[TAG] found something in the attic...

[Heather Stern]

Reasonable Defenses vs. Keeping the Blinds Closed vs. Hiding Under Rocks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> > However, as Rick Moen says in one of his observations, that immutable
> > stupidity tends to instantly evaporate when people start getting fired.
> 
> Oh, _that_ guy?  I know for a fact that he got referred to "How to Ask
> Smart Questions" the other day.  He must be an idiot.  (/me checks with 
> Dan Bernstein.)  Yep.
 
We're all idiots sometime.  Or as the filksong says 
	Been there, done that, learned what I should know
	Got the footsteps on my t-shirt, got the bruises I can show.

> > Y'know, I'd completely forgotten about that. Is there a reason that they
> > _aren't_ public? Unless there's something I'm missing, they _definitely_
> > should be.

Whereupon most of the rest of the thread centers around "define public for
this purpose."

I have many times likened our goings on in the Answer Gang to the happenings
of a fairly geeky coffee shop.   
 
> The previously rationale cited is two-fold:
> 
> 1.  Someone, somewhere (a non-subscriber) might send us information 
> that is not for publication and not intended to be public.

Levels of support for this, from "beyond unreasonable" to "sure, whatever":

If their super secret sauce will be ruint by breathing a word of it in
anything that hints at being a public space - they already lost when they
walked in.  This describes people who mailed Jim "The Answer Guy" Dennis at
"his" ssc address and thought they were reaching a man in a cubicle they
could hire for support.  "I've been seen by 30 people already? why you dirty
rat!"  <- tape them behind the wall;  they found Jimmy Hoffa eventually,
but at least nobody was sure for a long time.  The only way to be *this*
safe from the net is to not own a computer.

SO uh, just call me joe.  And I don't want my mail named or anything.  Some
spammer might stalk me.
	If you ever posted anything anywhere, including your name for 
	a mailer from a company you liked, you probably already lost.
	Sorry.  I'm with Rick's redact-and-smile-gently tactic here (but 
	please, read onward).

#include <corporate_expectations.h>
def time_t response; // really short 
def politeness = -1; // makes us really short with 'em back

This gets them...
#reply <price_list_for_consulting.$>
If I *like* them, they might be told why, the nature of public vs. private
spaces being a continuum, given about a ha'penny worth of the applicable 2c
Tip, and a pointer at the blurb in issue 64's blurb about what the cost
actually is for things that are Free.  It has about zero to do with hiding
their name - and if there's anything about protecting their company in that,
it's really about the embarrassment of publicising that one among their staff
failed their Miss Manners training again.  In our current form we dust these
under the rug, most of you guys hit the D) key, and I sometimes glean a
halfcent tip back out for later.

Various forms of "keep my company out of it but here's my question" - I
consider briefly moving this further down the list, these sorts are often
hyperpolite, and if they need to be reminded about how to sanitize their
post, that's ok too..  twice the aid they get on newsgroups, too.

"If you could leave my name off that'd be appreciated" - while some people
think this is about the same as the spammerstalking-foil-hat type, I think
politeness counts for something.  At least these people are clear on the
idea that we're going to (probably) publish it.

> 2.  A large percentage of the population still believes in "hide from 
> spammers" tactics and object to their e-mail addresses getting included
> in public mailing list archives without their explicit consent.  (Some
> object to it even with the sort of address obfuscation that Mailman can
> be configured to do.)
 
Ooh wait, I already handed Joe his tinfoil.  Unfortunately, as K.-H. notes,
it's not complete baloney either.  I gave up keeping "my" email address 
"private" in the early years of BBSing, it's been too late to save me in a 
lot of senses for longer than some of the Gang might have used Linux.
Possibly for longer than Linux itself existed.  But perhaps others will be 
able to save the watch even if the boots are a loss.

Since we don't need the addresses to be 'live' I think there's little harm in 
nipping *all* these in favor of plain names... all the time.  The only use of
knowing the email addresses at all is to know who the heck we're talking to.

..I still use my real incoming mbox for building our articles, and the 
mailbags.  The mailbag is the especially touchy part;  how can people say 
they want help but they don't want a reply?

Oh yeah. Because they expect to read it in some future month.  We should
reward such loyalty :)  We do mention names on tips.  We do mention them on
letters - and I prefer to leave them in - because letters from Anonymous
Slashdotter could have been made up.  I have the distinct belief that our
readers like to hear from our other readers, that helps them feel like the
coffee shop we hang out in is visited by more than theirselves.

> I find these justifications insufficient, and would advocate changing
> our policy at the earliest possible opportunity.  (I'd be glad to enable 
> Mailman address obfuscation of the form "rick at linuxmafia.com", not
> because I think it's a good idea but rather to reduce some other
> people's objections.) 
> 
> I also volunteer to field any and all cranky e-mails we receive
> demanding that X allegedly private e-mail addresses, telephone numbers,
> etc. be redacted from the archive.  Doing so honestly isn't difficult: 
> You snip something out using $EDITOR_OF_CHOICE from the list's
> cumulative mbox, then re-run the Pipermail archiver, to rebuild the 
> HTML archive from the mbox.

3. (paraquoted con)  Because there is value in the full article form instead
   and a certain amount of fluff and nonsense in the list edition of it.
   (paraquoted pro)  Because there is a certain amount of value as well as 
   grit and fluff in the raw form that doesn't get to articles and alas
   isn't googled**.  **refer to your favorite indexer-bot here.

Hmm.  We do have some people who joined TAG just to see what sort of fluff
was said.

In many cases we repackage and publish the fluff too;  that's the
Laundrette.   Because as Ben notes, and as Mike knew before, sometimes
there's tasty bits in this stuff too.  Not being instantaneously available
doesn't seem to be any defense;  Jimmy or I have often dredged the past for
juicy Tips or "backpage" material.

Does this *need* to be able to be googled in raw or almost-raw form as well?
Good question;  I have no idea.  Though it might boost our crosslink scores.

----
Question raised:

Hmm.  The usage of archive for us having the raw material to work from,
and the usage of archive for being able to "peek through the glass window"
at our little TAG Bar and Grill, xteddy serving drinks, might be different.
If so, are they different enough to have two archives rather than one?

Shall we ditch the pilot-blackourtains and if so should we just not
bother getting drapes?  I think *some* gentle defenses would be polite.  And
ideally we wouldn't bother to do this unless it's easy rather than hard.  
Thomas' point that some people here expected and got their privacy;  if we
change the look of the place, some may come in, others will stay away,
opinions will have to be rethought. 

/me opens can of worms, apt-get installs moon-buggy to shoot at a few rocks, 
and considers whether Rick is addicted to sitting in front of an editor 
tweaking pseudo-raw archives...  hey, I only do this once a month after all, 
and skip it sometimes.  If you do it, you're buying in for more often.

Sorry if I'm raising more questions than I answer - but that *is* part of 
what you bought in for when you joined the Answer Gang.  

-* Heather Stern * star at starshine.org * The Answer Gang's Editor Gal *-
   The Linux Gazette (http://www.linuxgazette.net/) is under the LDP