Re: [tlug] Munging Email Addresses

[David E <dave@???>]

On Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:04:13 +0900 (JST), David E <dave@?om> wrote:
> On Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:12:09 +0900, Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com> wrote:
> > On 18/12/05, bruno raoult <bruno@example.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Josh Glover wrote:
> > >
> > > > The obscuring of email addresses seems to be a separate but related issue.
> > >
> > Issue (1) is about being potentially held accountable for something
> > you say in a fit of passion. 
> 
> I really don't think having freaked out on the list is the only reason
> someone could have for not wanting old archives opened to
> search-engines.

Here's one sort of ironic example that might help to illustrate my
points about Google and privacy.

Google CEO angry at being Googled
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45661

The times, they are a-changin'...

> 
> The privacy protection provided to the archives is of course flimsy,
> but far from meaningless. As Brett has pointed out, the difference in
> privacy levels between something that is Google-able and something
> that isn't, is huge. There are people these days (even one person I
> know who runs a popular web site) who go to some pains to keep their
> lives as un-google-able as possible, for a variety of reasons, not all
> of them insane. My point is not to suggest that everyone should do
> this (it's too late for me even if I wanted to, for example), just
> that some people take their privacy more seriously than others, and
> privacy related issues change over time. I suspect that some of these
> people who like to post private information about their lives on their
> weblogs may live to regret it.
> 
> If someone has in past years posted something to the list containing
> some information that they wouldn't want publicly available it was
> certainly a pretty dumb move, but I think we should err on the side of
> being considerate toward past subscribers and not strip that thin veil
> of privacy without their permission (whether they "deserve" to be
> exposed or not).
> 
> So how about this for a democratic solution?: 
> 
> First ask subscribers for permission - get a list of "OK" addresses.  
> 
> Expunge all archived posts with to/from addresses not in the OK list. 
> (should be pretty easy, no?)
> 
> Make the rest public.
> 
> Vote on whether to make archives of posts from some future date
> public. Then people unhappy with the resulting policy can vote with
> their virtual feet.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Gene Hackman
> 
> ;)
>