(Off topic) Note to the Moderators: List privacy issues

[Guest guest]

Hi,

Is everyone aware that the archives for this list are

publicly accessible? I would personally be happier

posting information if the archives were only

accessible to list members. I am able to get hits

from web searches and I am not entirely happy about

this.

Moderators, is there anything that we can do?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> Hi,

>

> Is everyone aware that the archives for this list are

> publicly accessible? I would personally be happier

> posting information if the archives were only

> accessible to list members. I am able to get hits

> from web searches and I am not entirely happy about

> this.

>

> Moderators, is there anything that we can do?

>

>

, anyone can become a list member, so why would restricting

the archives to members help privacy?? You make a good point, I

am just curious.

Mike

[Guest guest]

Mike,

Though because as you say anyone can join if someone wishes to abuse

netiquette and quote someones as having said something on list elsewhere,

that's different than people not on list being able to access info we say

here I think. For thery have not developed any sense of who we are,

which we have. A kind of solidarity of purpose; some resepct; some

understanding of idiosyncracies and the related cutting of slack, all of

which comes from the process of communicating within group.

In fact I often feel that on a group you get to feel that you're in a

room where everything you say you know is contained within those four

walls forgetting that there can alwasy be someone who violates implied

trust.

I don't know where I stand on the issue of archival privacy. I think I

prefer it because I think we all write with the notion that we're writing

to the folks we kind of know, share concerns with, and who know us, even

though that's not utterly true. But I don't like the notion of some well

person, like, say, Elaine Showalter, having easy access to what we say

and possibly using it as data, as in " They're so overly absorbed with the

minute details of their bodies that they even have threads on XXXX. " '

Just thinking. . . .

Judith

On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 00:48:59 -0000 kmcamp22@... writes:

>

> > Hi,

> >

> > Is everyone aware that the archives for this list are

> > publicly accessible? I would personally be happier

> > posting information if the archives were only

> > accessible to list members. I am able to get hits

> > from web searches and I am not entirely happy about

> > this.

> >

> > Moderators, is there anything that we can do?

> >

> >

>

> , anyone can become a list member, so why would restricting

> the archives to members help privacy?? You make a good point, I

> am just curious.

>

> Mike

>

>

> This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences

> with each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested

> in any treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Judith,

I agree entirely with your point of view and analogy likening the

list to a room - we don't want any strangers taking information out

of context. Sad but true: the average member of the public would

think we were all nutters.

J

> I don't know where I stand on the issue of archival privacy. I

think I

> prefer it because I think we all write with the notion that we're

writing

> to the folks we kind of know, share concerns with, and who know us,

even

> though that's not utterly true. But I don't like the notion of

some well

> person, like, say, Elaine Showalter, having easy access to what we

say

> and possibly using it as data, as in " They're so overly absorbed

with the

> minute details of their bodies that they even have threads on

XXXX. " '

>

> Just thinking. . . .

>

> Judith

[Guest guest]

My comments:

Being an information scientist who have worked for MSN etc,

there is no privacy on the web except when you create a group

consisting only of people you know PERSONALLY (i.e. in person)... and

even than, you must trust them not to autoforward stuff elsewhere.

If you wish privacy, than go to , MSn etc and create an

ANONYMOUS email identity, perhaps a nick name.

If an employer, insurance company, ex-wife is aware that you may have

or have had CFIDS: than they may join every 'private' list that there

is -- solely to obtain information on YOU, if that is their intent.

Restricting archives to membership only is an illusion of privacy..

anyone with even a little motivation with find you!

I just found my former boss on the web. There was only ONE page on

the entire web where his email/telephone was listed. He was very

surprised to hear my voice... because he had 'gone to ground' and

thought that he had eliminated every reference to himself. Well, he

did not mind it, because it resulted in a job for him (working for

me).

If you want privacy, creating a pseudo identity is the only way.

IMHO Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken

What about one of those " anonymity " software programs?

Phil

KenL@... wrote:

> My comments:

> Being an information scientist who have worked for MSN etc,

> there is no privacy on the web except when you create a group

> consisting only of people you know PERSONALLY (i.e. in person)... and

> even than, you must trust them not to autoforward stuff elsewhere.

>

> If you wish privacy, than go to , MSn etc and create an

> ANONYMOUS email identity, perhaps a nick name.

>

> If an employer, insurance company, ex-wife is aware that you may have

> or have had CFIDS: than they may join every 'private' list that there

> is -- solely to obtain information on YOU, if that is their intent.

> Restricting archives to membership only is an illusion of privacy..

> anyone with even a little motivation with find you!

>

> I just found my former boss on the web. There was only ONE page on

> the entire web where his email/telephone was listed. He was very

> surprised to hear my voice... because he had 'gone to ground' and

> thought that he had eliminated every reference to himself. Well, he

> did not mind it, because it resulted in a job for him (working for

> me).

>

> If you want privacy, creating a pseudo identity is the only way.

> IMHO Ken