OK...
The only thing I'd like to add here is that I read somewhere--I forget
where or when, it might even have been in a former bout of this very same,
tired conversation thread, but I'm too lazy to search for it--that lots of
people seem to feel that the Internet is an anonymous place and
Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software
mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very
same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find
the notion that I should be required to provide personally identifying
information to the
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 2:01pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:40:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're the only person I have ever met who thinks a publicly archived,
publicly accessible, open-to-anyone-who-subscribes mailing list has any
expectation of
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 07:19, Travis Roy wrote:
Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software
mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very
same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find
the notion that I should be required
Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 07:19, Travis Roy wrote:
Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing list software
mailing lists... The idea is often brought up there, for the very
same reasons I brought them up here (originally). Personally, I find
the notion that
On 12 Mar 2004, at 11:01am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have stayed out of this until now, as I don't really care all that much
about the public or private status of the GNHLUG list.
If the majority of our membership wanted to come up with some kind of
entrance requirement, I would facilitate
However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
And *I* think it was entirely appropriate given the context of the
discussion. Whois information is publically available - just like your
voting information,
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:01:23AM -0500, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
I have stayed out of this until now, as I don't really care all that
much about the public or private status of the GNHLUG list. I actually
thought that it was a closed list to keep RMS from posting rants about
how it should
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 07:19:24AM -0500, Travis Roy wrote:
If that is true, perhaps you shouldn't have your webpage address in
your sig:
If you send me e-mail to any of the addresses listed in my domain
registration record, I assure you they will not reach me.
However, since you had no way
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:36:53AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
I believe the point was to demonstrate that the personal privacy Derek
keeps asserting
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:04:00PM -0500, Bruce Dawson wrote:
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:01, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
And *I* think it was entirely
However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only
unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion.
I believe the point was to demonstrate that the personal privacy Derek
keeps asserting is being violated is already non-existent, by his own
actions, and
This is a check and balance that the internet community (ISPs and
backbones, mostly) agreed to at the inception of the internet - back
when it was split from the Arpanet.
This check and balance is a violation of domain owners' privacy,
which should not be possible without just cause, i.e. a
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:16:32PM -0500, Travis Roy wrote:
And yet it failed miserably to do so. I don't live at that address,
and mail to any of those e-mail addresses will not reach me (with
certain important exceptions, which I will not detail here).
At one point that data was correct,
Actually it wasn't. Or at least not all of it. So what? It should
be up to ME, not YOU, when and where I decide to give up my privacy.
It doesn't matter if the information was ever right or ever public;
the point is I asked you not to do it, with reason, which I've
explained before. You did it
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote:
My point is, I and only I should be in charge of what of my private
information is given to whom and when. Seeing my address posted on an
on-call list does not give you the right to give it to your neighbor,
or anyone else. Or at least it
: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote:
My point is, I and only I should be in charge of what of my private
information is given to whom and when. Seeing my address posted on an
on-call list does not give you the right to give
Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)
--
_
Scott Mellott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scott.mellott.com
_
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 14:34, Derek Martin wrote:
Actually it wasn't. Or at least not all of it. So what? It should
be up to ME, not YOU, when and where I decide to give up my privacy.
And it is/was up to YOU. Until you put the data on the Internet. That
is when you gave up your privacy as
Bruce Dawson said recently:
Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be
contributing.
Amen Brother!
It's hard because Derek's email was unknown or invalid
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not that this has a lot to do with this innane thread, but this might
not be true in a relatively short while. For more information, look
here:
http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62500,00.html
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5021
I'm sure that there are plenty of *other*
Tom Buskey wrote:
Bruce Dawson said recently:
Can we take this thread off-line? No one else appears to be
contributing.
Amen Brother!
It's hard because Derek's email was unknown or invalid
Now that was funny...
But besides that, Derek brings up the privacy of his email address in
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:29:20PM -0500, Travis Roy wrote:
Derek's assertion is that there needs to be mechanism behind one's
ability to protect privacy. In Derek's mind Travis' actions prove this.
Now, as in the past...
In my mind, the mechanism doesn't exist yet - and probably won't
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:01:11 EST
Travis Roy said:
If I see a phone number for somebody posted in a town hall, public library,
the corner store, and somebody asks me for that persons number I'm going to
give it to them without even thinking about it. If I see it at work, I might
(and this is a wholely public forum).
I disagree there, also. In order to post to the list, you must sign
up... It is not possible to post unless you are a member. In order
to sign up, you must provide some amount of personally identifying
information (an e-mail address). That e-mail
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:01:48PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 1:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(and this is a wholely public forum).
I disagree there, also.
Derek: *GET OVER THIS*.
Thank you, but no.
I agree that the nature of this specific list is
Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:01:48PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 1:04am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(and this is a wholely public forum).
I disagree there, also.
Derek: *GET OVER THIS*.
Thank you, but no.
I agree that the nature of this
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 11:59am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that the nature of this specific list is much more public than
private, but I will maintain that the requirement to sign up in order to
participate makes it a closed, i.e. semi-private, list.
You can maintain whatever you
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 10:40:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're the only person I have ever met who thinks a publicly archived,
publicly accessible, open-to-anyone-who-subscribes mailing list has any
expectation of privacy.
Then I suggest you look at the archives of some mailing
29 matches
Mail list logo
