Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYT Discovers the Panopticon

Posted by michael on from the stalker's-delight dept.

Erris writes "Should we be surprised at the NYT attacking search engines? This article seeks to blame Google for all privacy loss, as if someone else remembering and sharing the things YOU publish is worse than credit card purchase databases, phone records, credit records being created and shared by OTHERS without your consent. Libraries must really be evil."

6 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh... by RAruler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you run a website you have a variety of optiosn available, most reputable search engines will follow a robots.txt, and if your still paranoid after that you can deny access to the ip range of popular search engines. If you aren't willing to do these rather simple things to protect your 'privacy' you shouldn't post things on a website. Who knows what the teaming hordes of 'internet crazy folk' could do when they find my short story, surely they are all deviants and sexual miscreants. I know, i'll get INTERNATIONAL PRESS COVERAGE to make sure that my Privacy remains safe.

    --

    --
    Insert Witty Sig Here
  2. Perhaps... by spookysuicide · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Perhaps the New York Times should take their database of archived articles off line, since some of the people depicted in their stories would probably prefer if other people couldn't read about certain things they did.

    This is a ridculous way to look at privacy.

    --
    yes i run a goth/punk/emo porn site.
  3. OH gee by mizhi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see, you put your information in a public forum such as the web and you expect it not to be indexed? Gee golly willickers and shucks, Mr. Peabody, people sure are stupid.

    You want privacy? Don't put a fucking webpage up. Now the distinction between credit card companies and the rest of the ill-begotten like minded ilk is well taken. I didn't do anything other than purchase somethings using that credit card, and yet, they can sell my information to any Tom Dick and Harry that wants to know my underwear purchasing habits?

    Fuck them. NYT has ceased to be an informative source of news for a while. And it has never been a source of unbiasednews.

    --
    Humorless sig goes here.
  4. A few observations.. by Da+VinMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    #1 - If you don't want information about yourself to be public, then don't make it public. No I'm not trolling. How difficult can this be? It can't be a violation of your 'privacy' if you don't post the material in question in the first place.

    #2 - Google (and others I'm sure) do all of us a great service by caching the last known good copy of a site. Then when we /. (this is the only punctuation-only phrase I would ever use as a verb by the way) the site, we can (usually) still see it. Please consider the value of this service for your sake, and posterity's before you rant about of all the precious privacy we've lost.

    #3 - What's in a name anyway? It's just an identifier. We could all just as well be numbered for all the real value that a name contains. What are you without your name? Still you, right? So why do you need a name, other than for identification purposes which is directly tied to our seeming need for ownership of resources? Don't forget, you are not your identifiers, or circumstances. You will always be you no matter the circumstances. At least, that's true until you die... then you are still what you will be. But before you get stressed out by that, I urge you to consider what you were before you were born. Remember that? Me neither. No point in stressing out about it then, eh?

    #4 - Do not post to /. after imbibing respectable amounts of alcoholic beverages. Just trust me on that.

    --
    Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
  5. Fickle Press by bovril · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm sure if Camberley Crick was a teenage starlet, politician or a topless sunbathing member of the Royal Family, this would fall in to the public's right to know category.

    But because she writes educational games (2 words that should never be seen together) it's an invasion of privacy story.

    --

    ---
    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
  6. good grief by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was an article pointing out the fact that a lot of personal data has entered the web, and it's hard to erase. What the hell is the matter with you people? Can't you tell the difference between a news or feature article and an editorial? And what's with the mindlessly combative tone? "Should we be surprised at the NYT attacking search engines?" When has the NYT come out against search engines? This makes absolutely no sense.

    as if someone else remembering and sharing the things YOU publish is worse than credit card purchase databases, phone records, credit records being created and shared by OTHERS without your consent

    Where does it say that the examples the article cites are WORSE than credit card purchase databases, phone records, or credit records?

    The way this story submission was phrased made no sense whatsoever.