Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Downsides to Intrafamily IM?

Posted by michael on from the /away dept.

Frisky070802 writes "The NY Times has run a column on how many families now use instant messaging within a household, for instance to ask what someone wants for dinner. This is especially popular as whole houses get wired (or wireless) and computers are scattered throughout the house. This is the case at my house but I tend to be the only one who stays on AIM reliably. Can Slashdotters offer some personal experience, pro/con, with being instantly and constantly accessible to one's spouse and children? Does this tend to break down your 'personal time'?"

2 of 514 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Non-Indentured Servitude link by Slayk · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why can't people register, for free, without complaining? Well, I for one don't enjoy tossing my information about willy-nilly just to read an article.

  2. Here, have a cookie. I promise by the time you... by X-wes · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    There was once a young man who walked around Seattle. Every time he visited a popular store, he would first have to stand still as some random part of his body was pierced and a little tag hung from the piercing. Of course, he was free to dodge this little nuisance, but he would often be denied access to the store. (The most popular and chic stores would always do this.) Of course, to receive the "convenience" of wearing a more permanent tag, one would register with the store, giving far too much personal information. But it was worth it, wasn't it? After all, it wouldn't be annoying at all to be tracked by this tag, along with others from advertisers, while going through life, would it?

    Give me a break

    Cookies were, in concept, a great thing, but they have become abused by advertisers. However, to block cookies is unwise, since many websites require cookies to allow entry. I take a compromise and have all cookies deleted at the end of the current session.

    The New York Times asks for registration, and the parent post argues that this one-time exploitation of personal information is enough--cookies will sign the particular user back in for subsequent sessions. There are, however, problems with this:

    1. I take offense to having my personal information exploited, even if it only occurs in one instance. (n.b.: not "one instance" here, since the data is kept on file.)

    2. I take offense to being tracked, and having my viewing patterns and other information available to a party. (n.b.: this applies to NYT as well as their advertisers.)

    3. I should not be penalised for my pursuit of privacy (a right which should already be enforced by others) by having to take extraordinary measures to perform regular tasks.

    I recommend the parent author to rethink his words for accuracy.