Slashdot Mirror
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..."
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.
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
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
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.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
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
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
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....
Bite my yammer.
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!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
So what happens when a person speaks out against a company that is willing and supposedly able to quash dissent... err, I mean, lies?
--
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
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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
No. Based upon the merits of the MP3s, I bought two Foo Fighters CDs and plan to buy a third.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
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.
I'm glad *SOMEBODY* is looking out for all these poor corporate megaliths..
air and light and time and space
Especially if it just crashed because you accidentally dropped it in a vat of molten metal while "taking it out to clean the connectors."
What about getting up between acts in a theatre and declaring that there are not enough fire exits?
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.
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.
© Copyright 2000 Matthew Yeo
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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"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.
War is necrophilia.
"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
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.
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
Be sure it is one that has REMOVED the HTTP X_Forwarded_For: header, which is normally enabled in caching programs like Squid.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
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
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.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
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
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
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.
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.
War is necrophilia.
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.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. (here's looking at you, kid)
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.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
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...
Perhaps what they actually do isn't illegal, but look at the article's quote from eWatch advertising:
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)./.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
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.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
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.
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.
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!
War is necrophilia.
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 :)
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.
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.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
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
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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!
------
Not a typewriter
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?
Will in Seattle
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
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
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.
72656B636148206C72655020726568746F6E41207473754A
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.
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
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.
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
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
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
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.
/. 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.
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
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
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.
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.
I just want to see some stupid ass notice stuff about his company on slashdot & pay that company to research Anonymous Coward.
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.
Damn. $5,000, eh? Someday, I'll be able to afford free speech.
---
seumas.com
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
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.
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'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
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.
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...
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.
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
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...
Say no to software patents.
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 . . .
More good info.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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
Bowie J. Poag