Corporations Fight Online Anticorporate Statements

TheLocustNMI writes "This is an interesting article at BusinessWeek about eWatch, a company that specializes in tracking the comments of, and garnering personal information about folks with a beef with a company. The service isn't cheap, upwards of $5,000 per "screenname". This was apparently used against Northwest Airlines sick-out employees last Christmas. The BusinessWeek article seems to hint that eWatch is used primarily to root out uncomplimentary messages on "rouge" web sites. So, should we be careful about what we post here, Usenet, or anywhere else? Especially if we post about our own companies? Interesting indeed..."

Comments

Private Nyms

[mrtightass]

One word: ZeroKnowledge

Re:Private Nyms

[/]

All entities are profit-seeking; some are just choosing to suppress the urge. You shouldn't trust "free" services either. Only trust architectures you've verified for yourself.

hrm

[jbarnett]

So, should we be careful about what we post here, Usenet, or anywhere else? Especially if we post about our own companies? Interesting indeed...

Let all start posting flames about slashdot and theogies on what time it started to suck. Wait a second batman, they are automatically inserted into this forum if you fiddle with the "Threshold: " drop down box. What is the deal with that?

You know if you sign up with one of these accounts and search for say Slashdot, I am willing to bet that is a DOS right there. "Mmmm that is some heavy load there son"

This is why...

[Refrag]

Use of computers in libraries should not require sign-up sheets. That is the only way to be anonymous is to use someone else's computer without them knowing your identity.

Refrag

Re:This is why...

[drnomad]

It's a bit easier in holland. To be anonymous: sign up on a free ISP using an internet pillar in the street, or the amusement hall.
Suppress display of your number when calling.
And if you really would like to do bad things, buy a cheap pre-pay mobile phone, pay for it in cash, use a lap-top to connect to the internet, turn it on at a the scene of the crime, connect to the internet and do your thing, throw phone away. You won't be traced

Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[KingJawa]

The First Amendment protects our right to say what we wish. It does not mean that we are to be held unaccountable for our words, but simply that we will not have our liberty or possesions taken away because of it. If you organize a "sick-out" and your employer finds out who you are, expect to be fired. If you complain about a company's product, the company has every right to track you down and convince you that the product is good -- they are also protected by the 1st -- but that doesn't mean you have to listen.

Before anyone (else) claims that your right to free speech is being eroded, ask yourself from where you derive your right to unaccoutably.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[mcsnee]

Forgive me if I don't cry for the poor, abused shareholders. The products they invested in kill people.

One of the problems at the root of our current cultural malaise is greed, which is exemplified by the corporation, an entity whose sole purpose is to make as much money as possible by any means possible. If they can break the law and get away with it, they will. If they can screw the consumer, they will.

I'm not advocating a socialist state, because that won't work any better. But I do think there's a middle ground somewhere. Perhaps the size of the corporation could be limited somehow (For instance, AOL/Time Warner has _NO_ need to be that big. They were all making very tidy profits beforehand.). Corporations can be beneficial, and many are. Generally, though, there seems to be an inversely proportional relationship between a given corporation's size and its benefit to a given consumer.

These days everything is an advertisement and you can't get a human on the other end of the phone. It's getting worse.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[KingJawa]

Only if the suit has validity -- but that is simply to recompense the harmed people. See "accountability."

One should be expected to be held responsible for harm caused by one's actions and by one's words; however, the government should take not be taking neither your liberty nor your property. Reimbursing those you have harmed is what accountability is all about.

Freedom of speech does not make speech free in the sense that it comes without responsibility. Speech is to be free from government action, not all action.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[Zak3056]

Besides the shareholders can go screw themselves. If they were stupid enough to invest in a company that dealt in death, misery and disease they deserve to go broke. Especially if they were too stupid to sell their stocks when they smelled trouble coming. What kind of a amoral stupid idiot would still own tobacco or gun stock anyways. Better put your money in safer companies.

You know, I should know better than to respond to trolls like this, but this really pushes one of my buttons. No one was ever forced by a tobacco company to start smoking. It has been widely known since the 1960s that cigarettes can kill you; In fact, there's been a statement to that effect on every box of cigarettes sold (and every carton, and every advertisement...) since that time. It's gotten to the point where they cannot even advertise in Sports Illustrated because of its "Large Teen Readership" (i.e. more than 15%). It's a load f bullshit, yes, you heard me, BULLSHIT.

I'm sick of listening to politicians (who were ever so willing to take campaign contributions from big tobacco) talk about how "expensive" the diseases associated with smoking are to the american taxpayer. It really makes me wonder where those 100%+ taxes per pack of cigarettes have been going for so long (yes, the US and state governments EACH make more money on a box of cigarettes than the people who make them).

We ignore things worse than cigarettes (like, oh, say, alcohol, which is much more destructive) and complain about the tobacco lobby, and that makes the american people hypocrites.

Your second example was gun companies.

Let me tell you something, guns are the most regulated consumer product in the United States. Buying one, even in Tennessee (the home of fucking Davey Crockett, for crying out loud), is a hastle involving the filling out of forms and background checks, and let's not even talk about places like New York, or New Jersey, where the only people who can really get guns are criminals.

It is illegal for a manufacturer to transfer a firearm to anyone other than an FFL holder. It is illegal for an FFL holder to transfer a firearm without a background check. The ATF conducts SERIOUS audits of both manufacturers and dealers, giving them an incentive to make sure illegal transfers do not occur. Of course, it still does happen, and that same ATF is incredibly LAX in dealing with it when it does. If they would follow their mandate instead of burning churches to the ground, maybe there would be less proliferation.

To blame the companies that produce the materials instead of the people who use them is rediculous, and your classification of stockholders (and, I assume, the employees of these companies--after all, the Neuremberg trials proved that "I was only doing my job" is not a valid defense) as amoral stupid idiots is ignorant and unthinking.

Discolsure: I am not a smoker and never have been. I am, however, a member of the NRA and TFA.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[KingJawa]

Why would a plaintiff with millions of dollars sue a person living paycheck to paycheck? For $200 a week?

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[sjames]

Why would a plaintiff with millions of dollars sue a person living paycheck to paycheck? For $200 a week?

Either as punishment (they don't even have to win the suit to win the battle), or to shut him up ("OK, we know you can't afford a lawyer or time off, so just quit talking about how we're stealing pets for medical experiments and we'll drop the suit. Otherwise, you'll loose what little you do have").

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[Malcontent]

"No one was ever forced by a tobacco company to start smoking. It has been widely known since the 1960s that cigarettes can kill you;"

Nevertheless it does not absolve the CEOs and employees of these corporations from moral culpability. Knowingly making addictive lethal producs and marketing it to carefully chosen demographics to hook them is still immoral and reprehensible act. Preying on the stupid, young, mentally incompetent, and the ignorant to make money has never been a moral act.
It's time these people faced up to their own personal responsibility in the deaths of millions of people. To say that it's totally the fault of the users is a cop out they shoulder a significant portion of the burden.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[EndlessDespair]

Welcome, my friend, to the world of antitrust legislation. You will note, sir, that we do break up large companies when they get too monolithic occasionally. From Standard Oil to the Bell conglomerate to (maybe) Microsoft today. Huge huge companies can be very efficient and save you, the consumer, wads of cash. They can also be very dangerous and screw you, the consumer, where the sun don' shine.

Of course, as in the case of AOL/TW and the network companies, somehow it sometimes slips past the regulatory comissions. At which time it is up to you, the voter, to kindly, politely, firmly point it out to your representative.

Or we can all look forward to living in a real Neuromancer world, complete with megazaibatsu... hey, it's a valid society too.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[sjames]

Only if the suit has validity -- but that is simply to recompense the harmed people. See "accountability."

In a suit where the plaintif has millions of dollars to spend and the defendant is living paycheck to paycheck, the plaintif will win without ever going to court. The reason is simple:

The defendant MUST settle by taking the material down since he can't even afford unpaid leave from work to appear in court, much less hire an attourney. Validity has nothing to do with it.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[Tetsujin28]

Another reason not to invoke the First Amendment:

It's distressing, how often this has to be pointed out, but various comments here suggest that it's time to do so again:

The First Amendment has no bearing on dealings between private entities. The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, concerns the power of government. A private corporation's actions might be wrong, or illegal, but they simply can't be "unconstitutional."

Citing the First Amendment regarding dealings between private, non-governmental parties is like citing the rules of baseball in a hockey game. They just don't apply.

--------------------
WWW.TETSUJIN.ORG

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[EndlessDespair]

Wow. You said what I wanted to say far more succinctly and clearly than I did. Thank you. =)

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[JoeBuck]

But if a court (a government entity) cooperates with a corporation in unjustly silencing an individual, it is in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[Malcontent]

Unfortunately we have this gret device in this country for shirking any and all accountibility and personal responsibility. It's called a corporation. Simply by incorporating you get be immune from the consequences of all your actions and decisions. Cool huh?

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[MissKitty]

You think being sued by a corporation doesn't effect your liberty or take away your possessions?

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[Malcontent]

Escaping jail is precisely the kind of thing I am talking about. You can make a decision which results in the deaths of hundreds of people or the devestation of a coastline and walk away from it without even an apology let alone murder charges. Personal responsibility is completely bypassed by the simple act of forming a corporation. Pretty damned cool dontcha think.

Besides the shareholders can go screw themselves. If they were stupid enough to invest in a company that dealt in death, misery and disease they deserve to go broke. Especially if they were too stupid to sell their stocks when they smelled trouble coming. What kind of a amoral stupid idiot would still own tobacco or gun stock anyways. Better put your money in safer companies.

Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment

[KingJawa]

Tell that to the shareholders of tobacco companies.

Or gun companies.

Or the motor vehicle industry.

It'll keep you out of jail (much like the Bill of Rights does for individuals, in some cases). But, in the end it'll hit you in the pocketbook.

Perhaps not their intent...

[TheLocustNMI]

I would go and check out eWatch before formulating an opinion on this. Both the BusinessWeek article and Hemos's edit of my original post lean heavily on eWatch's product of "singling" out users, but according to eWatch's website, they seem to be more towards listening to the public. Methinks the singling-out service is more of a gimp in the dark closet they keep. It's not real sexy, ya know.

Ham on rye, hold the mayo please.

Screen names and the recent past

[benenglish]

Point One:

This is odd. Why does the article refer primarily to "screen names"? Prices, for example, are quotes on a "per screen name" basis. There's also "aliases," "email addresses," "handles," "nick(name)s" and more. AFAIK, the term "screen name" is almost exclusively an AOL phenomenon. Do these guys just hang out in AOL chat rooms and scour the AOL home pages?

Point Two:

Are these folks even old enough to remember Kibo?

I don't know about anyone else, but I began to assume many years ago that many postings come from corporate moles. After all, if Kibo can do what he did for his own amusement, how trivial would it be for a company that, say, makes canoes to send someone into rec.* to spend a little time, make some friends, then start posting positive stuff about their products? It would be exceedingly trivial.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that it's been going on for years.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[anticypher]

If a company were looking just for leads back to someone who had posted an annoying comment, an IP address and some other logged info would be a good starting point. No need to have it stand up in court, just enough to target the investigation on an individual. Other supporting evidence could then be collected, stuff that could stand up in court.

the AC

I smell profit here.

[Cedric C. Girouard]

Being a citizen of a non-lawyer-driven-country, I smell large profits here.

Starting now, for a nominal fee, I will post anything, anywhere, on anyone, as long as it is not a Canadian citizen/corporation/entity.

You can send all submissions to my attention, accompanied by your offshore bank account number, and I'll take care of the rest.


I dont plan on going to the great U.S. of A. anytime soon, so that should keep me off the hook for a while.

How does eWatch plan to catch non us citizen's ?
For the humor and sarcasm impaired, this was a humorous sarcastic comment

Many people either complain or complain

[redhog]

Many people either complain that this is eroding their right to say what they want about a company or its products. Other complain and say, no, you have the right to say whatever you want, and the company has the right to track you down and tell you yyou are wrong, or in case of libel or such things, sue you. The thing is, they don't have to sue you. You can not just say even legal things. Because you won't have a economic situaition stable enought to get into a court-case. or you are just a normal human, afaraid of what they may be able to sue you for. To not be trackable is much easier than having to defend your (constitutionally protected) speech in court.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.

Re:That depends

[Kaa]

If your /. handle isn't linked to anything with your name on it, there's just no way to track you through it unless people use your real name in responses to your posts, or you do.

Court subpoena -> Slashdot server logs -> your IP address -> { ISP logs if necessary } -> your identity.

This can be dealt with by accessing Slashdot only through an anonymizer (public access terminal, the Anonymizer, Freedom network, etc.) but it's waay too big of a hassle for most people.

Kaa

Re:There goes freedom of speech...

[talesout]

As long as yer not planning some crime against one of these companies, this could actually be a good thing. It might mean that the companies will actually pay attention to what their customers are saying.

If this is what was actually going to happen, then it probably wouldn't create any debate at all. But, as the article itself repeatedly states, this is to be used to "silence" and "re-educate" people that have disagreements with companies. It will be used to have negative postings removed and further harrass those that already have a problem with the company. See, the thing that kills me about this is that people are saying this will make people more responsible for what they say online and that isn't a problem. Well, what about making the companies in question more responsible for their actions?

It is really depressing when you think about it. You used to be able to at least vent on the Internet when a company ripped you off. But now, thanks to this "great product for big business" you will be able to vent, but only if you don't want to be heard, and want to be sure that you will be harrassed constantly by a company that has already pissed you off. They will not use this to gain customer feedback. They will use it to gain power over those that disagree with them. As it will cost a virtual fortune to do so, only big business need apply. Perfect. One more way to make sure those with the money have the right to talk, while those in the middle and lower classes have to sit on their hands and say nothing.

I'm not a doomsayer, I just think we need to be realistic about what companies are going to do with this. Companies take the path of least resistance. Whatever earns them money now. They are not going to fix a problem, because that fix will cost them money. But it won't cost nearly as much (for big businesses) to silence the person stating the problem openly. Great, I suppose that my previous posts about Gateway leave me in for a few problems if Gateway decides to use this....

Re:I hate eWatch?

[psychosis]

I just checked over at register.com, and ewatchsucks.[com|net|org|ws] are still available. If I weren't a poor-assed-bastard, I'd get all 4 of them!
"But, it's a site about "ewwwww... atch sucks!"

This is disturbing. Let's see if they get me:
HEY E-WATCH, I THINK YOUR COMPANY IS DUMB. I'M GOING TO TELL ALL MY FRIENDS AND ALL THEIR FRIENDS. COME AND GET ME!

Re:Not that bad

[/]

It means eWatch will contact the maintainers of such sites and demand that the offending post be removed. Most of the time, the maintainers will cave in and comply.

No.... they meant Rouge

[browser_war_pow]

Afterall only we dotcommunists would dare to use the internet to criticize the wonderful, self-sacrificing and just well.... all american corporate america. We're the dotRouge... beware we're out there and armed and we're dotcoming for your corporate asses!

Corporate power abuses.

[pschmied]

votenader.org

Hmm. It seems like these abuses of corporate power are getting more and more. Maybe Nader has the right idea after all. I know who I'm voting for this election year.

This may be rather against the prevalent libertarian sentiment of notables like ESR, but this story seems to me to be a result of the libertarian mindset.

Given the choice of being bent over by a large inefficient government, or being bent over by a large efficient corporation, I chose government. Atleast I have the a _potential_ to make a difference in the government.

-Peter

Re:Corporate power abuses.

[Hizonner]

Um, you do know that corporations are themselves creations of government, right? It's not an either-or thing. They're part of the same power structure.

Where some libertarians fall down is in not realizing that the whole corporate form is about weakening the legal responsibility of stockholders for the actions of the corporations they own. This creates huge, unaccountable entities which are NOT part of the sort of individualistic thinking that underlies most libertarianism.

One reason that libertarians often miss the fact that corporations are artificial creations of government (and are therefore without natural rights), is that their opponents on the left spend so much time attacking the whole concept of property rights, whether individual or corporate. The distinction between the rights of a person and the rights of an artificial entity gets lost in the noise, and both sides forget about it.

Re:Plenty of ways to quash dissent...

[jafac]

My company is a parter of Microsoft. I criticize Microsoft vigorously here, and elsewhere, on a daily basis.

If I was "found out", all it would take is for some marketroid at MS to send an email to the right person, and I guarantee you I would be fired within the hour. There is no doubt in my mind.

if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!

Eeeeks.

[interiot]

So what happens when a person speaks out against a company that is willing and supposedly able to quash dissent... err, I mean, lies?
--

Re:Eeeeks.

[interiot]

Please ignore the above post. I've finally realized the truth. I humbly apologize for defaming eWatch and for spreading such obvious lies.

I hereby give Slashdot the right to remove my previous post.
--

Re:Eeeeks.

[gorf]

eWatch are obviously very efficient, then - that was a whole five minutes!

Re:Constiution doesn't protect corporations

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, this guy must be a riot at parties.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Russ Nelson]

And what do you think VALinux/Andover/Slashdot's reaction to a court order would be? If someone knows what and when your IP address was, they can ask your ISP for your meatspace information.
-russ

Re:there's more to come

[matthew_gream]

Yes

OT: Links in /.

[Delphis]

Yea, why does Slashdot think it's such a good idea to fuck up urls (more precisely the anchor tag itself) in posts and the user-info? .. I like putting links to external sites with a target="_blank" attribute in them so it doesn't replace the page.. I do that for my own pages and with habit I do it in posts too .. plus wanting to make the average ./ers life slightly easier if they forget to middle-click the link (or right-button - new window in windows) .. It pisses me off that it gets all corrupted if you add these attributes .. it probably shouldn't annoy me but it does... must be one of those days.

Maybe that bug is on a long to-do list of Rob's .. maybe.

</RANT>

--

Re:Fast Solution

[Claudius]

...we all turn into people from a bad MadMax/Water World flick.

Were there any good MadMax/WaterWorld flicks?
Better go buy a muscle car and start stockpiling dirt, I say.

Re:Rogue websites? WTF?

[jonfromspace]

This is a Rogue website.

Re:the problems involved aka ramen

[shiftaling]

im glad that you appreciate it... i plan on writing many more... send me fan mail ramen@x-in.com

this is crap

[Lullabye]

Couldn't a company's re-education program be construed as unsolicited, and thusly fall under some states anti-apam laws? I'd really love to see one of these companies get a huge bite taken out of them for their so-called "reeducation".

I'm beginning to think there is no way we'll ever be able to trust buisness. They want to violate our privacy even more than the governemet. I also wonder if so-called re-education could fall under various laws regarding harassment. Afterall, you talk bad about Coke, they can't come to your house to "reeducate" you....

Fast Solution

[Seumas]

Everyone moves their servers and hosting out of the states, the net economy within the states suffers and grinds to a halt, those tiny islands in the middle of nowhere become wealthy techno-states while America regresses into a puppy suckling at the teat of the the world's technology, and we all turn into people from a bad MadMax/Water World flick.
---
seumas.com

Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs

[radja]

Not only that, it could also violate european privacy laws. And companies can't just fire anyone just cos they do not agree with their opinion. At least in the Netherlands...

//rdj

Letter to Microsoft Employee

[iodinemasta]

Dear Sir/Madam:

Unfortunately, it has come to our (eWatch) attention that you may have at one point in your life considered visiting a site which may have a link to a company which produces a product that might be in competition with Microsoft.

In an effort to ensure that our products are used exclusively throughout the company, we have decided to terminate worker bees who use products on their computer systems that were not produced by Microsoft. Given your previous "track record" with other companies' products (see above), we are terminating your Internet connection indefinitely.

Remember, Bill Gates isn't just YOUR God, he is the God of the WORLD!

--Iodine

Re:And the topic of the day is: MDMA

[Mostly Harmless]

Now if only eWatch could be used to get rid of posts like the previous. Then I'd be willing to give up a fraction of my Freedom of Speech.

Re:corporate terrorism

[Refrag]

No. Based upon the merits of the MP3s, I bought two Foo Fighters CDs and plan to buy a third.

Refrag

Axemakers

[Fesh]

I'm rereading my copy of The Axemaker's Gift by James Burke, and I just got past the bit about the Industrial Revolution. Frankly, I felt pretty disgusted by the manipulation that took place for the sake of wealthy factory-owners. I mean, the Victorians wrote hymns to be sung in church intended to brainwash the working class into accepting the fact that they'd die working stiffs. Unfortunately, just as I started to think, "we have it so much better now," the painful realization hit me that we're just repeating history. Take a good look at the Victorian era and the Industrial Revolution, and you'll see some shocking similarities to our situation today. Then, people were faceless units of production. Today, we're faceless units of consumption.

I guess this was kinda offtopic, but I just felt like bringing that out. Read the book, too. Especially if you're a James Burke fan.

--Fesh

Free speech

[Cable]

There used to be a time when you could talk about your job and the company you worked for at any bar or public place without worrying about a wire tap or someone tape recording your conversation. Most people are just blowing off steam.

But now, if some Big Brother company is recording what you say and sending it back to your employer, better button your lip or use an account that can't be traced back to you.

We used to enjoy the right of free speech to b*tch about the companies we worked for. But apparently, not anymore. :(

Re:Free speech

[Mostly Harmless]

Yeah, but what about the small businesses? They must count for something. I know I'd rather shell out $5,000 to protect my ass than get blacklisted from half a dozen vendors because I install Linux instead of Windows.

Re:Free speech

[Mostly Harmless]

I don't believe that is the purpose of eWatch. Of course it will be used as such, that's just the Corporate Way, but eWatch has a nobler purpose. False claims are made against businesses all the time, and occassionally the claims can be detrimental to business. Not always, but it does happen. Corporate espionage happens. It's all in a days work. But just as you have to watch what you write in an email, you should watch what you post on the Internet and say in chatrooms. I'm not saying I agree with the situation, but that's how it is. Remember -- the law is on the side of free speech (believe it or not), but money is what keeps the law alive.

OT sig comment

[Chalst]

Political food for thought: Nazi Germany was the first powerful
nation to ban the private ownership of guns

Britain banned all non-hunting private use of firearms in the 1671
Game Act, though the act proved impossible to enforce. Emergency
powers in 1914 banned all private use of firearms not explicitly
authorised, and became part of statute in 1920. The advent of
revolvers caused a wave of anti-firearm legislation to sweep Europe in
the early 20th century, so while I don't know the details, I would
expect a similar story in the rest of Europe.

Re:+3 insightful

[EndlessDespair]

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I was hoping someone would mod him up, actually. I'll be buggered if I can think of some way that you can have strong libertarian values in a socialist society (left and right wing were opposing sides last I checked), but, hey, what do I know?

Re:Another steaming pile of..

[Coq]

Although you do have a protected right to say those things, corporations also have a right to send you email telling you you're wrong. they also have the right to sue you for slander even if they know they'd lose. regardless of whether you actually slandered a company, you could lose a lot of money / time due to the law suit if you don't take down your comments.

I'm glad this article came up on the same day that news of Fling came. perhaps this will get people working on the project. I know I'm going to look into it and see what I can do. maybe we can put up some web-like stuff with the Fling protocols and have sites that eWatch can't touch.

eWatch Stinks

[bperkins]

As a former customer, I can say eWatch is a terrible company. The customer service reps are unhelpful and their software stinks. I spent $5000 dollars and got incorrect information.

Re:eWatch Stinks

[bperkins]

After some careful consideration I would like to retract my statement. eWatch is a wonderful, moral, profitable company with very nice people working for it. If anyone is thinking about using their software I wholeheartedly recommend it!

Whew!

[PopeAlien]

I'm glad *SOMEBODY* is looking out for all these poor corporate megaliths..

Re:Another steaming pile of..

[jafac]

Saying something is true, and proving it are two different things.

What if Microsoft went up against every /.-er who said that Microsoft uses "secret API" to give the MS Office team an unfair competitive advantage.

MS would sue you for slander, and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it, because as far as the law is concerned, the "secret API" do not exist. It has never been proven, and I wish you luck in your slander/libel case. Of course, I believe there are "secret API", and I've read a lot of compelling anecdotes here on /. that support the "secret API" theory. But it's not empirically proven.

In theory, you are right. But in practice, we are all doomed.

if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!

Re:Sorry Sir, but you're wrong...

[mOdQuArK!]

And, never forget that it's somewhat hard to hand out your log files if your disk has just crashed...

Especially if it just crashed because you accidentally dropped it in a vat of molten metal while "taking it out to clean the connectors."

Re:Another steaming pile of..

[NoahPhex]

What about getting up between acts in a theatre and declaring that there are not enough fire exits?

Re:Rouge?

[ChristTrekker]

It's no use. People have been calling the female X-character by the wrong name on X-Men boards for years. They never get it.

corporate police

[john_locke]

This is just another scary example of how corporations are taking the place of the police. I recently read an interesting article about the FBI's invasion of people's (civil rights leaders, socialists, unions, etc) privacy here. I think the only diffrence is that this company is doing this from behind a computer, instead of putting bugs and wiretaps in your house... and they are doing it for profit rather than even the (often flimsy) argument that the privacy invasion they take place in is in the intrests of national security.

National Socialism = National Coporatism ?

Rouge?

[Slashdolt]

I think you meant "rogue". Unless it only scans those pinkish-reddish web sites...

I'd never put anything on a web site of that color, so I guess I'm safe.

Re:Rouge?

[Delphis]

Mon website est gris-bleu. Je suis sûr!
--

Re:Rouge?

[TheLocustNMI]

No, no, really rouge! And remember, as Marge's mother says: "Ladies pinch, whores use rouge".
Ham on rye, hold the mayo please.

Re:Rouge?

[PantalonesVaqueros]

The funniest thing is that no matter how many times someone complains about the atrocious grammar or spelling... nothing is done. Remember the "put Hemos through English class" sigs? Ah well, it makes for entertaining commentaries.

Re:Rouge?

[The Grammar Jew]

No, sorry. They will protect us against web sites of amateur telescope makers. Outdated ones, mind you. These days everybody uses aluminum oxide, or zerium oxide, or zirconium oxide. Or even diamond powder. Rouge is so...passe.

(Rouge is ferric oxide by the way. Hope it helps.)

Re:Rouge?

[ToddN]

I believe the preferred term now is "Web Sites of Concern"

Re:Rouge?

[Joe MacDonald]

Huh. I must be safe. My site is decidedly vert.

Re:Rouge?

[Peyna]

Rouge est RED en francais.

Re:Rouge?

[ecloud]

Oh, I thought that it meant after the employee makes an embarrassing comment, the management is red-faced...

Re:Rouge?

[Slashdolt]

Oui, c'est vrai!

In US English, however, it typically applies to the red stuff that females (and 80's hair bands) put on their cheeks.

Re:Rouge?

[Peyna]

Oh, okay, I just took 4 years of French in high school.... never touched makeup unless it was already on a girl's face.

There goes freedom of speech...

[UpeoWaMacho]

Well, it happens. You know that hating a company is bound to tick someone off. Its another instance of our first admentment rights getting trashed.

Re:There goes freedom of speech...

[dirty]

Have you ever actually READ the constitution? "Congress shall make no law..." The first ammendment applies to the government and the government alone. It is impossible for a private citizen (which includes corporations) to violate anyone's first ammendment rights. I don't see the government involved here at all.

Re:There goes freedom of speech...

[ncc74656]

How is it ...another instance of our first admentment rights getting trashed for a company (or for that matter an individual) to want to know what's being said about it?

How does the First Amendment enter into the equation? It is, after all, a restriction on government power, not a statement of the rights of individuals (or of corporations, which have most of the status and rights of people).

That's neither here nor there, though...the negative PR that would be generated when it becomes known that Acme Widget Co. is building an "enemies list" is something that they'd want to take into account before engaging in such an endeavor.

_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/

Re:There goes freedom of speech...

[phil reed]

How is it ...another instance of our first admentment rights getting trashed for a company (or for that matter an individual) to want to know what's being said about it?


...phil

Re:There goes freedom of speech...

[tssm0n0]

Its all in line with freedom of speech. Its just some companies exercising their freedom to listen.

As long as yer not planning some crime against one of these companies, this could actually be a good thing. It might mean that the companies will actually pay attention to what their customers are saying.

Re:Sorry Sir, but you're wrong...

[/]

"But, your honor, VA/Andover/Slashdot is running on Linux machines, and Linux machines never crash. Not even for hardware failures."

go ahead...

[chowda]

Any employer who does that is not one I want to work for! But I guess if they are going to spend 5 G's just to get my "screen name" then they deserve something... fscking idiots

Constiution doesn't protect corporations

[browser_war_pow]

Corporations have NO constitutional protection. In other words no property rights, no right to bear arms, no right to free speech, no right to freedom of press, no protection from search and siezure, etc. The bill of rights is for INDIVIDUALS ONLY. You and I can speak freely, but corporations can be restricted in whatever way the government wants to because as I said they have no protection granted by the bill of rights because it is specificaly a bill-of-rights-for-the-individual

Re:Constiution doesn't protect corporations

[BrianH]

The bill of rights is for INDIVIDUALS ONLY. You and I can speak freely, but corporations can be restricted in whatever way the government wants to because as I said they have no protection granted by the bill of rights because it is specificaly a bill-of-rights-for-the-individual

Wow, I don't know who filled your head with that garbage, but I'd like to suggest READING the Constitution before spouting off. I've got a copy hanging on the wall in front of me, and no matter how hard I look I can't seem to find the line that says "FOR INDIVIDUALS ONLY!" On the contrary, most of the first ten amendments don't single out any entity or group for the rights being described, and only a few refer to "the people". Since "the people" is a general term to refer to all legal entities within the nation, I would argue that these amendments do protect corporations.

Re:Constiution doesn't protect corporations

[mlc]

Unfortunately, under US law at least, corporations ARE people. Lovely society we live in, ain't it?
--

Re:Free speech means free listening?

[Egyptian]

Your questions are salient and need investigating further, but I think that there is a point to be made in opposition:

What is worse, a patient initiating a relationship with his or her psychologist, or the psychologist initiating a relationship with his or her patient? Most of us would agree that the latter is reprehensible and, in most jurisdictions, this type of action would cost a psychologist his or her accreditation. The sole difference in this case is the differential in power. The psychologist has the power, the patient does not, or at very least the patient has less.

This same situation arises in modern business. Large corporations have money, access to media, massive human resources and connections. Individuals have, likely, none of those advantages, putting corporate entities firmly in the position of greater power.

With equal resources, this company's service would be a godsend to all involved. Corporations or individuals could investigate critics with an eye on preventing libel. Unwarranted criticism would likely be stopped dead after a few years of expensive lawsuits and critics would be far more sure of their facts before opening their mouths. Nonetheless, there is in no way equal access to resources.

Corporate entities have already used their power advantage to sway the court process in favour of their deep pockets, thus creating a situation where individuals have a much greater time criticizing corporate actions than the reverse. Only those critics with time and money to spare, or with generous and idealistic friends willing to help out, can effectively counter the corporate legal machine. Is it a stretch for the readers of /., with a jaundiced eye on corporate abuse of power in the past, to see this service being potentially abused? I don't think so; historically, corporate abuse of power is almost a given.

The company evidently considers corporations its prime customers, and the price alone would put most individuals out of the running for this service. That alone means that a probably worthy service will become the tool of those who can afford it. A tool unequally applied to the populace and yet another power discrepancy between those with capital and those without.

Love My Company

[Metrol]

I for one love working where I do. I like all the people, and the management is really swell.

Metrol - (Nick provided for tracking purposes)

Re:Rogue websites? WTF?

[jonfromspace]

sorry bad link, here is a good one

Re:Sorry Sir, but you're wrong...

[RyuMaou]

Or, "accidentally" walked past a big electro-magnet.
For a litterary reference, check out Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon. They have one built into the door-frame of the server room. You try to take out a server and *wham!*, a whole bunch of blank disks are entered into evidence.

Say, I wonder if that would actually work? ("Oh, is *that* what that other light switch did?. Who woulda' guessed!")

Cheers!
RyuMaou

Reminds me of a joke . . .

[Engelbot]

I saw this in rec.humor.funny a while ago--it seems rather appropriate.

The five rules of Socialism:

1. Don't think.

2. If you do think, don't speak.

3. If you think and speak, don't write.

4. If you think, speak and write, don't sign.

5. If you think, speak, write and sign, don't be surprised.

This can be used against them!

[theluckman]

Maybe if I say enough bad things about a company, then they will come storming into my house to attack me!

This way I finally get a chance to poke Gates in the eyes for all those times Word crashed my system in the middle of a term paper! My only hope is that he won't be wearing his glasses...

luckman

Re:This can be used against them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fscking Microsoft software! I work at a public

Its getting there

[Sarkdas]

Ahh its getting closer and closer each day....if technology would only advance a bit more I could be running around in the shadows with a nice little datajack and a cyberdeck and some spiffy weapons and ware =D

soon my friends we will be pushed more and more by the corps....eventually we will submit to their will and become happy little wage slaves in a building or factory (well most are but im talking about the others) or the people will rise up and say NO MORE!

Its in the future I can feel it....maybe Im beefing it up a bit.....oh well....Im gonna go play some shadowrun....now I need some new players....

-Sarkdas (ok everyone how many street sams we got?)

Media as discourse

[dbombarc]

As corporations and the entertainment industry get larger and larger, so does the amount of advertisements that are shoved down our throats everyday. Companies with lots of money are the ones in control of this uni-directional form of comunication that is so prevelant in our society. The ability to voice complaint on a large scale over the internet is still relativly powerless compared to a TV commercial. Never-the-less, the internet can be a step in the right direction as far as 'media as discourse' is concerned. Untill all forms of media are discourses that there will be no freedom of speech as far as entertainment politics go. What we have now is just the freedom of choice (barely) between sources of input.

Not only that...

[Tyrannosaurus]

But I can't be sued by the person/entity that paid for my screenname unless what I said was also HARMFUL.

For instance, I can say the B. Gates is a fine, upstanding citizen who wouldn't dream of taking advantage of our legal/economic system. It isn't true, but he can't sue me for saying it because he hasn't been harmed by my statement.

It's an uphill battle to sue for liable (how many times has the National Enquirer gotten off?), and getting the name of the person you feel wronged you is just the first step.

Re:Not only that...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Too bad suing the person can be step 2 if you so choose. As well as calling their ISP and having their account terminated.

Re:Not only that...

[matman]

well, sorta. True things that you can back up are a lot easier to defend against. I mean, they may not try to nail you for libel, but it may come up in another case - as with old email records and such. Best to keep things clean and true, rather than to risk anything :)

Nah...

[Greyfox]

You can SAY all you want about them. What, might have to take responsibility for your words? Oh no!

Not that I'm all for this, mind you. If you fear retribution for your words for whatever reason, you'll just have to be more sneaky. Currently the niche for corporations who want to be sneaky is paying more than the niche for their employees who want to be sneaky. Will this always be the case? Might be some money in hooking up with a union and investigating how to be sneaky back, for instance.

As a friend of mine points out, there are some legitimate cases where a corporation should be able to find out the name of a person; for instance in the case of actual slander or manipulation of the stock market through fradulent information posted on the net. However, there are also times when an employee should have the right to privacy in his communications. And since the legal system seems to be lagging about a century behind current technology, the whole landscape has yet to be mapped.

Oh Yea one more thing.

[Malcontent]

"Let me tell you something, guns are the most regulated consumer product in the United States."

This is an out and out lie. Your average automobile, bicyle, or even a god damned cigarette lighter is more heavily regulated then guns. How come we have child proof lighters and not child proof guns? Don't come crying to me when you have to fill out some paperwork to get a gun what did you do to get a drivers licence? A god-damned real estate licence is harder to get then a gun.

Re:Oh Yea one more thing.

[Zak3056]

This is an out and out lie. Your average automobile, bicyle, or even a god damned cigarette lighter is more heavily regulated then guns. How come we have child proof lighters and not child proof guns? Don't come crying to me when you have to fill out some paperwork to get a gun what did you do to get a drivers licence? A god-damned real estate licence is harder to get then a gun.

I never had to purchase a car, bike, or lighter from someone who had to have a special license to sell them. (don't get me wrong--I'm actually in favor of the FFL system, with some modification. I think the requreiment to have a store front is bunk, for example.) That in itself is more regulation than any other consumer product in the US other than prescription drugs. Also, the government organizations that regulate cars have never seriously suggested that american citizens do not have the right to own them. Think about that.

Making a gun "childproof" (just like pill bottles, right?) will reduce its reliability. If my life were on the line, the last thing in the WORLD I would want to deal with is a "safety" feature designed by a congressman or soccer mom, who have no idea what gun safety means. Proof of this can be found in the VERY LAWS being passed in states like Massachusets and Maryland. Both of these states now have firearm safety laws, and in both cases the weapons purchased by law enforcement are IMMUNE. Ask yourself why this is so--I've come up with three possible reasons:

1) Police officers do not have children, and thus, have no need to worry about their young ones picking up their duty weapons while in the home. Knowing several cops, who have kids, I discard this one out of hand.

2) The children of police officers are more expendable than the children of soccer moms. While with certain people (Rosie O'Donnel springs immediately to mind) this may be a possibility (though not certainty) I also discard this theory out of hand.

3) Police will have their lives endangered. This is dead on, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, or at least provide another plausible theory.

As to purchasing, I do admit purchasing a firearm at the present time is not a MAJOR hastle, unless the FBIs computer system is mysteriously down. However, it is EXTREMELY intrusive (why can we on slashdot argue endlessly about online privacy issues, but feel that government records of firearms transactions are not similarly wrong?) and the FBI admits to keeping these sales records for up to six months (in direct violation of the Brady laws, which stipulate these records are to be destroyed immediately upon an approval).

Have you ever purchased a firearm? Do you knwo what is involved? If not, I would think twice before harping about how easy it all is.

Re:Oh Yea one more thing.

[Malcontent]

"I never had to purchase a car, bike, or lighter from someone who had to have a special license to sell them."

Wrong car dealers are licensed and regulated ever try to buy a car on a sunday?. So are a slew of other products like alcohol, tobbacco. Not to mention just about any service you buy from outfitters to doctors and lawyers are licenced.
When I was talking about regulation I was talking about manufacturing more then sales. A cigarette lighter is subject to more regulation and oversight then guns.

"Also, the government organizations that regulate cars have never seriously suggested that american citizens do not have the right to own them"

This is just your typical gun nut paranioa. Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right own a gun. Only that guns be subject to the same kind of regulation that every other commodity is. Yes guns should be registered and licensed just like cars, yes the sale of the should be monitored just like tobacco or alcohol or prescription drugs. Be reasonable here will you, are you concerned that the government knows what kind of a car you drive? how much money you make? how you spent your money?. All these non sequiter arguments about police officers children only makes you guys look like idiots to the average American. Are these the same policemen you are so afraid will knock your door down and confiscate your guns? If so you should be happy their guns will misfire while you are shooting them. As G. Gordon Liddy said aim for the head they are probably wearing bulletproof vests.

Re:Oh Yea one more thing.

[Zak3056]

Wrong car dealers are licensed and regulated ever try to buy a car on a sunday?. So are a slew of other products like alcohol, tobbacco.

My appoligies, I did forget liquor licenses. However, there is no required license to sell tobacco products (of course, you could live in a state with such a law, but I don't know any offhand) and I've never seen a license to sell cars--again, it might exist in your state, but I've never seen it.

This is just your typical gun nut paranioa. Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right own a gun.

This is where you are dead wrong. See US v. Emerson, which is currently playing out in one of the 5th district appeals court. The issue is Emerson, a doctor, was a gun owner. As part of a divorce procedure, a "standard" restraining order was slapped on him, which immediately made him a felon in possession of a firearm, without any kind of due process. His case (brought before a Texas judge) was thrown out after the judge declared the law violated Emerson's 2nd ammendmant rights. The US appealed.

Here is part of the testimony. (Disclaimer: This is taken from the Neal Knox Report, 6/20/00. It is not an official transcript.)

Judge William L. Garwood, the senior judge (appointed by Reagan), seemed startled by the government's position.

He said (according to radio talk show host Tom Gresham's report): "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"

Judge Garwood demanded: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja added that National Guard members could only possess guns issued or used in the Guard.

I don't think I need to be any more clear on this. However, let me know if you're interested in learning more.

Yes guns should be registered and licensed just like cars, yes the sale of the should be monitored just like tobacco or alcohol or prescription drugs. Be reasonable here will you, are you concerned that the government knows what kind of a car you drive?

Why does the government need to know this? I'm not a criminal, I'm a law abiding citizen. Perversely, criminals cannot be forced to register their weapons, as it violates their 5th ammendmant rights against self incrimination (if you want a citation, let me know, and I'll look up the appropriate case numbers for you) and therefore, ONLY law abiding citizens are covered by these laws. And I have a very real fear that registration leads to confiscation. Look at Australia and England over the last decade. Their gunowners were assured that registration was a safety measure, nothing more, and that their guns would NEVER be taken away. Now the English government is even thinking about going after de-activated antiques! (again, if you want a citation, let me know).

All these non sequiter arguments about police officers children only makes you guys look like idiots to the average American.

I appologize for the humor, but you didn't answer my question--Why are their guns immune from these laws? There has to be a reason, doesn't there? And that reason is it would make their guns less reliable, which would endanger their lives. Why should MY life be any less valuable?

Are these the same policemen you are so afraid will knock your door down and confiscate your guns? If so you should be happy their guns will misfire while you are shooting them.

I won't dignify this with a response, as it's a rather disgusting comment, but I will correct it: By law, their guns would be more reliable, not less.

As G. Gordon Liddy said aim for the head they are probably wearing bulletproof vests.

Bad advice. Aiming for anything other than center of mass in a high stress situation is the worst possible thing you can do (see footage of police shootous at traffic stops, etc. They're trained to fire at center of mass, and yet at ranges as short as two yards can empty entire magazines and miss. It's a sobering thought, seeing two people blaze away at each other at six feet and not hit jack, like something out of an A-Team episode.) I wish we had the money to spend to give our LEOs more training... maybe we'd lose fewer to criminals?

Sorry for the digression there at the end.

Re:Oh Yea one more thing.

[Malcontent]

"However, there is no required license to sell tobacco products"

Wrong!. First of all you need a license to run just about any business. I have a consulting company and I had to register and get a business license just to give advice to people. Then when I incorporated I had to register with the state. Every business needs to be licensed no matter what you are selling. For some businesses this is simply a matter of filling out a form other business involve taking tests and jumping through hoops. Amongst these are outfitters, guides, real estate dealers, car dealers, factories and yes gun dealers.

"He said (according to radio talk show host Tom Gresham's report):"

You know I just turn off my mind when somebody lists a radio talk show host as a source. I am going to take the position that this is inaccurate until I see the transcript. It's up to the Supreme court the interpret the constitution and I presume they will. I also persume that you don't think felons ought to be armed. Of course my resding of the second amendment says that only those in the militia can own guns. If you want a gun join the military.

"Why does the government need to know this? I'm not a criminal, I'm a law abiding citizen."

Just because the government knows something about you it does not make you a criminal. DO you file taxes? What kind of information have you given the government? Ever buy a fishing license? Did you register your car, motorcyle, boat? Did you claim medical bills? Face it your government knows a TON about you including where you went to school, what grades you got, every job you have ever had, every car you have ever owned, when where and how you sold or bought a thousand and one things. That's what the government does it collects information.

Re:Oh Yea one more thing.

[Zak3056]

Wrong!. First of all you need a license to run just about any business.

Yes, you do, I never tried to deny that. But once you have one, you don't need ANOTHER license to sell cigarettes, ATF agents will not come into your 7-11 and check over your tax stamps, and you are not required to record every pack of cigarettes sold, its serial number, who you sold it to, where they live, their age, height, weight, eye color, drivers license number, and dick size!

You know I just turn off my mind when somebody lists a radio talk show host as a source. I am going to take the position that this is inaccurate until I see the transcript.

Fair enough, I didn't notice Knox (who is, by the way, a credible source himself) had cited a 3rd party. I have done considerable digging, and while the 5th circuit's website acknowledges that oral arguments have been heard, it has no transcripts. I suppose we will have to wait until the opinion is published, but here is the 2nd Ammendmant Foundation's story, along with links to others. If you are interested in researching yourself, the case number is 99-10331.

Of course my resding of the second amendment says that only those in the militia can own guns. If you want a gun join the military.

"A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I don't know about you, but to me, explicitly stating "The People" is a rather strong indication on just whose rights are being protected. The constitution is EXTREMELY specific in guaranteeing rights to the Government, the States, and the People, respectivly. If that ammendmant refered to the national guard (which, by the way, did not come into existance until 1917) the right would be reserved to the states, and not the people.

In addition to this, the Militia Act of 1903 readily defines what the militia is:

SEC. 1. That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective states... who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age and shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective states or territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve militia.

SEC. 2. That the vice-president of the United States... pilots... and all persons who are exempted by the laws of the respective States or territories shall be exempted from militia duty, without regard to age...

This was ammended by the National Defense Act of 1916, and later law, and the current law (title 10, section 311) can be found at The Cornell Law Library.

So, in a very real, and legal sense, I am a member of the militia. So are you, if you are a male US citizen between 17 and 45.

That's what the government does it collects information.

I find that statement to be truly offensive. It might be what it actually does, but in no way is that what it is SUPPOSED to do... I think Thomas Jefferson said it best in 1776, in an obscure document some people like to refer to as the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Again, I really don't need any more than this to tell me what our government is supposed to be. Do you?

Re:Oh Yea one more thing.

[Malcontent]

Well it's obvious we will not change each others minds. But here are a couple of thoughts anyway.

The second amendment starts with "A well regulated militia". Even if you were to accept the 1903 law as being still valid today (how many other 1903 laws are still valid?) you can not escape the fact the the government gave itself the right to regulate the militia and therefore the peoples right to bear arms. As I have stated before I am not trying to deny anyone the right to own a gun just that they accept a reasonable degree of regulation. IMO this means just like any other lethal substance.

As for the declaration of independence it is not officially a part of our government. It is most probably one of the most dangerous documents ever written and no government would ever make it a part of it's constitution. I find it Ironic that the founding fathers esposed almost unlimited freedom when they wrote their declaration of independence but backed way off when they got around to forming their own government. The constitution seems dim next to that document especially considering the fact that the bill of rights came later.

Re:Oh Yea one more thing.

[Zak3056]

Well it's obvious we will not change each others minds. But here are a couple of thoughts anyway.

I agree, but the discussion has been enjoyable anyway. I often look at polarizing issues (like gun control, abortion, school prayer, etc.) and notice that 99% of the people who get involved in them come to the table with their minds already made up. No amount of discussion will change the way they feel about the issue, especially if they find some documentation that seems to support their position. (For the record: Against, Undecided (Against on moral grounds, but the legal evidence is compelling), and Against (unless silent)).

how many other 1903 laws are still valid?

All of them? :) Unless repealed, that is. And note that the act was modified again in 1916, and has been tweaked a bit since. Arguably, the Selective Service Act also creates a de facto reserve militia, albiet one that is only called out in special circumstances and in a roundabout way.

you can not escape the fact the the government gave itself the right to regulate the militia and therefore the peoples right to bear arms

I think we've agreed to disagree on the overall point, no?

As for the declaration of independence it is not officially a part of our government. It is most probably one of the most dangerous documents ever written and no government would ever make it a part of it's constitution.

I couldn't agree more. It IS one of the most dangerous documents ever written, and while it is not an official part of our law (but just TRY finding an american law library that does not have a copy), it illustrates extremely clearly what the guiding principles that lead to the revolution, and consequently the United States, were.

I find it Ironic that the founding fathers esposed almost unlimited freedom when they wrote their declaration of independence but backed way off when they got around to forming their own government

It's worth noting that the declaration was written almost exclusively by Jefferson (although Franklin supposedly had a hand in it) and getting those signatures on that document was a very difficult task. This was probably not related to the principles outlined in the document, and had to do with it being treason against the King.

The constitution seems dim next to that document especially considering the fact that the bill of rights came later.

Actually, the constitution sets up a weak federal system where the government has only the powers specifically enumerated in the constitution, and allowed to it by the people and the states.

While the Constitution was designed this way, the design has been largely ignored since the mid 1800s, most blatantly with the civil war, new deal, prohibition, etc.

The Bill of rights is another matter. The reason it did not exist in the original Constitution was because it was redundant. The Constitution had already said everything the federal government could do--adding lists of things it could NOT do was something that could only weaken the overall document. Sadly, those who felt this way were eventually over-ruled, but they did make an attempt with the 9th and 10th ammendmants (also known as the "forgotten" ammendmants) which state:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Getting back to the 2nd ammendmant (I know, I know, we agreed to disagree, but I cannot help myself) the 9th makes a strong case for the private ownership of firearms--even if it is not an enumerated right, I still have it if I assert such (and my home state does not feel the need to smack me down, depending on ITS laws--which, in my case, it wouldn't; for the record, the TN state constitution reads: "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.")

I have to thank you for this discussion. It's allowed me to blow off some steam over recent events, and at least try to get our point of view out. You'd be surprised how it feels to have the NRA refered to facelessly as "The evil gun lobby" when, in reality, it's three and a half million law abiding american citizens, with Moses trying to lead them to the promised land :)

Up until about three months ago, I had not fired a weapon in about 14 years (since I was 12 or so--growing up in NY made that difficult) and even then, never pistols. But the way this issue has polarized, I guess I saw it as my duty as an american to get involved. So picked up target pistol shooting as a hobby, and started paying attention. What I saw surprised, disgusted, and enraged me.

The one thing I truly fear is that people like Dianne Feinstein, Al Gore, Sarah Brady, Rosie O'Donnel, and Bill Clinton will succeed in their eventual goal to begin the banning of firearms. And perversely, it's not because I will lose mine in the process--it's because there are a large number of extremely well armed american citizens who will not give up without a fight, and that fight will destroy our country... no matter who wins.

I'm sorry I got off the point, and I'll get off my soapbox now.

eWatch plays on the fact that people are stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Say one customer tells their bad experience to 20 other people, and then imagine 50 million people reading about it on the Internet," eWatch's marketing materials warn.

I don't know about you, but I do not read a message on a board or newsgroup, and immediately file it under the "cold hard fact" column of my brain. Just because someone had a bad experience with a company does not mean that company is evil/uncaring. The benefit of having online discussion groups is the expression of many different viewpoints. I, for example, may have had a very favourable experience with the same company, and would wish to point that out so people don't get the wrong idea.

But that is the problem isn't it? People absorb far too much information without analyzing it and perhaps questioning its validity. If I were to say "Company X sucks", there would undoubtedly be some people who would actually believe Company X sucked, even though their only exposure to Company X has been whatever I happened to say in my post. Companies like eWatch use the general gullability of the masses to their advantage, to say to companies "hey, look, if someone says something bad about you somewhere, someone else is going to believe it. And if one person can believe it, who's to say 50,000,000 won't?". As silly as this view seems, its scary enough to make companies cough up big bucks.

Of course, if I happened to work for Company X and I say "Company X sucks", its a little different. Besides the obvious question of "Why am I working for Company X?", there are obligations when posting such a message on a public forum. I agree with companies pursuing employees who badmouth them. After all, I wouldn't want that kind of person working for me. If you have a criticism, you should discuss it internally, not shout it out for the whole world to hear.

Kai
Anonymous Forgot-My-Password

Re:I hate eWatch?

[Fesh]

Hope you didn't give them your name or address... They may wish to visit you and "reeducate" you about their services...

--Fesh

Corporations do not deserve free speech.

[Jett]

If it comes down to a REAL persons right to free speech vs. an entitiy that is nothing more than a legal fiction, anyone who hasn't sold their soul to the corporations is going to side with the rights of the person. I have no problem at all with protecting free speech by shutting down a companies supposed right to free speech. Corporations are NOT people, they do not deserve constitutional protections. In my opinion we need to amend the constitution to include protections FROM corporations.

Re:corporate terrorism

[tensionboy]

you're wrong about me, i'm afraid, and i wouldn't have any problem with just about any action someone had as long as (a) it wasn't against me personally (call me a selfish b*stard, but if someone burns down my house, no matter what the reason, i'm p1ssed) and (b) legal action and laws still apply. Even if the action is taken against me, i *do* have legal channels I can use to combat them. That's how it should be, IMHO. Everyone should be held accountable for their actions. And if the laws that cause punishment for these actions are wrong, then breaking them and bringing the discussion up can only help.

The Church of Scientology gets its way because it hides behind being a *church*, rather than being a business. Its more about money, power, and control than a real religion. Check out Operation Clambake. They also "win" cases due to their limitless source of funding in their membership. I hope some day the NRA, the Teamsters, and L Ron Hubbard's children get into a battle-royale with cheese and all end up broke.

In the hypothetical example of RU-486 pills getting destroyed, the people doing the destruction and the people that rightfully owned the pills would get their day in court, media coverage would consume the discourse and spit out whatever they felt like saying that day. I don't support the action as much as I support the end result, the discussion, and the final resolution in our society.

For the record, I'm male and don't think its any of my business what women do with their bodies. Destroy pills, have abortions, have babies. Decide for yourself.

give them what they are looking for

[technoCon]

what we need to do is put together a pseudorandom anticorporate speech generator and then have it generate a few gigs of messages that'll generate false hits for eWatch's trolling code.

Not just big corporations

[hawk]

I really don't *care* about the big corporations (except, of course, those I indirectly own, but I don't know which ones they are).

I *do* care about not being able to get where I'm going because a big-labor leader who makes 20 times what I or the members will ever see engages in a power play.

I *do* care about dying from a heart attack because all of cardiac OR nurses mysteriously were sick that day.

Doing something to support a union should not be some kind of general exemption to the civil and criminal law, *especially* when it harms third parties.

hawk

Re:corporate terrorism

[tensionboy]

rtmark.com has done this in the past when they temporarily disabled the web sites of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, the Pentagon, and Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo ( HERE)

DoS is more like trying to talk louder than you than taping your mouth shut; you're free to block the IPs that originate the traffic, call ISPs to get people shut down, however far you'd like to take things.

I've always considered a belief in DoS like a belief in the death penalty. Some people don't think that death is a valid punishment, no matter what the crime. However, there are others...

Re:I hate eWatch?

[psychosis]

Here is the response I just sent to "info@ewatch.com" - a cursory look over their site did not yield any other e-mail address...

To Whom It May Concern:
I read about your service on a computer-centric news site (which, I'm sure you know about) called "slashdot" (http://slashdot.org) today. The services you offer are deeply troubling to me.

Are you aware of the Constitutional RIGHT granted to all Americans called "FREE SPEECH?" If I disagree with one of your clients' serivces/views (or YOUR company's services, for that matter), I am entitled to voice them in whatever public forum I desire. As long as I'm not disagreeing with the AUP (acceptable use policy) of the posting medium, there is no legal basis to remove my words without my permission. You have no more right to do what you are doing on the internet than you have to "ask" (or force, depending on perspective) a publisher to cease publication of a paper book because it goes against the views of your client. Are you going to censor "Consumer Reports" because they give accurate views on products that don't perform like they advertise?

I can see the logic behind informing a company about what is out there about them - knowing the dissent can be as useful - or more so - as the congratulations. However "targeting cyber reeducation" and actually pulling the offending information from web sites is purely acinine. You step FAR over the line of decency.

It's a shame that someone like can cajole the financial backing required to get an operation off the ground. I'll be waiting until something you try to pull gets you landed in a courtroom to defend your anti-free speech actions. The internet is a great thing - it gives power to the normally voiceless consumers in a big business-dominated world. What motivation will there be to offer good customer service if there is only "shiny happy" representation of that company's products/services on the net?

-Philip J Hagen

Re:Huh? What Good Is This?

[Stonehand]

If it's libel, sue you and probably get a preliminary injunction while the lawsuit works it way through the system. Libel happens. Folks get nailed for it.

Ditto for NDA violations and all sorts of other breaches of contract.

I love this

[YIAAL]

So, all I have to do is post some bad stuff about a company I hate, and they'll pay somebody thousands to track me down? Hehehe. You could do a lot of damage with this.

What I find really frightening...

[msaulters]

is that this is so acceptable to these corporations. In spite of the growing trend for things like this to happen, it was always good to think that there were good people, decent and true, who would stand up for what's right and help stop this kind of thing happening. Unfortunately, it appears nothing is so good and right as the almighty dollar, before which none may stand. It's amazing how Orwellian things are becoming, though not exactly in the manner Orwell predicted. Much like psychohistory, the results can be predicted with almost absolute certainty, but the methods by which those results are arrived are beyond scrutiny. I only wonder now how long it will be until television shows, newspapers, and eventually news programs are edited to 'correct' historical innacuracies when they step on some corporation's toes. Quick! Read this post while you can! It may not be here tomorrow!

Re:Sorry Sir, but you're wrong...

[YoungHack]

They would simply reply "screw you". Well, actually they would word it more politely, but it would just that. Don't believe me? Just look at this story. And, never forget that it's somewhat hard to hand out your log files if your disk has just crashed...

Actually the story you link to was not a court order, only a request from a large corporation. There is no reason to believe that an actual court order would be treated at all the same.

remember the good old days...

[pac4854]

...when corporations countered bad publicity by solving and correcting the problem that got them the bad press to start with? Get a grip, corporate America; if you'd spend as much money on service improvements as you do on restraining orders and stupid witchhunts like this you'd have fewer people complaining in the first place. The fee this outfit charges ($5000 US) could have bought an awful lot of good will instead.

Corporate cluelessness reaches a new alltime high with this one.

Re:Ministry of Truth

[bmasel]

We have determined that you have been spreading derogatory information about our company, http://ministryoftruth.org . You will be re-educated.

I hate eWatch?

[Suffering Bastard]

So who's gonna buy "ewatchsucks.com"? Maybe the best way to test the company's product is to see how fast they can track their own trash talkers.

-B

Re:Huh? What Good Is This?

[tietokone-olmi]

Yes, we really need to be more empathic towards the big corporations. After all, they're the ones that Keep This Country Running. And they're only doing their jobs.

You wouldn't want the poor assassin's five children starve by dodging a bullet, would you?

Re:Don't trust your ISP

[fm6]

So who do you recommend?

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Skapare]

Be sure it is one that has REMOVED the HTTP X_Forwarded_For: header, which is normally enabled in caching programs like Squid.

Right Then

[hoss10]

> Especially if we post about our own companies

Fuck Compaq then!

------------------------------------------------ -
"If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists" -

Ministry of Truth

[drenehtsral]

Geez, doesn't this sound familiar. It looks like big brother isn't going to be the communists, or big government, or anything like that, it's going to be large corporations and other assorted big money players. Fucking nazis. They are a big fucking pain in the ass.

Re:Ministry of Truth

[Paul Neubauer]

to help it target -- for reeducation -- the most teed-off of its fed-up fliers (Emphasis mine.)

Well, ain't that typical? "Reeducate" people who may have problems with your outfit. Don't bother fixing the bloody problem that generated the "bad attitude."

Whatever did actually happen with the Northwest "sickout" anyway? What proof was there? (I recall it happening in the middle of flu season that was in the news.. hrmmm). And what of the hard drive siezure/searches? Yep, *THOSE* sure were needed to collect things from web boards & usenet postings, weren't they?

I'm not pro-union, but I am pro-freedom and anti-stupidity.

Re:That depends

[Cable]

What if you just don't mention your employer's name? Just say "the company I work for" or TCIWF or something instead of the real name. That way you can vent without getting fingered for it.

"Ya ain't sticking this one on me, gov'nr!" ;)

Copyrighting your comments.

[bsd]

Can't you just put a copyright notice on each post?

This would be one way to try and stop them from taking your comments and redistributing them.

it's sad...

[The Queen]

I imagine they wouldn't do anything publicly with it (duh) because that would only make them look bad. "We caught Employee #28495 sending emails to his friends saying that our CEO owns stock in a sex toy company. Please gather in the break room for the stoning."
As for your joke about affording free speech, well, we are inches away from having that freedom legislated right out from under us. Fsck these corporations - we need to educate people and start using our buying power as the Consumer Mass to topple these giants...oh sorry, was I dreaming out loud again?

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

Re:it's sad...

[phutureboy]

Damn, what company do you work at, and how do I apply? Sex toys? Getting stoned in the company lunchroom?

And I thought the catered Indian food at my brother's job was a cool perk.

Not that bad

[jreilly]

When you think about it, there's nothing wrong with this, in itself. Firstly, it's not illegal. eWatch is just looking at statements you put into the public domain. They aren't hacking your computer and installing tracking software. If you didn't make yourself anonymous, than getting tracked down is your own fault.

Also, it's kind of nice to know that corporations care at some level. At this price, it can't be long before corporations decide to prevent rather than punish complaints, by building better products.

Re:Not that bad

[Steve B]

When you think about it, there's nothing wrong with this, in itself. Firstly, it's not illegal.... They aren't hacking your computer and installing tracking software.

Perhaps what they actually do isn't illegal, but look at the article's quote from eWatch advertising:

How does it work? Partly, eWatch says, through a little info-cleansing. "We can neutralize the information appearing online, identifying the perpetrators behind uncomplimentary postings and rogue Web sites," the company's online promo material says. Then, eWatch can "remove offending messages from where they appear in cyberspace."

This looks very much like an attempt to convince PHBs that eWatch will hack the "rogue Web sites" and remove "uncomplimentary postings". If this quote is as represented, it is another unethical act at the very least, and perhaps illegal (either as a solicitation to perform a crime, or as a form of false advertising).
/.

Re:Not that bad

[EndlessDespair]

"Also, it's kind of nice to know that corporations care at some level. At this price, it can't be long before corporations decide to prevent rather than punish complaints, by building better products."

You know, that's a good point. This could revolutionize market research. A lot of corporate spin is fixing problems, contrary to the public belief. It usually proves cheaper in the long run than dealing with lost profits or lawsuits.

Squelching, bah.

[The Rock1699]

I don't know how this business believes that society should be run, but last time I checked, the way Adam Smith thought of it, if the people have complaints, the company needs to change. From now on, I suppose we should say "The customer WAS always right." Re-education efforts? Hey, if they're going to pay for me to go back and get my masters, then let me just say how much K-Mart sucks...

Re:Squelching, bah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me just say that Montgomery Ward and SprintPCS really, really, really suck.

Unfortunately, I cannot elaborate on _why_ they suck, out of fear that they will infuriate me further by sucking even more!

I wonder, too, why the customer is no longer right, or even considered human once they are in the legal lair. It doesn't matter that treating every situation in the same manner is provably bad for a certain percentage of customers. The internet very well _should_ be used to badmouth those who don't comply to societal concerns about the individual.

If anyone has a known forum for spouting off about corporate indiscretion, please reply.

And moderate this post up, because ACs will always need a voice and Fling isn't here yet!

Re:corporate terrorism

[Cable]

Not only that, my employeer requested I remove the link to them from my website, and take them off my online resume.

I even had a few wild people of the Internet threaten to contact my company and harass me because my views differed from them. So no more posting information about me or my company in public.

Let me be the first to say

[Benjamin Shniper]

That all products and services I have ever recieved from companies large enough to afford this service have been made with excellent workmanship and have all been vastly superior to all other products in their category.

Uh... unless of course the competing products were made by another company that uses this service. In that case, the products are both of superior form and function in their own ways.

Who knows? Being "economically correct" may be as important as "politically correct".

-Ben

Re:This is why we need anti-SLAPP laws...

[Detritus]

This is the reason why people need to hold their nose and vote for Democrats. Republicans are so much in the pocket of large corporations that they try to elminate all methods of redress that individuals have.

Since I'm a Republican, maybe I should sue you for slander. The Democrats running my state were eager to sell out the average citizen by passing UCITA into law. The corporations say "jump!", they say "how high?"

Gross generalizations are usually inaccurate. There are many different varieties of Democrats and Republicans. I used to have a Republican congresswoman who voted with the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. If you think that a Democratic (or Republican) politician is going to protect you from the abuses of corporations, you need to lay off the weed. Many politicians are more interested in campaign contributions, bread and circuses, and good P.R. than they are in principles and freedom.

+4 Enlightening -1 Offtopic = +3?

[sulli]

You're damn right. Both corporations and unions need to be held accountable. Particularly when the unions and corps are in cahoots to keep consumers paying more and getting less (e.g. the airline biz, fights notwithstanding).

However, this is a little bit offtopic. The key question facing this board is: what level of scrutiny is appropriate for individuals who post comments publicly, and how much "safe harbor" exists for those who disagree with their employer or ISP? I would argue that the "I speak only for myself" clause should be 100% sufficient to protect individual speech, but unfortunately there appears to be a lot of practice contrary to this going on these days.

But back on this sidetopic: take a look at what happens to union rank-and-file who disagree with their bosses (e.g. Teamsters for a Democratic Union). Some of these folks get silenced too, and not always in pretty ways.

sulli

Re:Sorry Sir, but you're wrong...

[anticypher]

But its much easier to publish a policy saying you don't keep any log files more than 24 hours. Even if you don't bother deleting them except once a month or worse. But when that lawsuit comes your way, suddenly you come into compliance with the judge and show them the last 6 hours worth of logs only. "sorry judge, we automatically purge our logs ever few hours, and we have never kept a backup".

I don't have a vat of molten metal lying around in case law enforcement shows up at my door. Maybe next budget cycle :-)

the AC

It's not free speech, stupid!

[gillbates]

It's an Orwellian attempt at thought control. It doesn't matter if you have a right to say something, because the conduit through which you speak is privately owned. Therefore, the First Ammendment doesn't apply; if I own a server and I don't like the comments you post on my server, I am well within my rights to delete that content. Since most ISP's are in it for the money, they will always yield to the whims of Big Corporation rather than fight out a costly court battle. Thus, there is truly no right to free speech on the internet. Unless, of course, you own your own server and have a dedicated line.

Someone needs to do something about this before it gets out of hand... Could we use the same techniques that this company uses to find their customer list and blacklist those corporations?

How do they GET the identities?

[AndyChrist]

How do they find out who people are? Say I'm posting using an account with false information, what do they do? Do they get logs from the service where the complaint was posted, and track me down via my IP? Would this violate most privacy policies (I haven't read any THAT closely, I'm afraid...)

Re:5000 dollars? try google for free

[Stonehand]

Some of it probably goes towards legal expenses for court orders if need be.

A truly paranoid chap could probably bounce messages through numerous remailers and proxies as apropos, with the initial connection through an ISP account attached to a common facility like a public library. The trail could be unravelled given sufficient logging, but it'll take time, money and probably some legal coercion if enough ornery sysadmins are involved.

eWatch

[Brandon T.]

I'd just like to take this oppertunity to state eWatch sucks ass.

Now let's see if they can track me down!

Re:burning books at a free speech rally.

[Claudius]

A first ammendment that only protects the speech you agree with protects little.

Once when I was in college I visited a friend at his school. While we were there a rally took place to protest how someone's free speech was being suppressed (I forget the exact cause--just the gist of what the rally was about). An intriguing moment during the rally was when someone arrived with a stack of highly conservative on-campus newspapers that were sharply critical of the position taken by the protesters. Up they went in a big bonfire.

To this day I wonder whether it was a highly provocative political statement, or just delicious irony.

Re:Rogue websites? WTF?

[Zibblsnrt]

> Can someone please define the concept of a
> "rogue" website?

I'm more interested in their use of the word "terrorists:" This may mean something as simple as deleting a posting from a Web message board on Yahoo! or it could mean "the shuttering of a terrorist Web site."

So if I decide to complain about, say, Wal-Mart's hiring/firing policy (here they seem to fire their new employees one hour before they would be required to promote them), I'm lumped in with Osama ibn Ladin? Nice.

Feel free to execute me for the above complaints, by the way.

-Patrick Stewart

Re:DMCA - It doesn't have to be false

[phil reed]

Um, it's not a violation of copyright to disclose information covered under a non-disclosure agreement. It may very well be a violation of the terms of the contract, in which case you can be sued for breaking the contract. However, it's contract law, not copyright law, that covers NDAs.


...phil

Re:corporate terrorism

[ToddN]

I have a site I threw together a couple of weeks ago... www.corporatenetabuse.com just for this purpose. It is a threaded message board. Have at it if you like.

Re:Don't trust your ISP

[mwillis]

At an interesting Toronto LUG meeting a little while back, they had two presentations, one with the Ontario cybercrime police force (two guys) and a Zero Knowledge guy. Interesting contrast, the watchers and the anonymizers. The Freedom concept was explained and the Zero Knowledge guys said that there would be a linux version at some point. And that they were thinking about open source except that the code wasn't ready for release yet.

Ummmm...

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

It would probably be worthwhile to see if one of their reports contains credit info (which would be required to make your plan work), but reading their website (www.ewatch.com) it doesn't sound like that's the case.

"This inquiry may include, inter alia (i) Monitoring and analyzing messages posted by the subject on the appropriate message board(s); (ii) Examining other company message boards within the same web site for posts made by the subject; (iii) Examining other message boards and Usenet groups for posts made by the subject; (iv) Conducting searches of the Internet for additional references to the subject; (v) Conducting searches for related e-mail addresses, and; (vi) Supplementing developed information utilizing databases containing identifiers such as dates of birth, addresses, etc. "

Note that i-v are Internet-only (i.e. credit info) and vi is, at most, partially meat-space. It may only be online, it may include some real footwork. In any case, no mention is made of credit information.
--

Re:Ummmm...

[Danse]

Well, I couldn't get their website to show me a sample report. I kept getting "Transfer Interrupted!" instead of the report. However, the following section seems to say that there are other kinds of information, besides "credit info" that could cause such a report to be classified as a credit report.

A "consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1) as a report containing information bearing on an individual's credit standing or his or her "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" that is used or expected to be used for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for, among other things, employment, insurance, or credit.'

Like I said, I haven't seen a report, but it looks like they may have a pretty broad interpretation of what is considered a credit report. This is probably a good thing since many factors go into considering your credit-worthiness other than your account balances and credit history.

Re:Ummmm...

[Kagato]

Almost, but if you look at how the FCRA defines the report you'll see it's more than just credit.

A "consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1) as a report containing information bearing on an individual's credit standing or his or her "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living"

If you read other opinions on the FTC web page they are pretty strict about this. In one case a company hired truck drivers to check people out in the city hall while they drive their route. In this case they were pulling public records on the target person. The copies of the records were sent to the agency and combined into a report. The FTC opinion states that this company is a CRA and is subject FCRA.

Re:corporate terrorism

[tensionboy]

i agree with your statement, but DoS is just another form of free speech.

*i* don't plan on launching any attacks on eWatch anytime soon, but if someone wants to gain some notoriety by taking them down, woo hoo.

ps - drlaura.com is also a valid target, AFAIC.

Re:ramen

[shiftaling]

the shrimp raamen ROCKS! its lemoney and tart and salty and sweet. and DAMN its good... cute little freeze-dried shrimp...

i hate shrimp usually

thank you Maruchan!

Re:Huh? What Good Is This?

[Malcontent]

Most like fire you or sue you if you don't work for them. Free speach is really more of an illusion then reality right now thanks to corporate domination of our government. Go ahead and say what you want just be prepared to go broke or end up in jail.

eWatch

[Nancy Sells]

Dear slashdot members:

I've been alerted to several complaints on slashdot about our service as an invasion of privacy and First Amendment rights. The BusinessWeek article cited on slashdot is, unfortunately, inaccurate and misleading. We offer an electronic clipping service that serves much like a search engine for companies looking to see where they have been mentioned, such as online publications (like the online edition of the Washintong Post, for example.)

The benefit of the service is to find out if someone is intentionally manipulating stock, trading on inside information or spreading inaccurate rumors. Rumors, as you know, can cause stock to rise or fall -- hurting investors like many of you. Our customers have an obligation to investors to know what is being said so they can set the record straight -- just as I am doing now. We offer the service to companies who do not have the time to do the searches manually, but the information is all publicly available. We are not doing anything underhanded.

Once malicious or some criminal behavior is determined to be caused by an anonymous entity, some companies choose to attempt to find out who the source is. We do offer a separate investigation service, through a specialized licensed investigation firm. If an anonymous source is causing a rise or fall in stock price by spreading inaccurate information or trading on inside information, companies may need to find out who that person is for legal reasons.

It is unfortunate that the article confused the services we offer, flat-out inaccurately "reported" what we do and portrayed inaccuracies. It is erroneous that we seek out company critics. eWatch does not ever remove any posts online for other companies. That is up to the company to pursue.

We really do share your concerns about online privacy and we value the First Amendment. We feel our service is one that helps to protect those online from rumors and falsehoods.

Sincerely,

Nancy Sells
Vice President
eWatch

What sites?

[MrEd]

You mean like whitehouse.com?

Free speech means free listening?

[EndlessDespair]

Would you have a problem with this service if it went around sleuthing down every word Mr. Gates said? Or some other corporate shark? Would it bother you at all if eWatch went to work on them? Or is this only an invasion if it's carried out on the meeker citizenry?

Does tracking what's done and said in public by frauds, liars, and criminals differ all that much from the Honeypot project mentioned right here on Slashdot earlier?

Does libel have a right to stay up? Does terrorism? If a Microsoft toadie went around posting lies about Linux on web discussions, saying blatant, fraudulent untruths to people who don't know better (and wouldn't listen to you anyway), would it worry you if eWatch went to work on them as well?

If you had a company and someone trashed it on the net, saying it slaughtered innocent bunnies in its research (when in fact the only thing slaughtered was a lot of Jolt and pizza by the coders in the basement), would you look to see what they said elsewhere?

You know, so far as the article goes, eWatch isn't doing any spying or invasion of privacy -- it's just tallying up what people see fit to say in public, and sending that information on to people who might be interested. This is a lot like filtering which is a lot like "Open Journalism", right? And free speech works both ways, I guess; if you say something, then someone who disagrees with you has a right to say that too. Or is that not if the other someone is a corporate? Does the bill of rights not apply to them?

These are all questions, you know, not statements. Answers will have to come from you.

Re:Free speech means free listening?

[Fesh]

No, I suppose we wouldn't. But they won't work for us 'cause we don't have gobs of liquid cash to fling at them. And even if we did, would they risk pissing off their real customers? Kindly remove your head from your butt.

--Fesh

Turn the tables

[ejrongo]

There should be a cheap (or free) service that lets customers that complain on the web dig up dirt on the companies that are "researching" them! Let's see how they like it!!

Re:Turn the tables

[EndlessDespair]

It's called a newspaper. Call your local metro rag if you're being treated unlawfully or unfairly. It makes great copy -- take it from a reporter; we kill for that kind of story. Of course, make sure you're actually being treated unfairly, otherwise...

Anonymity? Hello?

[Uruk]

I can't believe that things like this happen and still we're going to be hearing people in the future talk about how people who speak anonymously are being irresponsible or childish.

This type of thing only reinforces in my mind the need to have anonymous speech available as a tool for citizens to use, since you may want to be able to express your opinion without worrying about gestapo style tactics from companies who find out that you don't like their product.

Nothing new here

[w3woody]

There's nothing new here; cyberknowlegable private investigators have been doing this sort of stuff for years. And frankly, the service they are providing (connecting "rogue" web sites and postings with real names) can be done on most sites in a matter of minutes or hours. On other sites, it requires a court order--and a court order tends to require more than "he said something bad about me."

While I have no problems with hanging someone out to dry who was passing bogus stock tips in violation of SEC rules, I have a hard time seeing the value of going after a disgruntled ex-customer.

Anyways, this sounds like a great service--for separating paranoid companies from $5K...

DMCA - It doesn't have to be false

[cvd6262]

Following the DMCA - the informaiton does not have to be false, or even proved harmful. For instance, Adobe had a review of Photoshop 6.0 pulled from macnn not because it was false or harmful, but becaues they didn't like macnn making $$ off their not-yet-released product. They spewed some rhetoric about it giving their competition time to catch up, but really, that wouldn't stand in court.

The problem with the DMCA is that you're guilty until proven innocent. It would never stand in court, but your ISP is not going to go to bat for you, and unless you're rich, I wouldn't advise a personal legal crusade.

Write your senator!

Re:DMCA - It doesn't have to be false

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

That doesn't sound like its covered by the DMCA, but anyway... You can just file a counter notice. Your ISP is required under the DMCA to honor that. Doesn't cost a cent. the DMCA has all the info in it about what you need to do. Basically sign a statement and give it to them. DMCA sucks, but do realize the few protections in it and be prepared to use them.

Re:DMCA - It doesn't have to be false

[hakashat]

Following the DMCA - the informaiton does not have to be false, or even proved harmful.

Where in the DMCA does it say that it does not have to be proven false or harmful?

Aside from that, if they sue somebody for libel, there are certain things that must be proven. According to the notes in FindLaw's dictionary (http://dictionary.findlaw.com) "A libel plaintiff must generally establish that the alleged libel refers to him or her specifically, that it was published to others, and that some injury (as to reputation) occurred that gives him or her a right to recover damages (as actual, general, presumed, or special damages)."

I don't know if a company has the same responsibilities in a libel suit as a general celebrity or politician, but since the NY Times v Sullivan case, there would be the added responsibility of proving malice. I would think that a company would be subject to this because it would be of "public concern." And malice is quite difficult to prove. It is very easy for somebody to say they were just venting and didn't actually mean what they were saying. And with bulletin boards and newsgroups,

Basically, if you don't post an outright lie about another company but state what happened to you and how upset you were, I don't think there is anything the company could do and it still allows for bitch sessions.

Re:DMCA - It doesn't have to be false

[mindstrm]

But.. Umm.. Adobe *knew* that *nobody* who hadn't signed an NDA should have copies of their software, and the fact that someone reviewed something that they *could not have legally had, in any way* means their copyrights *were* violated.

Re:DMCA - It doesn't have to be false

[ethereal]

...and the fact that someone reviewed something that they *could not have legally had, in any way* means their copyrights *were* violated.

Sure they could have had it legally. If an Adobe employee left an alpha copy in a bus terminal (or wherever) and somebody from MacNN picked it up, they are under no legal or contractual obligation not to review it. They can't make 50 copies and sell them down on the street corner, but though Fair Use they could post screen shots, samples, quotes, and so forth from the software.

The Adobe employee/NDAee may be in some hot water, of course. Even in the worst case, if the NDA'd party was in fact MacNN (which is highly unlikely) then they would be in breach of contract, but that wouldn't prevent me from passing on information that I learned from their review. Trade secrets are the responsibility of the company to enforce through contracts; they are not the province of government.

PR Newswire is a $cientology front group

[leereyno]

One of the companies mentioned in the article as providing this "service" is PR Newswire, which is controlled by the "Church" of $cientology.

Its no suprise that they want to be able to track people online and then go pay them a visit or otherwise harrass them into silence. Nothing scares a scientologist more than the truth.

Lee

Re: Personalized ``Spin''

[rnturn]

I would be, shall we say, less than happy to receive my very own personalized spin doctoring from some corporate PR department. Much preferred would be for corporations to do a little self-examination and find out what it is about themsleves that has customers (or employees) so steamed up. These corporations should bear in mind that the ones who actually go to the effort to post a nastygram on a web site or even go so far as to create a web site pointing out the corporations shortcomings are only the smallest minority of their unhappy customers. Word gets out that they're going after their unhappy customers and they'll have a PR problem that they will can't even imagine. And nailing a disgruntled employee after they post complaints about or blow the whistle on their employer will do, um, wonders for their recruitment effort; especially in a labor market tilted in the employees favor like it is now (and is likely to remain, at least for high tech workers, for the foreseeable future).

I would consider it an evening well-spent putting together a cover letter explaining how I really don't want to receive personal attention from their PR department and to please just spend more time cleaning up your act/image/products, etc. etc., and a mechanism for me to easily forward that cover letter (with their email as an attachment) back to them. If anyone out their develops such procedure, let me know about it.
--

Honest Question (but maybe posted too late =(

[doogles]

Ok, quick question.

What if I say something blatently slanderous about a company/person/whatever to, say, a friend. Or maybe a handful of people.

Is this "okay" just becuase it's a smaller group of people? What's the law say in a case like this?

Let's test it out.

[ToddN]

http://www.corporatenetabuse.com

It's a site I run out of my basement for jollies. Let's see how long before some corporate lawyer sniffs me out. Feel free to post... and no, I am not a corporate mole. And logs will be destroyed daily, starting tonight when I get home.

Re:5000 dollars? try google for free

[/]

If you pick a vague enough screenname, then it becomes orders of magnitude more difficult to search for it. Take mine, for example. Just how many references for "/" do you suppose google will come up with? Answer: it won't even try. Heck, I can't even efficiently search for a comment I made on a thread where I know I posted without first going to my userpage.

let's see if it works!

[MOMOCROME]

General Motors is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Wal-Mart Stores is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Exxon Mobil is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Ford Motor is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
General Electric is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Intl. Business Machines is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Citigroup is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
AT&T is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Philip Morris is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Boeing is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Bank of America Corp. is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
SBC Communications is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Hewlett-Packard is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Kroger is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
State Farm Insurance Cos. is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Sears Roebuck is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
American International Group is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Enron is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
TIAA-CREF is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Compaq Computer is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Home Depot is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Lucent Technologies is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Procter & Gamble is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Albertson's is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
MCI WorldCom is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Fannie Mae is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Kmart is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Texaco is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Merrill Lynch is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Chase Manhattan Corp. is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Target is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Bell Atlantic is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Merck is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Chevron is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
J.C. Penney is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Motorola is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
McKesson HBOC is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Intel is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Safeway is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Ingram Micro is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Johnson & Johnson is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Costco Wholesale is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Time Warner is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
United Parcel Service is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Allstate is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Prudential Ins. Co. of America is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Aetna is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Bank One Corp. is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
USX is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Lockheed Martin is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Metropolitan Life Insurance is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Goldman Sachs Group is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
GTE is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Dell Computer is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
United Technologies is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
BellSouth is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Cardinal Health is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
ConAgra is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
International Paper is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Freddie Mac is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
AutoNation is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Berkshire Hathaway is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Honeywell International is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Walt Disney is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
First Union Corp. is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Wells Fargo is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Duke Energy is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
New York Life Insurance is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
American Express is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Loews is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
PG&E Corp. is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Conoco is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Cigna is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
PepsiCo is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
AMR is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Bristol-Myers Squibb is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Sara Lee is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
FleetBoston is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Sprint is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Raytheon is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Coca-Cola is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Microsoft is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Caterpillar is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
UnitedHealth Group is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Xerox is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Lehman Brothers Holdings is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Dow Chemical is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
UtiliCorp United is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Electronic Data Systems is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
J.P. Morgan & Co. is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
CVS is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
UAL is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Walgreen is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Georgia-Pacific is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Federated Department Stores is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Sysco is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Supervalu is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.
Bergen Brunswig is guilty of several SEC violations and promotes teen drug use.

So, from a corporate perspective

[epcraig]

which is better, to lose some middle managers and peons because some of the peons went postal or to take some PR hits?
After all, it's not as though the common ruck of your employees (or their middle mangers) are stockholders, and rarely can they get at the policy makers, either to criticise or to assault.
If I recall correctly, the whole "going postal" phenomenon started when the US Post Office became the US Postal Service and found a few of its no longer civil servants disgruntled by the push for more efficiency at their expense, and denied them effective outlets for intense frustration.

The difference is...

[dirty]

that the response to microsoft was just that, a response to microsoft. Microsoft's lawyers send andover a request, andover had no obligation to uphold this request. A court order on the other hand is, well an order. If andover got a court order telling them to hand over their logs, they would, any company would, atleast any company that wished to remain in business.

Re:corporate terrorism

[ToddN]

Oh, I don't know.com The first thing to pop into my head.com Of course, I could have used a .se tld

a little unclear...

[vyesue]

I'm more than a little confused why anyone would make a post to an online area of any type which contained any sort of negative comments about the company for which they work. seems a litte retarded to sit around and complain about your job when you can just go get another one.

I really don't have any pity for anyone who gets narked out via this service; if youre dumb enough to diss your employer online instead of just quiiting, you're... wel,, pretty dumb.

Re:Another steaming pile of..

[legLess]

You are, of course, perfectly correct. That company also has the right to sue you into the stone ages to shut you up. Of course the law would be on your side, and you might win in the end, but it certainly wouldn't be a pleasant battle.

Given the choice, I'd prefer my first line of defense to be my anonymity, not my lawyer.

Re:Don't trust your ISP

[mwillis]

A note about the freedom server from the ZKS FAQ:

When do you plan to port the Freedom Server software to Windows NT, OpenBSD, FreeBSD or other operating systems?

All efforts are currently being spent towards the development of the server software for Linux. Once this has been completed, we will begin developing versions for other operating systems.

Re:Huh? What Good Is This?

[Malcontent]

Those goddamned unionists. Who do they think they are asking for better wages or better treatment. They should just do what they are told and be glad they have jobs in the first place. Fire them all! Let's institute slavery again! cheap prison labor for the good of the corporations! Screw the people they are only resources to be used!

Re:Fuck VA Linux!!!

[Alex Belits]

Probably just as much as if it was "Fuck Microsoft!!!" or "Fuck AOL!!!", and less than, say "Fuck Buffy!!!".

Re:InfoCleansing

[talesout]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that they keep calling people that write un-complimentary postings perpetrators? Isn't that what they call criminals? Is it really a crime to post something uncomplimentary about a company? Even if the uncomplimentary thing is true?

God, I'm gonna start digging my cave now. It'll be easier than facing the world ten years from now and risking saying something that offends those with money. After all, money=power=control.

Re:Another steaming pile of..

[slstickle]

The only problem, as Howard Zinn often notes, is that the Constitution is just an old piece of paper. If the Powers That Be decide no to enforce it (witness the Jim Crow era), then your Constitutional Rights are so much ink on paper.

Re:Huh? What Good Is This?

[hawk]

Let's suppose that you're an employer involved in contract talks with the union. Such talks are *heavily* regulated, with all kinds of potential nasty behavior made illegal under federal law.

One of these illegal acts, under appropriate circumstances, is a strike. Another is a "sick-in".

Let's further suppose that during bitter talks, half of your employees call in sick on the same day. Given that other employers, even those with employees working alongsideyours at the airport, didn't have abnormal sick counts, you suspect that it's the union's doing. Are you being unreasonable in thinking this? [And if you are, why would the union do it???]

You lose hundreds of millions of dollars by being essentially shut down for the day with no advance notice. For some reason, this makes you unhappy. It would *easily* be worth $5k for you to do a search for any evidence showing who organized this criminal act against you.

This is roughly what happened in the airline case; it wasn't a matter of general snooping about in employee's affairs, but a matter of routine discovery involving other parties (the employees) to litigation.

Basically, faced with a sickout, you know that there's some organization going on; it's a matter of finding it.

hawk, esq., not giving legal advice.

Re:corporate terrorism

[tensionboy]

I'd love to see a court case where an employer sued a previous employee due to the content in their resume.

although, if a trained monkey like me can write it, i'm sure we'll be reading about it on here within a few weeks.

Re:it's their right.

[carlos_benj]

Exactly. I probably wouldn't write negative information with regard to my employer because I wouldn't want that known. I can and do say negative things about other businesses, but I restrict my statements to the facts and how I've chosen to respond.

IANAL

[Tiro]

...we will not have our liberty or possesions taken away because of [the First Ammendment].

If you organize a "sick-out" and your employer finds out who you are, expect to be fired.

You certainly can have "liberty or possetions" taken away from actions like these, because "sick-outs" constitute a breach of labor laws and/or contracts. You can get the heck sued out of you for doing these things.

Tell that to the corporate whistleblower...

[MissKitty]

who outs a company's dangerous practices and then suddenly gets laid-off. Their reputation is smeared; they are called a disgruntled employee or worse on TV. Sure there are laws against firing whistleblowers, but how much money do they have to then spend to get their job and/or good name back. You can't count on that or any law to protect you.

You may win ultimately, but be bankrupt by the process.

Re:Tell that to the corporate whistleblower...

[EndlessDespair]

In the same vein, you could have put together falsified allegations and accused the company of things it never did, in the hopes of making some cash and fame off the lawsuits, television deals, and so on. You may lose eventually... but in the process bleed the company so much it has to lay off a couple hundred people. Who are then on the street looking for a way to feed their kids.

Corporations are jobs, you know. We have those in this country.

Re:Lovely

[Jitterbug050]

In time you will see it was the best thing to happen to you. You will move on to a place where you can have a new life. I would look forword to it.

Don't trust your ISP

[Russ Nelson]

This just means that you shouldn't trust your ISP not to fink on you. If you want anonymity, go through an anonymizing service.
-russ

Re:Don't trust your ISP

[brg]

freedom, by zeroknowledge.

would that it worked under Linux... sigh

That depends

[drinkypoo]

If you are the type to be concerned about such things, you should go create a new /. account with a new handle, and some bogus email address (Go create one on hotmail with a psuedonym like Charles Babbage.)

If your /. handle isn't linked to anything with your name on it, there's just no way to track you through it unless people use your real name in responses to your posts, or you do. Otherwise it's too much work to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Maybe one day, with quantum computing and faster-than-light communications... ha ha.

Re:That depends

[rtscts]

Slashdot server logs

websites that have reason to protect users' privacy shouldn't be logging anything that isn't an error. easy. court subpoena aint magic, they wont get data that doesn't exist (unless there's an order to start logging i suppose...)

Re:That depends

[Kaa]

I think someone would have to subpeona the phone records into my netzero hub

If you piss off law enforcement hard enough, no problem.

Does anyone know if those phone records are kept?

Yes. By your friendly phone company.

It seems like a ton of data to save.

So? Tape is cheap. Besides, guess who pays for it.

Kaa

Re:A two-edged sword

[Locutus of Microsoft]

The collective has embraced, extended, and expunged your proposal. now prepare to be Innovated(tm)

Advertisment for eWatch

[hardburn]

As a major corperation, you are probably concerned about the spread of truthful information on the Internet about your company. We understand. Thats why we provide quick and efficent finding of anyone who dares to oppose your control. You may have lawyers, but they can't do anything if you can't find out who doesn't like you! And remeber: The Bill of Rights was only ment for people like you!

------

better to be fired from a company

[harhar]

that would stoop to snooping on you like this than to stay on board, no?

Another corperate tool to be abused!

[Lumpy]

You know If I buy Item X and item X sucks, burnt my house down and raped my cat, I have a right to scream to everyone that product X from company X sucks big potatoes. I can print banners stating that I think X sucks. Unfortunately, corperations want to stop me. Why? well it tarnishes them. Example: BestBuy sold me a fridge. they delivered it banged up and they parked their truck on my lawn ruining the sod. Best buy delivery and service sucks, as far as I know. Now I tell others, that best buy sucks, and it propagates. Best buy, tries to sue me for slander, I plead to the judge, the judge is one of these liberal asswipes and sends me to jail for slandering a good company like Best Buy.

Golly, aint this country neat!

A two-edged sword

[WillAffleck]

As the article says, if a corporation used this aggressively, this could create a /. effect of negative publicity. It is free speech, and censorship just creates a stronger backlash.

That said, since I own stocks in a number of corporations, how would one suggest wording a shareholder proposal to stop the corporation from using this in an extra-legal or aggressive manner?

Ideas?

Anti-Corporate Statements

[glester]

If you are interested in learning more about the battle for free speech (which is exactly what this is all about), you might wish to visit http://www.2600.com. Currently 2600 faces at least 1 and perhaps as many as 4 lawsuits for expression their opinion about Corporations. Also you should visit the 'Electronic Frontier Foundation' http://www.eff.org to learn more about these types of issues. Hope this helps.

Re:It doesn't have to be a lie to be censored

[reptilian]

Obviously companies aren't concerned that the information is correct at all; they're more concerned that it's true. That said, there are many *many* companies which routinely spread lies and misinformation (they call it marketing). Certain chemical companies, for example, have multimillion dollar PR campaigns to convince the public their products are environmentally safe, while at the same time spending a comparable sum in lobbying efforts to get environmental protections weakened.

All these companies are doing the same thing as the tobacco companies have been exposed as doing for years, yet no one flinches when McDonalds blatantly breaks fair animal treatment laws, or when Disney blatantly breaks labor laws. Why? Advertising, PR, marketing. Tobacco companies have been restricted in their means of advertisment for a long time, which means any PR moves by them are ineffective. Plus, they're the perfect scapegoat. The horrible things that tobacco companies have done are so horrible that no one wants to believe Disney is just as, if not more, ethically suspect. Disney, the one who makes all those cute cartoons and owns mickey mouse.

Anyway, I'm really not going off-topic. It's not about punishing libel or anything like that, it's about censoring the truth, it's about union busting, it's about maintaining control over the captive public whose wrath it seems has no (monetary) limit given the sums now expected in anti-tobacco cases. This is *exactly* the thing oppressive governments do. What you don't know can't hurt you, they say. Well, it's more like what your enemies (consumers) don't know can't hurt the companies.

eWatch may have their nice little mission statement about "Stopping the spread of lies" but whatever their mission, the companies they serve have their own agenda.

And I wonder, who decides what's truth and what is lies? Why, the lawyer with the biggest salary, of course.

Re:This is why we need anti-SLAPP laws...

[beagle]

Insert U.S. political flamebait here:
This is the reason why people need to hold their nose and vote for Democrats. Republicans are so much in the pocket of large corporations that they try to elminate all methods of redress that individuals have.

Actually people need to vote for something other than the Big Two Parties. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are so corrupt that they have, in effect, met in the back room. Vote Libertarian - get the government and corporations off our backs and let's get back to the America that our men fought for that we won during the Revolution!

Re:Huh? What Good Is This?

[Claudius]

Depending on your organization, what you did, and how motivated your organization is to press the matter, the response could be reprimanding you, firing you, suing you (if you violate NDAs and the like) or bringing criminal charges against you (a favorite of many U.S. Govt. agencies).

Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs

[EricTheFish]

If you think that ewatch is a CRA, why isn't a private detective agency a CRA? Or is it?

corporate terrorism

[tensionboy]

it is VERY necessary to have a place online to air grievances with companies, and companies are always invited to respond.

I have received letters from attorneys in the past for content from my site (don't ask, long story) and posting the emails word-for-word seemed to ensure that i never received anymore from them.

hmmm, if anyone wanted to DoS ewatch's network, it wouldn't bother me at all.

Re:corporate terrorism

[llywrch]

>DOS is *not* another form of free speech. A DOS is more like me taping your mouth shut.
>
If you were actually intelligent, you'd come up with a better argument than this.

So let's try a counter-example: if you caught some guy raping a child to make a porn film, would you resort to violence to make him stop?

Sometimes the ends justify the means. And if you can't refute *that* assertion, then do us all a favor & either shut up or don't breed.

>Y'all need to pull your head out of your ass.

Mote & beam, dude. Pot, kettle, black.

Geoff

Re:corporate terrorism

[Refrag]

You're missing the obvious fact that DoS attacks are free speech in themselves. The only reason recent DDoS attacks have been outside of the law is because they were launched from compromised systems. (or at least, that is how it should be)

Refrag

Re:corporate terrorism

[killbill]

hmmm, if anyone wanted to DoS ewatch's network, it wouldn't bother me at all.

So to protect "Free Speach" you would not mind somebody shutting down a companies free speach?

Isn't this kind of like saying "We will not tolerate any show by Dr. Laura regardless of content because she is intolerant?".

A first ammendment that only protects the speech you agree with protects little.

(IMHO of course).

Re:corporate terrorism

[tensionboy]

Causing someone to suffer a DoS is, well, not my style. I don't really have the time, nor am I interested in being in a p1ssing match w/ anyone on who can wipe the other off the Internet quicker/bigger/with more media attention.

That doesn't change the fact that there *ARE* readers here that want to do exactly that. I'm speaking to them. RTMARK's experiments that push legal boundaries are very interesting to me. Just the fact that someone might read your reply and go visit the site makes me glad to be in this discussion with yet another Anonymous Coward.

I have to disagree with you, though, that these actions will, in the end, hurt the "little guy". What would probably end up happening, is that this (or another RTMARK sceme) is found out, the media descend on the situation, and no matter what the legal outcome, more people have heard of the project and contributed what they can, just by being aware and asking questions.

Sound like Napster? DeCSS? I wonder why...

Yes, it's true...

[iodinemasta]

Newest customer: The Secret Service of the United States of America. Job description: Keep track of sites that President Clinton visits and repremand him for visiting sites with...er... obscene content. --- Iodine

Re:Yes, it's true...

[Delphis]

Well yea, apparently today IS 'Intern Appreciation Day' .. according to the amusing DJ on the radio this morning it's the 3rd anniversary of the Prez's own appreciation of Monica..
--

Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs

[Kagato]

How much reading did you do before posting?

1) "Among other things", i.e. not limited to.
2) Did you even read the rest of my post? Both the article and my post talked about the example where NWA employee's lost jobs because of the the Investigation. I would say that counts as using the report to determine continued employment. Although, as noted NWA probally already had written consent, the employee may still have had rights to see the report, and contest points on the report before termination took place under FCRA.

Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs

[Fnkmaster]

Read your own post, crack smoker... "eligibility for, among other things, employment" and then stop reading there. What exactly do you think they are doing? Playing pattycake? No. They are determining that people are no longer eligible for employment, in other words, FIRING them. Thus, if you look at the fairly broadly defined law, consumer info other than strict credit information are protected, and for purposes including determining employment eligibility (and that would certainly include not only ORIGINAL but CONTINUING employment elibility, or at least, any lawyer worth a buck fifty could argue so).

Plenty of ways to quash dissent...

[isaac]

And exactly what is the purpose of this information? Are they going to put a contract out on your head? Are they going to start harassing you? Black list you with employers? Threatening you? Subscribe you to dirty magazines and order pizzas to your house?

If you're an employee, you could be fired. Maybe you're an employee of a subsidiary or company in a "strategic partnership" with the object of your complaints.

Example: Bob works at Hughes as, say, a satellite broadcast technician in their DBS division. He's had several unfavorable experiences with Chevrolet cars, and posts them on his personal website and in several newsgroups. Some sharp-eyed soul at General Motors, parent of Chevrolet and Hughes, sounds the Independent-Though Alarm and Bob's boss makes it clear to Bob that continued employment or advancement in his position at Hughes is contingent upon his silence on the matter of his distaste for things Chevrolet. To make things more interesting, say Bob's finances aren't too great and he's got three dependent kids, so quitting is not an option. What does Bob do?

One need not be affiliated with a company to be silenced, either. The object of your criticism could go to your ISP with a C&D for libel and have your critical website pulled w/o so much as a fare-thee-well. Of course, you could take the company you're criticizing to court to prove your statements to be true, if you could afford the time and legal fees. Most people can't. And if your ISP is in cahoots with or owned by the person you're criticizing (*cough*AOL Time Warner*cough*AT&T*cough*@home*cough* *wheeze* *splutter*), you're already scrood.

The more people turn to the internet for product information, the more producers are likely to attempt to coopt the information sources. They're not after you for vengeance, they just want you to shut up so you don't drive other customers away.

-Isaac

FREE STUFF!!!!

[RobertAG]

from the article: "Say you get lousy service from Barnes & Noble and you criticize it in your favorite chatroom. Barnes & Noble, an eWatch customer, could -- if it wanted to -- monitor that complaint, identify who you are, and get B&N's public relations crew to send you an e-mail trying to change your mind."

I know of a lot of people who like to spend their time bitching to corporations just to get t-shirts, mugs, coupons and other free stuff. Let's face it: no company is going to pull an orwellian "re-education" on you. Most people are saturated with enough corporate marketing to ignore most of it. They all know that word of mouth is the best way to market their goods. After all do you trust a corporation or your REAL friends? Forget lawsuits. A person with a legitimate gripe will do more damage to a reputation by word of mouth than anything else.

Companies have a right to protect their basic interests against inflammatory speech. A frivolous lawsuit against someone with a paper trail could cost them millions. In a country where stupid people who spill coffee on themselves can make millions by suing the restaurants that sold them the coffee, it's the corporations that that should be scared. NOT US.

Probally Violates FTC Regs

[Kagato]

IANAL, however, the langauge that is used to describe what the company does such as "will receive a dossier detailing all information gathered about the subject during the inquiry." could classify them as a CRA (Credit Reporting Agency). This means that information they put into their report could be subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. If this is the case then it brings many consumer protections.

William Haynes, Divison of Credit Practices (FTC) wrote in an opinion on June 9, 1998 :

'The first issue is whether your company is a "consumer reporting agency" (CRA) for purposes of
the FCRA. Section 603(f) of the FCRA defines a CRA as any organization which, for monetary fees, "assembles or evaluates" credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of regularly furnishing "consumer reports" to third parties using any means or facility of interstate commerce. A "consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1) as a report containing information bearing on an individual's credit standing or his or her "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" that is used or expected to be used for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for, among other things, employment, insurance, or credit.'

I've never seen a report from this company however, if they have to comply to to the FCRA then some points of interest:
1) Section 609 dictates for 2 years you have to record who's asked for the report. And disclose to the consumer the entire file to the consumer, including who has requested reports.
2) Section 607(b) requires a CRA to maintain "reasonable" procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Which means a report can't contain "Probally". Just the facts ma'am.
3) If the company happens to be an Employer then section 604(b) applies, which means they need written consent to conduct the investigation.

In the case of the Northwest Employee I'm sure they had a background check claus in the contract, however, if an employer terminated an employee because of the report and they did not have consent then there may be grounds for a lawsuit, and possible FTC fines.

Section 607(b) requires you to maintain "reasonable" procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.

Tons of fun FTC stuff located at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/index.htm

Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs

[Danse]

Looks to me like a pretty wide-open statement. They probably included the phrase "among other things" as a CYA clause so that any other onerous or potentially damaging purposes for the reports could be covered by their definition. Whether the courts will play along with this or not is anybody's guess.

Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs

[Kagato]

In an opinion written to Cargill Corp (The US's largest private company):

"Private investigators and records search firms that Cargill hires to report on court rec-ords are CRAs under the definition set forth in Section 603(f); individual researchers hired by such firms are not. See the enclosed staff opinion letter (LeBlanc, 6/9/98), where we discuss the status of such parties in detail."

Source: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/slyter.htm

Re:Anonymous Coward

[anticypher]

Va/handover/slashdot would immediately comply with a court order. They are a publicly held company. To do otherwise would open them up to being held in contempt of court, or under the new DMCA laws, held equally responsible for any criminal or civil charges brought against the anonymous coward once identified.

That is why I never post anything objectionable, even using an alias pointing to a throwaway mail service. All along the way, websites are tracking everything they can about me, IP address, machine name, OS type, browser type, cookies. As a network guru, it is childs play to trace people on the net when they piss me off.

Truly anonymising TCP connections is very difficult, so I save that for the really important rants.

I'd like to see /. post a much clearer policy on how they purge web logs every day or so, and never make backups of the web log directories. This would make lawyers think twice about trying to subpoena the info if it is clearly stated it is deleted at the end of every day. As it stands, they are certainly collecting all the info they can on users, even anonCowards, to sell to their marketing masters.

the AC

This is why we need anti-SLAPP laws...

[StevenMaurer]

SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation - essentially corporations misusing the legal system by filing frivolous lawsuits against individual critics who don't have the means to defend themselves.

This is not so much an online issue - most SLAPPs come from land-use issues.

Some states have anti-SLAPP laws on their books, which make it much more costly for libel plaintiffs who loose in court. Others don't.

Insert U.S. political flamebait here:
This is the reason why people need to hold their nose and vote for Democrats. Republicans are so much in the pocket of large corporations that they try to elminate all methods of redress that individuals have.

Technological fixes (such as anonymity) can't address a legal issue, because the bad guys can use technology just as well as the good guys. You actually have to have the law on your side. That means using the political process, no matter how little respect you have for it.

Re:it's their right.

[quonsar]

$5,000 per screen name? If the corporate bastards had just treated people right in the first place, they wouldn't be out there saying nasty shit about them!

This should be upsetting. If you want people to be happy, and purchase your product/service, you must serve their needs. You must treat them with respect. You must not lie to them.

But, no... instead, it will be business as usual, crappy service and support, an unending cacaphony of marketing lies, and investigations and harassment of those who complain.

Mark my words - they DO intend to "make the web safe for business", and this means nothing less than the complete muzzling of unapproved content. In the eyes of the "new economy e-commerce high priesthood", the web is a wonderful thing - except for that annoying little matter of just anybody being able to distribute content/speech of any sort. They simply cannot have that. They, along with the clueless lawmakers they buy, are taking steps to fix this minor flaw.

"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up

Re:Huh? What Good Is This?

[EndlessDespair]

Aha! You see? This service is a tool of the capitalist pig-dogs to be used to further oppress the socialized working masses! By reading through many public messages they, yes, these very top-hat wearing, cigar-smoking, glasses-wearing fiends shall shatter so-called "illegal" unionization everywhere!

We must put a stop to this! Hardworking souls should have a right to strike and ruin people's travel plans at their whim! It is the only possible road to a dictatorship of the masses.

Down with corporate message-reading! Wealth is theft! Consumers are a myth! Ignorance is freedom!

Now go read Animal Farm and have a nice day. =)

support

[jafac]

hm - I was *wondering* why I supported Anonymous Posting.

This must be the reason.

if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!

Larry Ellison's mother wears combat boots to bed

[mrbuckles]

I love that they're claiming the benefit of this to companies is it allows them to 'reeducate' people. I think you've finally found big brother when he's not afraid to use Orwell's own ideas.

It will be interesting to see when this finally gets trashed by the courts. Notice that right now they're only going after illegal activities. (If this keeps people from posting bogus earnings reports or other false, damaging information, I'm okay with that.) What you can easily see happening is someone getting p.o.ed about an Oracle product, writing something like my subject line and then getting 'reeducated' via a lawsuit.

Real world effects?

[Transition Cat]

• I'm appalled at the idea, but not surprised (anyone who has been a cubicle-veal in corporate America will understand).
• However, I have my reservations as to how much this will actually change things. While the euphamism "info-cleansing" has the same odious ring to it as "right-sizing," the reported $5000 tag seems steep enough to discourage its use except against the most vocal troublemakers (where "cease and desist" procedures already exist).
• To me, this service seems more of a pre-emptive scare tactic.
• Personally, I'm more disturbed by the fact that (last I checked, anyway) fucksprint.com is a domain name owned by the bastard telephone company that screwed me royally. I'll lambast Sprint any chance I get for the way they've shafted me (and a few loved ones, and a few of y'all, I'm sure) - but this "info-cleansing" service? Bring it on, bastards.

Fight the power.

....

Anonymous Coward

[hidden]

I just want to see some stupid ass notice stuff about his company on slashdot & pay that company to research Anonymous Coward.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[KnobDicker]

That's enough of a start to maybe finger the individual's identity. Once the lawyers subpoena the IP that the comment was posted from, they simply traceroute/nslookup it back to the ISP and subpoena any RADIUS server logs from that ISP which would correlate an IP at a given time and date to a real account holder's name....it happens all the time, though at present, there is no statutory requirement for service providers to maintain such logs....though I can see some anti-privacy lawmaker chomping at the bit to legislate this and add another regulatory burden to ISPs.

I you want any real anonymity, use Freedom from ZKS or get someone to set up an anonymous Web proxy in Sealand/Havenco that doesn't log anything.

it's their right.

[matman]

it's any individual's/corporation's right to have access to the same information that any other member of the public has access to. If they wana spend 5000 dollars to know that I said something unfavorable about them, then it's their loss. It remains legal for me to say anything TRUE about another person or individual. Just keep negative comments about others clear, well supported, and legal. If you dont want a company to know what you think about them, dont write your opionions down in a public forum. If you do, you're asking for it.

Huh? What Good Is This?

[Seumas]

And exactly what is the purpose of this information? Are they going to put a contract out on your head? Are they going to start harassing you? Black list you with employers? Threatening you? Subscribe you to dirty magazines and order pizzas to your house?

Damn. $5,000, eh? Someday, I'll be able to afford free speech.
---
seumas.com

Re:Huh? What Good Is This?

[Eil]

Why do you mock that which drives up your airline ticket prices so high?

Fire!

[sulli]

Actually, the author of this famous quote (mostly used by advocates of censorship such as Focus on the Family), who I believe was Oliver Wendell Holmes, wrote that one cannot falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Of course, if the theater is crowded with people and is also on fire, you would be entitled to let the former know about the latter.

This is useful to point out when people complain about potentially inflammatory or offensive speech. If the speech is accurate to the best of your knowledge, even if people get pissed off, you have a right - nay, a duty! - to utter it. IMHO(IANAL).

sulli

Also: Do not forget to shout "theater" in a crowded fire!

Rogue websites? WTF?

[Emil Brink]

Um, pardon my French, but who the fsck died and made them all gods of the Internet or something? Can someone please define the concept of a "rogue" website? As opposed to what, a nice corporation-controlled e-commerce site? And what do they mean by saying that they can "remove offending messages" from the net? Geez. I think we all need another look at both Fling and FreeNet. This sucks. I'm almost upset.

It doesn't have to be a lie to be censored

[cvd6262]

The objective? "To stop the spread of incorrect information and to ensure that what has already spread is eliminated," eWatch states.

Wrong! I'd venture a guess that eWatch cares not of the validity of the information, but just that trademarks are being used. One of the greatest successes of the www._______sucks.com was a woman who took on a pest control company. Everything she said was true, but they still went after her for trademark infringement.

eWatch will simply automate the process of serving a DMCA order to the ISP of sites which do not agree with their customers.

I haven't heard from them yet.

[Animats]

As the proprietor of Downside, which reports on dot-coms in trouble, I wonder if I'll be hearing from these people. So far, no complaints.

Hmm...

[Signal 11]

You know, imagine if we rotated a few words around, how our government would respond...

People Fight Online Statements They Don't Agree With

This is an interesting article at Slashdot about eFU, a website that specializes in tracking the comments of, and garnering personal information about folks with a beef with another person. The service isn't cheap, upwards of $0 per "screenname". This was apparently used against anti-Microsoft people three months ago. The Slashdot article seems to hint that eFU is used primarily to root out uncomplimentary messages on "rouge" web sites such as itself.

Businesses are getting away with things these days no person could ever have...

Always!

[ebh]

So, should we be careful about what we post here, Usenet, or anywhere else? Especially if we post about our own companies?

Always! Eons ago, the new users' docs for Usenet used to come with the admonition that you shouldn't post anything you wouldn't want your current or future employers to read. With the explosion of the Internet in general, add your parents to that list as well.

And of course, now that just about everything is being archived somewhere, don't post anything that might come back to haunt you decades from now.

[In 2050 will I be jailed as a "future dissident" for moderating down a troll in 2000?]

Re:eWatch plays on the fact that people are stupid

[/]

Whoah, there. Be more careful with your hypotheticals. You don't want the X Consortiom to sue you for that post.

Re:ramen

[phutureboy]

Haha. Here I am hungry, trying to figure out what to eat... and I come across your post.

I'm gonna go eat me some ramen too.

Mmmm mmmm good.

I sure do like me some ramen boy.

P.S. The freeze-dried vegetables make Maruchan the best ramen that money can buy.

"Giants"

[Anonymous Coward]

by Five Iron Frenzy

When no one looks the clouds come rolling in,
And under darkened skies the buildings grow big teeth and eyes.
They breathe and walk through unending doors,
Eating restaurants, and barbershops, and hardware stores.
With catch phrases and jingles stealing,
Steal and concrete lies,
The corridors of Babylon are craning for the skies.

Chorus:
Who's behind the curtain anyway,
Who pulls the levers and tells the lies?
Giants roam the land today,
Gaining dominance with every stride.

Oh don't you cry for the mom and pops,
Nothing but dry eyes for integrity's demise.
Hulking machines grind as whistles blow,
Corporate Darwinism crushes everything below.
Advances in efficiency increasing productivity,
Are narrowing the margin for liberty.

"This house is haunted by the ghost of Adam Smith,
The Wealth of Nations and the further death of innocence.
To rule the world, the desire of every man,
The earth is shaking,
There are giants in the land."

See the blood red sun is rising,
On the broken carnage from the darkest days.
Giants locked together arm and arm,
Pushing all the meek out of the way.

Politics of fear and abundant labor...

[drenehtsral]

Those with very pointy haired management can't always discuss something interernally, and sometimes those are the only jobs in the area. I've had friends that worked places that were poorly run, inefficient, and treated their employees like shit, but they needed to eat, and in a college town where you can find an underfed grad student to design a nuclear bomb for $8/hour, one's lucky to come up with any job at all.
So as a result, he bitches because his boss is an autocrat with no actual wisdom to justify his position, only seniority. So what if he vents his frustrations... I think that companies that treat their workers like shit just because the swing of the pendulum is towards a buyer's market in labor at the moment are digging their own grave. Loyalty works both ways. If you abuse your employees because you know they are scared to talk, and they can't find a way out, you'd better damn well believe that when they do find a way out they'll take it, and when they found a way to speak their mind it's human nature. It's like the people who beat their dogs, no wonder they get bitten.

angry at companies

[tongue]

At times like this, I really wish I had some company to be pissed off at. Please, someone, help me find a company to hate just for the sake of exercising a constitutional right and having it take away from me.

support projects like freenet to prevent companies like this from eroding our rights and freedoms.

Sorry Sir, but you're wrong...

[BlueUnderwear]

They would simply reply "screw you". Well, actually they would word it more politely, but it would just that. Don't believe me? Just look at this story. And, never forget that it's somewhat hard to hand out your log files if your disk has just crashed...

The Interesting Thing ...

[StormyMonday]

is the tone of the article. The author of the piece found this sort of corporate intellegence gathering quite disturbing. Remember, this is in Business Week -- about as pro-business as it's possible to get.

Maybe there's hope yet!

oh brother

[SEAL]

Give me a break.

If the job you're working is so bad then organize a mass resignation. That's not illegal last time I checked... unless you're in military service or something where you signed your life away. But really - if you don't like your job, get another one. If your job is SO unfair, then it shouldn't be hard to convince others to quit / not hire on. And then maybe the company'll have to change its ways.

If, on the other hand, your job truly isn't that bad -- then maybe the union is too pampered and asking for things it shouldn't. Sorta like those umpires. "Oh wait... those manager bastards hired college umps to replace us. We want our jobs back... wahhhhhh."

If you act like a sheep you're going to get treated like one. Take decisive action and stand by your choices, and you'll garner more respect. I'm so sick of the poor whiny working class arguments... get a life.

The evil makeup industry

[hawk]

Yes, those horrid rouge sites. We've all seen the garden variety office catfight, and the comments about weight. What is little known is that it's not because women behave this way, but because of the evil makeup industry and its rouge sites.

At the departmental level, a whispered "she gained 10 pounds" may be sufficient. At the executive level, it's different. One snide post about "her pasty complexion" sells plenty of rouge, but not before her career is rouged, err, ruined . . .

Hell, these aren't even *my* opinions, let alone my employer's . . .

Mod this up!

[Danse]

More good info.

InfoCleansing

[PopeAlien]

"How does it work? Partly, eWatch says, through a little info-cleansing. "We can neutralize the information appearing online, identifying the perpetrators behind uncomplimentary postings and rogue Web sites,"

Wow. This would bring a tear to the eye of an old KGB flak.. It sounds so wholesome, so godamn HEALTHY - Its good to know that someone is out there *cleansing* info. Now I *know* I can trust whatever I read online. No more dirty info!

5000 dollars? try google for free

[Miriku chan]

5 grand is a ricockulous amount to pay for that. shows how anything with a few buzzwords goes up in price by a factor of 10^(n) where n is the number of buzzwords.

sigh.

you dont believe me on how easy this is? go on google, and type in your email. or your nickname (as you post most commonly). see how many links it comes up with. i found a bunch of stuff i posted on slashdot, and some newspaper clippings which mentioned me (for stuff i did in my yonder high school days) which i didnt even knew existed.

the paper trail is there, ripe for taking, and these people are paying $5000 for someone to run grep on dejanews logs. lol :)

anyone wanna start a competeing startup which will *cough* only take $4000? :)

Another steaming pile of..

[Bowie J. Poag]

Wooo, lets all be afraaaaaid of the holding company! Gimmie a break. If you dont like a company, you have a constitutionally protected right to say whatever the hell you want about that company, provided you dont cross the line into slander. You can get up on a soapbox, but you cant yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant, or is lying to you.



Bowie J. Poag

there's more to come

[matthew_gream]

As has been discussed on cypherpunks, extropians and other forward looking technology groups - there is much more to come, and probably some of it is already here.

Things that I have written in the past (circa. 1993 even), are still in global internet archives, and accessible to future employers and other interested parties. Anything you say on the net now, you should presume will be available to anyone in the future.