Re: Archive on Goggle
Re: Archive on Goggle
- Subject: Re: Archive on Goggle
- From: Nigel Garvey <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:39:15 +0100
Timothy Bates wrote on Sat, 07 Apr 2001 12:57:13 +1000:
>
people wrote
>
> things about how terrible it is that google are archiving the list so we
>
can
>
all search it.
>
>
If anyone is worried that things they have said are "now" "public", realise
>
that everything is public.
Wrong. This is a subscription-only e-mail list. Anyone who's interested
can subscribe, but only subscribers should receive every message sent to
the list.
>
If you don't ever want anyone to hear what you think, don't say anything. If
>
you want to be strict about who hears you, you need a closed list and
>
encryption.
This is more rhetorical than relevant here.
>
If you are worried about the simple act of making this archive public,
>
realise that anyone of us (thousands of people) could simply mbox their
>
archive and SQL it onto the web:
The fact that we're making a fuss indicates that most of us (at least, of
those who express an opinion) have enough respect for each other and for
the list facility to do no such thing. Someone else made your suggestion
a couple of months ago and was greeted with a wave of protest and no
assenting voices.
>
Google just doing it fast and for free.
It's free anyway.
>
They are decreasing entropy and it is a Good Thing (tm)
Their computers have somehow gained access to a supposedly
restricted-circulation list, which is an increase in entropy and a Bad
Thing.
>
If you are worried about spam, realise that it will happen. If you are truly
>
concerned about having to set up some junk mail rules, spam-proof your own
>
headers like the spammer do.
When we know we're contributing to UseNet groups, we can of course
disguise the headers in our newsreaders. When we think we're contributing
to a subscribers-only e-mail list, we leave our headers undisguised so
that we may communicate freely with each other if we wish. It's also the
only convenient way to configure our e-mail clients.
>
Realise however, that this is pretty
>
anti-social behaviour - kind of like putting barbed wire on your front yard:
>
it decreases the value of your neighbours lives more than it increases the
>
value of your own life.
More rhetoric. Having your private conversations broadcast to the world
decreases the quality of your life more than it enhances the value of
your neighbours'. The same is also true of being involuntarily subjected
to spam, junk mail, junk phone calls, junk faxes, and muzak.
NG