide. If he deleted them for security reasons that's one thing, but to do it to cover your tracks and look innocent on something is a bit shady. Plus, I'd probably respect the guy more if he was upfront and honest.

Living your life in public (2)

Ratface (21117) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631696)

This is a very interesting ethical question which is going to become more and more important as time goes by. As we become more involved in online communities and the power of the Internet as a search tool becomes stronger, we will see more occurrences of this sort.

How will it be though for people like Jenni (Jennicam) who live their lives completely openly. Judging from her diary, I gather that there is some evidence to say that her life has already been affected hugely to the extent where she finds it very difficult to find employment - despite having shown that she is one of the most marketing savvy people on the net.

Will our online words become something we guard closely, afraid of repercussions in later life, or will society's views change, so that people's private lives and work lives become more divorced from each other.

In Sweden where I live, it's common (relatively) to sauna in mixed groups. The trick is to sit and NOT stare at someone else's private parts. (I'm British, so it's a learnt trait ;-) I feel this is much the same issue - who cares if you've posted viewpoints on the web advocating bull spanking, as long as that is divorced from what you do in the office, it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid, but an extremely interesting ethical question in any case.





"Feind Hrt Mit" (2)

knarf (34928) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631700)

Hm that piece about that sticker which he supposedly taped under his monitor (...Now, under his computer screen he has taped a warning: Do you want to see this on MSNBC?...) sure does sound a lot like the message on WWII German communications equipment. They used microphones with the message "Feind Hört Mit" (the enemy is listening!) written on them. So now the ubiquitous message archives on the 'Net have become virtual playgrounds for potential enemies.

Hmm, I'd say `as long as you are nothing but yourself, on- or off-line, who is going to hurt you' but then I am an incorrigble optimist...

Old posting records can be scary (2)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631702)

There are some scary issues involved in having an easily accessible archive of someone's posting history. One is that someone may be, um, "less intelligent" at a younger age and regret things later. Routinely someone gets into Usenet for the first time and becomes a flaming idiot for a few months, disappears for a while, then returns as a much lower key citizen. I've done deja seaches on job applicants and run into more than one person who used to be a rampant software pirate at one point in his life. Maybe they got over it. But, man, does it look really bad.

Another issue is that a search can turn up personal opinions and interests that you don't necessarily want to know about, but can end up biasing your views. I did a search for postings by a programmer I respected and found all sorts of apparently serious discussion in a bestialty group. Ugh. I didn't want to know that. Or what if you find that a job applicant strongly holds views that you disagree with on abortion, gun control, government, the death penalty, or legalization of drugs? How could that not bias your opinion of that person? Yes, it *shouldn't* affect anything, but let's be realistic.

Anonymity is a Ruse (2)

mochaone (59034) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631703)

You can try and hide if you want to, but you will be found out eventually. Check out that loser big-wig tech guy who got caught by the FBI trying to hook up with a 13 year old girl. He did his damnedest to remain anonymous to no avail. Accountability for your actions isn't such a bad thing. It's called being a respsonible person.

Can you imagine what would have happened if the internet had been around during the Revolutionary War? We would have had a bunch of Anonymous Cowards ranting about some Declaration of Independence in a forum somewhere only to be dismissed. Sometimes you have to put yourself on the front line if you want to be taken seriously.

Re:Where does it all lead to? (2)

jflynn (61543) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631704)

Yes, people should realize that comments in forums like this are effectively permanent. But that isn't the real problem. Even being careful about what you say may not suffice if what you say is controversial relative to the mores of the time, which are always changing.

Imagine if the net had existed during the McCarthy era in the U.S. A lot of the people making leftist comments about software development could be in for investigation. And having *lots* of trouble getting work.

Another fairly easy thing to imagine is a period of political religious conservatism making life difficult for pagans and atheists.

Or how about political correctness metering?

Thanks to the net, if you're honest, you can no longer hide what you believe. The net makes it easier to persecute you, but it also makes it harder to ignore you, and gives you a voice to protest such persecution. Can you imagine the furor if they started arresting the GNU-lefties?

The real danger here is the quiet stuff personnel departments and insurance companies do before hiring/insuring someone. Even though it is illegal, some may perform a credit check. Even though it is illegal, they may try to obtain medical records. Even though it *should* be illegal they may try to determine your political or religious beliefs thru net postings. I can't say how widespread these practices are, but I've heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence about them.

As our lives become more transparent to the powers-that-be it is essential we demand equal transparency in return from those with the potential to misuse the information.

Re:Never use your real name -- Be a coward! (2)

Lucius Lucanius (61758) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631705)

I'm impressed that you illustrate my point without meaning to. The subject practically hammers it in, and even adds a touch of brilliant irony.

L.




Re:Never use your real name (2)

Lucius Lucanius (61758) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631706)


Tony,

There is no battle. The reason it's not a good idea to add your name to everything you post is because you may not even know who is looking it up. I know for a fact that many employers search names before considering an interview. And they don't tell you if they don't call you.

No matter what your *own* views are about the bravery of saying that you "won't pee in a jar", the reality is that such language will result in you not even being considered for a job. Many of these decisions are made by human resource personnel who have no clue about your viewpoint, and nor do they give a damn.

Maybe you're young, and maybe some day you will apply to a really different job 20 years from now. These things may come back to haunt you at that point, and you may not want it if you have kids and a wife and mortgage payments.

Personally, I'm not in that situation, but I'm not fond of HR people and their narrow perspective either. We can't predict the future, and I don't trust having my heat-of-the-moment views littered all over the place for misinterpretation.

Basically, my views stand on their own - I don't gain anything by having my real name attached to them. But I have a lot to lose if those views can be misinterpreted or prove embarrassing years or decades from now. You need to think about it. That's all.

L.

This will only get worse (2)

q2k (67077) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631707)

Very few people in high power high profile positions today have a background that includes online time. However, think about how bad this will be in 20 years? What if Rob goes onto to a respectable life in corporate America, or God forbid, politics ;) Can you imagine the furor that could erupt over things he may have said on Slashdot 20 years previous? I hope that by then this technology is so pervasive that it won't be that big a deal. However, I suspect our societies values and attitudes will change much slower than the technolgy and resulting lifestyle. I can see it now...I'm running for President in 2030 and my opponent digs up an archived copy of my Pamela Anderson in the nude home page from college :)

Note - that was just an example - I never posted a Pamela Anderson page of any kind....as far as you know :)

Some societies are way ahead of the USA in this. (2)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631709)

I seem to recall hearing about a news conference in France in which Miterrand was asked "Do you have a mistress?" His response was along the lines of "Sure, doesn't everyone?" and the matter pretty much died to to lack of interest.

If our society ever grows up, this will cease to be a problem; it's impossible to sell scandal sheets when nobody is scandalized. Unfortunately, we seem to be going in the opposite direction these days.
--
Deja Moo: The feeling that

Always be prepared (2)

scumdamn (82357) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631710)

The best rule of thumb is to be prepared for everything you say and write to be used against you. It's not right that that's the case, but there are many cases where your employer could accidentally bump into you (or your writing) that could put you in a very uncomfortable position.
You'll never see me giving away and information or speaking badly about that big computer company based out of Round Rock for that reason.

I'd never erase my own words (2)

ezzewezza (84083) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631711)

never never... my words are my words... if people want to misrepresent me through a misinterpretation of my words, then so be it..


(err, how do I unpost something?)

Future generations may deplore this trend (2)

Jack William Bell (84469) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631712)

This seems like yet another outgrowth of the Microsoft Trial. Here at work (not MS) we have been ordered to delete all email older than six months, and I imagine many other companies have enacted similar rules in the last few years. The use of email and other electronic correspondence in ligitation is definately a bad thing in the long term.

Not that this is all that new, even when everything was kept on dead trees it could be subpoenaed and used in evidence. The difference? You had to know it was there, or else you had to go through files and archive boxes by hand. An expensive and difficult process.

Now you can just GREP a hard drive or use Dejanews or Altavista or search a MS Exchange PST file. It is neither difficult nor expensive. An interesting example of why the paperless office may not improve on the old way of doing things. This bothers me a lot, because I am a believer in the digital age.

But the thought of removing personal correspondence from electronic databases bothers me even more. There was a time when people wrote letters the way we now write email; as a method of remaining in constant communication with others. They didn't have telephone, or even telegraph, so they had no other way to carry on conversations over great distances. And many of these people took great care to preserve their letters for posterity, correctly seeing these missives as a legacy of thought and person.

Without this preservation we would not have the access we possess today to the minds of men like Jefferson, Madison and others. Generations later these letters represent important historical documents. Could you imagine if they had decided to purge their files so that the expression of some youthful lack of sense could not be taken out of context or to avoid seeing the letters show up in court?

I repeat, this is a bad thing. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to never say anything, in email or otherwise, that we would be ashamed of. Personally I don't think that is entirely possible -- but I will keep it in mind from now on...

Jack

power is not what it's cracked up to be (2)

bmabray (84486) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631713)

I don't think I want to be in a position of authority if it means giving up my right to free speech. If my opinions offend the stockholders, let them hire somebody else. (Not that I'll ever have the opportunity to worry about that :-) )

I guess some people think it's worth it, though. But do we really want people in control (whether it's corporations or the government) that will so readily back down from their opinions in order to keep their power?

As for the media focusing on individuals, I don't think you can blame the media for that. People in general like to have a real person they can rally around. It's hard to like or dislike an organization. It's easier if you can put a face on it. How much do you think Bill Gates is actually involved in writing code for Win2K? My guess: none. But when we are using it (and, unfortunately, we will) and we get the blue screen of death (and, unfortunately, we will), who's name will we curse?

human://billy.j.mabray/

Say what you mean (2)

dirk (87083) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631714)

I can't say I worry about anything on the net coming back to haunt me. I go by the same rules on the net that I do in public, don't say anything you wouldn't want to repeat. People seem to think the net is a private place, when in fact it's a completely open forum. Most people would never go into a crowded restaurant and loudly discuss how crappy you're boss is, or who you slept with the night before, but these same people have no qualms about saying these same things on the net. People seem to think that if your face is hidden when your talking that no one can ever find you, kind of the ostrich syndrome.

People just need to realize the net isn't their living room, it's a lot closer to a crowded mall where anyone can here you.

Re:Where does it all lead to? (2)

bug-eyed monster (89534) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631715)

However, on the other hand is the point that people should think before the speak. Quite often that is the core of the problems.

Quite the opposite. The core of the problems is that society has stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to anybody under any circumstance.

The problem is not that people don't think before they speak -- people will always do that because they're human. The problem is that people refuse to say "hey you probably didn't think before you said that, forgive and forget."

As others have said, the core of the problem is with the media, who takes every little thing every preson says and blows it out of proportions. The solution is to come down hard on members of the media who resort to such tactics. Make the media think twice before using every silly word anybody says and ruining people's lives, just to make an extra buck.

Re:I can I can! (2)

jsm2 (89962) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631716)

Oh come off it, Harry Bowles, we all know who you are and you're not fooling anyone.

&lt/joke&gt

jsm

Re:The media doesn't have a sense of humor. (2)

Schnedt (99690) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631717)

Example: Jesse Ventura. That wacky governor of Minnesota has gotten into way too much trouble trying to be funny. Remember how he said he wanted to be reincarnated as a 36DD Bra? How he thinks religion is for weak minded people? He's had to backtrack for the entire time he's in office over some of the stuff he's said.

Being as I am here in Minnesota, I can reflect on Mr. Ventura a bit.

It was frightening to me that as the election returns were being announced, the person Jesse spoke of being his greatest inspiration was "Rocky." Rocky! Someone who isn't even a real person, just a film creation.

Jesse is a flake. The kind of antics he practices in the media would set off "flamebait" and "troll" alarms all over the 'net if he dared express them there.

Last night, I found out my brother-in-law, an all-out Jesse supporter during the election (who worked in Ventura's organization) has pulled the bumper stickers off his truck.

I first met Mr. Ventura at a "Twin Cities Stop-The-Draft Committee" meeting in about 1979. He showed up out-of-the-blue to express his support for the "Don't Register" campaign we were organizing. He's a former Navy Seal. That move made me respect him, but everything he's done since then has been downhill in my opinion. As a Minnesotan (Minneostans are still the only people he represents, but watch out...)

Anonymity good, AC's bad. (3)

Paul Crowley (837) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631719)

I agree entirely: access to anonymous forms of communication seems to me an essential freedom of a democratic society. Ideally, of course, people should be able to speak in their own name without fear of State comeback, but if that freedom is threatened you might need anonymity to know about it.

However, anonymity is not about having no identity: it is about having more than one identity. Superman is anonymous because no-one knows he's also Clark Kent, but it's clear that the guy who rescued the school bus yesterday is the same guy who stopped the nuclear terrorists last week; it's just not known that he's the same guy as wrote the story about the kitten hospital on Tuesday. That's why I don't respect AC's: it's not that they don't give their real names, but that they don't give any name at all: every comment is a "hit and run" comment, and there's no point in responding because even if you hear from them again you won't know about it. I think Slashdot should abolish ACs in favour of special anonymous accounts that don't need a valid email address to be enabled, for the best of both worlds.

For my part, I use my real, legal name. I now wish I hadn't - I'd rather not be *quite* as out as I am about, for example, SM - but I'm known by this name online now and I'm not inclined to change it. But I'd certainly encourage anyone who's started using online public forums recently to come up with a pseudonym (not a silly one, a straightforward one you can live with for a long time) and use it as a matter of course. Who the hell needs to know your real name anyway?
--

Never use your real name -- Be a coward! (3)

lar3ry (10905) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631720)

Such NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!

I have had an online presense since the 1980s, and have always known that things that I say or that I have said could or would be archived and still around years and even decades later. You never know who might be archiving a USENET newsgroup, or even just messages from you.

I comport my life in that I tend to say what I mean, and mean what I say (and Humpty Dumpty points out that these aren't always the same things!). My opinions may change over the years, but I have rarely said things in public forums that I am sorry for having said... if my views have changed over time, then it's documentation of a learning process!

In the unlikely event that somebody would find such a change in my personal opinions, and would take the effort to try to use my own words against me, my response would be to point out that EVEN *I* CAN MANAGE TO CHANGE MY MIND AND (get this!) evolve better opinions!

For those people who may find themselves ashamed for things that they may have said a few years ago, my feeling is "well... it's your own fault if you said such things in a public forum."

Speaking on USENET, on a "community bulletin board," on Slashdot, or in any other public online forum, is the same as talking to a reporter for a newspaper. Whatever you say will be still be around years later... even after you die (there are newspaper "morgues" that go back many decades!).

The moral is: think before you speak. And most important: Think about the legacy you are leaving behind! I think I am proud of my legacy... even the things that I have done in the past that turned out to be incorrect. After all, everything has contributed in my being the person that is me right now.

But then again, maybe I won't feel this way in a year or so. If not, in the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind!"
--

The media doesn't have a sense of humor. (3)

Pyr (18277) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631722)

You say one thing sarcastically or in jest and the media is all over you. They will misquote you and argue over your words till the day hell freezes over. Everyone will get up in arms and then you'll have to backtrack on everything you said.

Example: The new biography of Ronald Reagan is out, and in it the biographer called him an "apparent airhead". For the last two weeks all I've seen interviews was "OOh! You called him an airhead!" "You called him an airhead!". Reagan's whole family has denounced the biography over just that one word.

Example: Just in the paper today there was a short article on Eric Idle and Monty Python. He was quoted as saying "I have discovered I really don't mind doing Monty Python, providing none of the others are around", and at the end of the article they had to mention one of Idle's spokespeople saying he was really just trying to be funny.

Example: Jesse Ventura. That wacky governor of Minnesota has gotten into way too much trouble trying to be funny. Remember how he said he wanted to be reincarnated as a 36DD Bra? How he thinks religion is for weak minded people? He's had to backtrack for the entire time he's in office over some of the stuff he's said.

Nobody has a sense of humor, and frankly, I'd be afraid to have any of my old messages show up if I became a public figure. Geek humor is very strange, and very difficult to understand, and waay too easy to take seriously. I like to tell dead baby jokes, call people idiots, and be an all around misanthrope/misogynist. I would be dead meat if some of my old messages popped up and the media got it's hands on them.

My solution for old emails and usenet posts (3)

georgeha (43752) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631723)

First I have a work email and a home email, admittedly a weak subterfuge.

Then, if someone corners me about an old post, I'll look it over, with a puzzled expression on my face, and finally say.

"Dude, I wrote that? I must have been blitzed on some serious 'cid at the time, whoa!"

George

Where does it all lead to? (3)

aedil (68993) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631724)

It is both understandable and sad to see that things like this happen. Indeed, the media tends to take things out of context and make a story even out of slight remarks. Worse, some people's comments indeed are getting used against them.


However, on the other hand is the point that people should think before the speak. Quite often that is the core of the problems. Especially when you are a figure of power, high standing, or just well-known, it is important to be careful with what you say or write, because of course people will interpret things, and quote you on what you say. If you have thoughts you wish to express, but you don't want them to be thrown back at you as in 'You said ...' then don't say them :-)


So if people would take a bit more accountability into consideration when writing things, or when giving interviews or speeches, etc... And if the media could perhaps stick a bit more to reporting rather than scandal and headline hunting, things would look alot better.


Sounds like the hopes of a dreamer, right?

Anonymity (3)

Slothrup (73029) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631725)

This is one of the reasons why the ability to be anonymous on the Internet is important. Semi-public figures like Rutt should be allowed to communicate in a public forum on a personal level without having his every utterance scrutinized by a ruthless media and public.

As far the "Media" focusing on individuals is concerned, I think that this is something that we all do. It is easier for us as individuals to focus on specific individuals. In regard to bands, for instance, people tend to focus their attention on the vocalist as an individual, even if the band is truly a collective effort.

Re:Eagles may soar... (3)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631726)

Eagles are visible. Weasles can get stepped on.

<optimism>

This does make me wonder: how long will it be before someone turns the openness of their opinions into an asset? If the media try to spin some comment out of context it could easily backfire if that entire context is available for the asking; the publication or reporter who tried this might wind up zeroing their own credibility. And imagine what might happen if the public starts using the Net as a way to check on the views of candidates. Who's going to be more "real" to a discerning electorate: someone who's been on the record for years, or someone whose carefully-tailored platform appeared ex nihilo on their campaign web site last week?

</optimism><normal_cynicism>

"Discerning electorate"? What was I thinking. Never mind!
--
Deja Moo: The feeling that

mass scribbling on the WELL (3)

jefp (90879) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631727)

Mass scribbling on the WELL is a peculiar institution. It started years ago when Bandy and his then wife Booter were being harassed by one of the WELL's mad dogs. Bandy wrote a somewhat baroque C program to find all their posts, emit scribble commands, and execute them. Then they made an unexpected discovery - due to a bug in the conferencing software, each topic where they had scribbled a post would show up as "new" for all readers, even though there were no actual new responses. That morning, every reader in every conference was having to hit return hundreds of times to make their way through a whole lot of nothing. There was an outcry, of course. I believe that the WELL's prejudice against mass scribbling is really due to this stupid bug, not to any lofty considerations of conversational integrity. Blair Newman's mass scribble followed shortly after Bandy and Booter's. I'm pretty sure he did it just for fun, to try out a new techno toy, and it was not related to his suicide a few weeks later. However, those who were still pissed at Bandy & Booter naturally seized upon the suicide as an opportunity to paint mass scribbling as evil or something. The WELL is like that sometimes. The peculiar thing was that in order to make this rhetorical connection, Blair had to be retroactively sanctified. So, a lot of the folks who harassed him while he was alive - including the same person who was harassing Bandy and Booter - were now praising Blair. Very strange to see. In the years since then, the original motive - protection from a harasser - has been the most common reason for mass scribbling. Jim's use for pre-emptive political protection is a first. By the way, Jim didn't use Bandy's original mass scribble program, he used a later simpler shell script written by me.

Never use your real name (5)

Lucius Lucanius (61758) | more than 14 years ago | (#1631728)

Simply because no matter how clever and wise you think your thoughts are today, they may be regrettable in 20 years. Your views and employers may have changed, but your ASCII scribbles would still be on the wall.

Who knows, maybe the ideology or F word may be out of fashion and make you look like an idiot. Or maybe your writings were never very sombre to start with.

Another good reason is that you don't want to land up in a collected database. Information is always collected. Just check up your name on whowhere.com or similar engines - you may be in for a shock.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...