At 6:48 AM 3/23/96, Rich Graves wrote:
AltaVista doesn't index web sites that follow the Robots Exclusion Standard. Does that mean you won't use AltaVista anymore, either?
I didn't say that an indexing policy is the determinant of my using it or not, only that DejaNews looks less attractive than it did before (which wasn't very attractive anyway, compared to AV...your mileage may vary, so I won't be engaging in Search Engine Wars).
Agreed, anyone really concerned about their privacy should be using anonymity/pseudonymity, but a temporary hidey-hole is a Good Thing.
Well, I mostly disagree with this point. It gives the poster the _comforting illusion_ of privacy, when in fact the Real Threat (tm) is that the search engines of 2-5 years from now will trivially uncover all of the "asides" (to use Rich's term) made in rec.music.white-power and alt.sex.cypherpunks. It is the searches done several years from now that will no doubt be of greatest concern to job seekers, professors seeking tenure, and candidates for political office. No matter the "no archive" headers, somebody will archive it. Thus, spiders will find it. This is the "ostrich effect" I was referring to. The illusion of security.
But I can think of a lot of reasons you might want to post something under your real name, or your regular pseudonym -- gaining the benefit of your good (or bad) reputation, mostly -- but on the other hand, you don't want that post archived. It's called an "aside."
The point is that just because one or more sites is not archiving the traffic does not mean that other sites are not. Look at the parallels to cancellation: some sites strongly believe that "cancellation" is a bogus concept, that once a message has gone out it is part of the overall feed. (I concur with this view, and, if I ran a site, would not honor so-called "cancellations.")
For example, I might want to say, "Tim May is a big fat idiot because of what he just said." I do want to say that, publicly, under my name and
It created a best-seller for Al Franken.....
address, but for various reasons, I don't want that saved in the archives. Since X-Headers are readable by most newsreaders, and are in
Well, what you _want_ and what you're gonna git are not necessarily the same thing. I expect some sites are going to advertise that they archive and/or index _all_ public traffic, becoming a "site of record."
OK, you've convinced me that this isn't a privacy thing, really, but I think is a valid and useful thing. What's the alternative, really? If I
At the risk of repeating myself: -- some people will want to request "no archives" (for "asides" and "off the record" comments. -- some sites will honor these requests. -- other sites will not. -- that at least one site keeps the traffic and makes indices available is sufficient to negate the effect of requesting "no archives." -- the practical effect will be initially to make a search for the "no archive" words _slightly_ more difficult, but not practically so...in spiderspace, the distances are compressed and a search will still turn up the words.
want to say something, now, are you going to tell me that I don't have the right to request that you not take my comments on the record? That sounds sort of totalitarian. I either have to create a new, unique nym on
"Totalitarian"? You spoke publically, in this example, and I remembered your words. What is totalitarian about this? Trying to purge uttered words is the hard thing to do, actually.
the fly, in which case my comments lose anything associated with my name, or I have to keep my comments to myself. Recognizing "Well, the full context is recorded too, you can defend youself with that" only makes it worse, really.
Just thinking out loud, my thoughs being recorded for posterity on hks.net and Exon-knows where else...
Indeed, the storage densities and net connections that are coming will make your words here trivially searchable by your daughter in her third-grade class in 2005. Maybe on her handheld terminal. (And she'll probably be most interested in the words that Daddy thought to label as "no archives," as you yourself presaged in an earlier message. Those are likely to be the juicier things to read.) --Tim May THE X-ON CONGRESS: INDECENT COMMENT ON AN INDECENT SUBJECT, by Steve Russell, American Reporter Correspondent....You motherfuckers in Congress have dropped over the edge of the earth this time... "the sorriest bunch of cocksuckers ever to sell out the First Amendment" or suggesting that "the only reason to run for Congress these days is to suck the lobbyists' dicks and fuck the people who sent you there," ....any more than I care for the language you shitheads have forced me to use in this essay...Let's talk about this fucking indecent language bullshit.