I have also had the experience that several of Derek Jensen's posts--but
no one else's--have been quarantined by my spam filter, which delayed
their delivery for a day. No idea why it's picking on him.
[ Attachment content not displayed ]
Dear Mike;
I never get derek jensens forwarded from the LPSF discussion does anybody else have this problem???
The only way I know Derek wrote something is going direct to LPSF.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
"Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:
I have also had the experience that several of Derek Jensen's posts--but no one else's--have been quarantined by my spam filter, which delayed their delivery for a day. No idea why it's picking on him.
Often his posts end up in my bulk mail folder, tho not always.
Francoise
"Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:
I have also had the experience that several of Derek Jensen's posts--but no one else's--have been quarantined by my spam filter, which delayed their delivery for a day. No idea why it's picking on him.
This kind of brings up an issue I have considered raising on the EBLP
discuss list and the EBLP announce list. Over and above the occasional
technical difficulties associated with the Yahoo Group service, do we
(i.e. Libertarians) want to continue doing business with an organization
such as Yahoo (or AOL or MSN), which has meekly submitted to a
government subpoena and turned over gigabytes of log files concerning
internet search statistics to the Bush Administration so that the U.S.
Attorney General's office can resurrect the Children's Online Protection
Act (COPA) that was overturned by the Supreme Court several years ago?
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/21/gonzales_vs_google/ for more
information on the controversy. As a parent, I believe it is my
responsibility to protect my children from "indecent" material, not the
government.
There are other services that may be used for our purposes, and even
free ListServ or majordomo software that we can use to nost our own
mailing lists (without any advertising links). There is a significant
question here about privacy and responsibility. Do we really want to
support a company that fails to respect our right to privacy? A company
that happily turns over server logs to support a government effort to
revive a law that the Supreme Court determined was unconstitutional?
Remember also how Yahoo was happy to reveal the identity of a Chinese
journalist who used an anonymous yahoo email account to file news
reports about how the Chinese government was attempting to suppress
protest actions commemorating the t5th anniversary of the Tienanmen
Square massacre last June. The journalist is now serving a 10 year
prison sentence for exercising a right that we in the United States take
for granted. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4221538.stm for details.
Google offers similar services to Yahoo Groups, yet is willing to stand
up for and protect the privacy rights of its users. Granted, Google
also caved into pressure from the Chinese government and agreed to
censor some specific search terms on its China based servers, but which
one is the "lesser evil" ?
I must admit that I am in a dilemma over this controversy. But John
Gilmore is one of the smartest people I've ever met and a longtime hero
of mine, and he is asking very pointed questions about Yahoo's behavior
in this matter. See the BoingBoing story I've pasted below:
BoingBoing search privacy challenge: show us the data, MSN, Yahoo, AOL.
Regarding recent
<http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/18/doj_demands_user_sea.html> news
that the Justice Department issued subpoenas for user search data to
AOL, Google, MSN, and Yahoo -- and all but Google complied in one form
or another -- EFF <http://eff.org> co-founder John
<http://www.toad.com/gnu/> Gilmore says:
If Yahoo, MSN, and AOL didn't reveal any personal info to DoJ, let's see
them publicly post the results that they sent back to the DoJ.
They sent "a generic
<http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/20/aol_we_did_not_compl.html> list
of aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly
one day period" (AOL)? Let's see it. The public can decide whether there
are privacy violations in there.
They sent "a random
<http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/20/aol_we_did_not_compl.html>
collection of page URLs that we had web-crawled"? Let's see them.
No need for barrels of ink to speculate with, let's just look at them.
There can't be a problem with looking, if there's no personal privacy
issues involved. There's no trade secrets here -- these are queries
typed by end users, and web pages set up by end users. Right?
Here at Boing Boing, we can't write subpoenas -- but we would like to
know.
So, America Online, Microsoft, and Yahoo: will you please release the
data publicly -- or show us where it already exists online? This way,
everyone who uses your services can take a look for themselves, and
evaluate whether they believe the information shared was
privacy-violating.
Thank you,
Cory, Xeni, Mark, and Pesco.
Previously: Keeping
<http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/24/a_simple_prescriptio.html>
Google's records out of government hands.
Search <http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/23/search_and_privacy_d.html>
and privacy: Danny Sullivan, Declan, GoogleAnon
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5165196> Xeni on
NPR: Bush Administration Seeks Search Records
AOL: <http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/20/aol_we_did_not_compl.html>
We did not comply with all of the DOJ's search data request
<http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/19/_doj_search_requests.html> DoJ
search requests: Google said no; Yahoo, AOL, MSN yes.
<http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/18/doj_demands_user_sea.html> DoJ
demands user search records from Google
posted by Xeni Jardin at 09:08:10 AM
<http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30/boingboing_search_pr.html>
permalink |
<http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&sub=mtcosmos&url=htt
p://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30/boingboing_search_pr.html> blogs'
comments
Dear Terry and Everyone Else;
If it something to vote on here's the Google Groups site (Beta) version.
http://groups.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=ig&q=
Let the discussion begin on migrating LPSF Yahoo Groups to Google Groups and all the other Californai Libertarian Groups as well who use Yahoo.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Terry Floyd <tlfloyd3@...> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } This kind of brings up an issue I have considered raising on the EBLP discuss list and the EBLP announce list. Over and above the occasional technical difficulties associated with the Yahoo Group service, do we (i.e. Libertarians) want to continue doing business with an organization such as Yahoo (or AOL or MSN), which has meekly submitted to a government subpoena and turned over gigabytes of log files concerning internet search statistics to the Bush Administration so that the U.S. Attorney General�s office can resurrect the Children�s Online Protection Act (COPA) that was overturned by the Supreme Court several years ago? See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/21/gonzales_vs_google/ for more information on the controversy. As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility
to protect my children from �indecent� material, not the government.
There are other services that may be used for our purposes, and even free ListServ or majordomo software that we can use to nost our own mailing lists (without any advertising links). There is a significant question here about privacy and responsibility. Do we really want to support a company that fails to respect our right to privacy? A company that happily turns over server logs to support a government effort to revive a law that the Supreme Court determined was unconstitutional? Remember also how Yahoo was happy to reveal the identity of a Chinese journalist who used an anonymous yahoo email account to file news reports about how the Chinese government was attempting to suppress protest actions commemorating the t5th anniversary of the Tienanmen Square massacre last June. The journalist is now serving a 10 year prison sentence for exercising a right that we in the United States take for granted. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4221538.stm for details.
Google offers similar services to Yahoo Groups, yet is willing to stand up for and protect the privacy rights of its users. Granted, Google also caved into pressure from the Chinese government and agreed to censor some specific search terms on its China based servers, but which one is the �lesser evil� ?
I must admit that I am in a dilemma over this controversy. But John Gilmore is one of the smartest people I�ve ever met and a longtime hero of mine, and he is asking very pointed questions about Yahoo�s behavior in this matter. See the BoingBoing story I�ve pasted below:
BoingBoing search privacy challenge: show us the data, MSN, Yahoo, AOL.
Regarding recent news that the Justice Department issued subpoenas for user search data to AOL, Google, MSN, and Yahoo -- and all but Google complied in one form or another -- EFF co-founder John Gilmore says:
If Yahoo, MSN, and AOL didn't reveal any personal info to DoJ, let's see them publicly post the results that they sent back to the DoJ.
They sent "a generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly one day period" (AOL)? Let's see it. The public can decide whether there are privacy violations in there.
They sent "a random collection of page URLs that we had web-crawled"? Let's see them.
No need for barrels of ink to speculate with, let's just look at them. There can't be a problem with looking, if there's no personal privacy issues involved. There's no trade secrets here -- these are queries typed by end users, and web pages set up by end users. Right?
Here at Boing Boing, we can't write subpoenas -- but we would like to know.
So, America Online, Microsoft, and Yahoo: will you please release the data publicly -- or show us where it already exists online? This way, everyone who uses your services can take a look for themselves, and evaluate whether they believe the information shared was privacy-violating.
Thank you,
Cory, Xeni, Mark, and Pesco.
Previously: Keeping Google's records out of government hands.
Search and privacy: Danny Sullivan, Declan, GoogleAnon
Xeni on NPR: Bush Administration Seeks Search Records
AOL: We did not comply with all of the DOJ's search data request
DoJ search requests: Google said no; Yahoo, AOL, MSN yes.
DoJ demands user search records from Google
posted by Xeni Jardin at 09:08:10 AM permalink | blogs' comments
1) Why switch to a beta mailing list system?
2) Are you a Google shareholder? 
-- Steve
Dear Steve;
NOPE NOT shareholder - just responding to terry's e-mail on the
yahoo debate - I don't care one way or another - as long as Yahoo
will get around to fixing why the forwarding of postings takes
sooooo long from almost instant to two hours to several days.
As an example - I posted the response at 9:00 and I still have not
gotten the forwarded e-mail to my personal yahoo acoount.
You would think forwarding from yahoo group to yahoo personal
account would be a no brainer.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dekorte <steve@d...>
wrote:
> If it something to vote on here's the Google Groups site (Beta)
> version.
>
> http://groups.google.com/grphp?hl=en&tab=ig&q=
>
> Let the discussion begin on migrating LPSF Yahoo Groups to
> Groups and all the other Californai Libertarian Groups as well
who use
Good point. I took a look and they appear to support the important features and (so far) the service seems fast and free of ads, which is nice. The downside of a move would be a period of confusion and having separate archives (the old stuff would remain at yahoo). But I'm not sure how important the archives are anyways.
-- Steve
I don't believe they support uploading files to a group, which we make
use of from time to time.
Justin
They don't have a files area, but files attached to messages remain
intact in the archives.