x - posting removed
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:50:22 GMT, Peter W. Rowe
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 09:31:29 +0000, in misc.health.diabetes
>Pete <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Now to me it seems that nobody goes to the trouble and
>>>expense of developing a site and then offering it for
>>>free to a specific group of people for just purely
>>>academic reasons.
>Pete,
>You're way too cynical. There ARE indeed people in this
>world with a bit o generosity and willingness to do good
>things for the world without getting paid. Can't you just
>accept that this might be so?
Perhaps I am too cynical, in certain areas. Yes there are
many people who do things for the benefit of others and
without intent upon gaining reward. However, on usenet and
the web in general, that event is a rarity and IMHO the
incidence of 'genuine' social generosity of this type is
rare. Too rare. And I feel you might very well see your way
to conceeding that.
>I'm another example, though in a different manner. For the
>last seven years I've been the moderator of an unrelated
>usenet newsgroup (rec.crafts.jewelry). That is a totally
>volunteer activity, done only for the good of the jewelry
>craftspeople who find use in the site. I get no money for
>it, and spend anywhere from a half hour to an hour a day
>doing this, as well as having to spend money for the
>additional internet access requirements required. Nobody
>pays me for this, though some take the time to say thank
>you. For me, that's enough.
You get pleasure out of doing that. Ergo you get something
from it. Fine, there is not fiscal motive and I do not
suggest that is the case but to reiterate - no one does
something for nothing. That is a basic fact.
Being Moderator of a NG is not an activity conducive to
gaining monetary advantage except in the rare and unforseen
case of advantage gained through RL connections acquired in
the process. [Be clear I do not imply anything here]
>The world happens to have a lot of folks in it for just the
>money no matter what they do, and we all need to be careful
>not to be taken for a ride.
> And in this case, no doubt your worries about unsecured
> data in someone elses control is worth worrying about.
> (though what in the world someone else could possibly do
> with a record of your blood sugars and diet habits, or the
> like, escapes me).
If the data was extensive enough and gathered over a period
of time then the information is marketable. I have dificulty
is seeing the fine points of the market in this area but
data on a specific group of potential customers is a
commodity. You should also be aware, I have no doubt, that
is is not a very dificult task to 'rip' information from a
site if it is not technically up to the standard needed
today in this sad world. But this is besides the main point.
I discovered sufficient evidence to show me that there was a
potential scam or at the very least 'dubious' business ploy.
The intent of the author of the software [the web site]
stated quite clearly that this facillity was for sale. This
information is available on the web. However, access and use
is free. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I took
the view that the following situation could develop.
A diabetic uses the facility and does so for some
considerable time, say a year. Though I do admit anyone who
would do this would be rather silly in the first place.
Nevertheless there are silly people out there. Three or four
entries daily for a year is a considerable amount of
personal data that has value to the user. Now if the owner
demanded a fee for continuance, on the threat of barring
access to the site [and the data] the punter would either
have to pay the fee, enter into an expensive legal battle or
just accept loss of the data.
In addition, the so called 'disclaimer' virtually seeks to
exonerate the site owner from any responsibility for what
happens to the data entered or how it may be used.
I took the view that this was not right. At best it was very
badly produced at worst a clear attempt at making money in a
manner that I consider to be vile.
>But please try to seperate that valid security concern with
>your cynical assumption that the dialog site must
>automatically be a scam.
I didn'y 'automatically' decide it was a scam. I did do some
research before responding as I did.
> If you don't like it, fine. Don't use it. Leave it
> at that.
I do with 99% of the shite I see but every so often its
worth sending a message. To just do as you suggest all the
time is tantamount to rolling over belly up and allowing
these people to assume they can do what the hell they like
with impunity.
> The guy tells us he's doing it for free,
Well come on now, they all say that or at least try to
indicate as much. The fact he say's 'now' that he does
it for free - after being prompted to make a statement
- is fine.
> and I find nothing there that would cause me to not take
> him at his word and say thanks. It's a nice thing to do.
> Peter Rowe
Well that's fine for you. Did you research to any degree
before you came to that opinion? In this day and age it is a
simple fact of life - no matter whether you like it or not -
that 99% of all that is offered as 'free' is in fact not
free. I could identify many examples for you that are
currently rampant in the British public eye every day and
show clear evidence in writing that would and has withstood
scrutiny in a court of law. I am also sure you could do the
same. So please forgive me If I refuse to accept things at
face value.
I tend to take events and people at face value until I
discover evidence that indicates that posture to be unwise.
Often, the evidence proves not to be definative or
conclusive and sometimes it does but to accept 'blindly'
with some altruistic notion I am afraid, though a desirable
event, is not practical.
[Since I do not subscribe to the groups x-posted to, I have
removed them]
Pete
