mudcat.org: Censored Thread
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


Censored Thread

Joe Offer 23 Dec 01 - 12:56 AM
Amos 23 Dec 01 - 03:13 AM
Mr Red 23 Dec 01 - 08:22 AM
wysiwyg 23 Dec 01 - 09:18 AM
Tweed 23 Dec 01 - 10:21 AM
Celtic Soul 23 Dec 01 - 10:45 AM
Jeep man 23 Dec 01 - 11:19 AM
wildlone 23 Dec 01 - 11:56 AM
Dani 23 Dec 01 - 12:11 PM
GUEST,guest 23 Dec 01 - 12:31 PM
Mooh 23 Dec 01 - 12:47 PM
Murray MacLeod 23 Dec 01 - 12:48 PM
GUEST 23 Dec 01 - 03:30 PM
fat B****rd 23 Dec 01 - 03:35 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Dec 01 - 04:29 PM
marty D 23 Dec 01 - 04:34 PM
Coyote Breath 23 Dec 01 - 04:48 PM
Jim Dixon 23 Dec 01 - 06:36 PM
PaulM 23 Dec 01 - 07:35 PM
mooman 23 Dec 01 - 07:49 PM
McGrath of Harlow 23 Dec 01 - 08:36 PM
Banjer 23 Dec 01 - 09:00 PM
Big Mick 23 Dec 01 - 09:14 PM
Sorcha 23 Dec 01 - 09:16 PM
GUEST,Hacky Sack 24 Dec 01 - 08:56 AM
Jon Freeman 24 Dec 01 - 10:30 AM
Jim Dixon 24 Dec 01 - 10:49 AM
Jim Dixon 24 Dec 01 - 11:07 AM
Jon Freeman 24 Dec 01 - 11:16 AM
Joe Offer 24 Dec 01 - 08:20 PM
Jon Freeman 24 Dec 01 - 11:33 PM
Jon Freeman 24 Dec 01 - 11:45 PM
Jon Freeman 25 Dec 01 - 12:00 AM
Blackcatter 25 Dec 01 - 01:01 AM
Celtic Soul 25 Dec 01 - 09:32 AM
PeteBoom 25 Dec 01 - 01:38 PM
MAG 25 Dec 01 - 02:57 PM
RichM 25 Dec 01 - 02:58 PM
Skipjack K8 25 Dec 01 - 03:42 PM
marty D 25 Dec 01 - 06:12 PM
Steve in Idaho 25 Dec 01 - 10:55 PM
GUEST,Paul Knox 25 Dec 01 - 11:00 PM
JedMarum 25 Dec 01 - 11:37 PM
JedMarum 25 Dec 01 - 11:49 PM
Jon Freeman 26 Dec 01 - 12:09 PM
Jon Freeman 26 Dec 01 - 12:13 PM
Jim Dixon 26 Dec 01 - 01:20 PM
GUEST,in the spare room 26 Dec 01 - 09:56 PM
catspaw49 26 Dec 01 - 10:53 PM
PeteBoom 27 Dec 01 - 05:25 PM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: Censored Thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:56 AM

There was a thread today that explored the flaws of Mudcat too deeply, and some unfortunate information was revealed. I deleted the thread entirely, instead of trying to selectively delete certain messages that might be harmful. I'll e-mail a copy of the thread to Max and let him decide what to do with it, because I'll be away from my computer for most of the holidays.
The thread turned into a discussion of the security flaws that Mudcat has had in the past, and that it might have currently. We try to keep Mudcat reasonably safe and secure, but we do have flaws. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's a good idea for us to allow those flaws to be revealed to the public.
As soon as we discover flaws, we do our best to resolve them. I saw the thread as harmful to the security of Mudcat, and several other people messaged me privately to say that they agreed with me. I realize that not everyone will agree with my decision to delete the thread, but I gave it my best shot. That's all I can do.

If you wish to discuss questions about the security of Mudcat, please contact any of us privately at the following e-mail addresses:
max@mudcat.org
jeff@mudcat.org
joe@mudcat.org

-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 03:13 AM

Well, Joe, looks like ya done the right thing. Kinda like a national dee-fense thing, ya know?

I am sure you'll find some contrary perspectives offered, though. But it was a judgement call to make and you made it, and we all know it cuz you had the temerity to record the fact!!

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 08:22 AM

Right on
we don't want people knowing out real names
Yours, Mr Scarlet (oh what a giveaway........)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 09:18 AM

GOOD CALL.

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Tweed
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 10:21 AM

Just do it, Joe Offer. I don't see any reason why you ought to even have to explain yourself on that one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 10:45 AM

All I can say is that, by my standards, you made the only good decision there was.

If anyone has issue with it, you can always remind them that the internet is not some equivalent to a constitutional republic, and we are *not* guaranteed the right to completely unhindered free speech (Hell, we don't even really have that IN the Consitutional Republic of the USA...anyone who has threatened the Presidents life can attest to that).

And if'n anyone doesn't like the "censorship", they can always go build their own website message board and post whatever their heart desires.

Count me as another vote in favour.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jeep man
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 11:19 AM

OK JOE.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: wildlone
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 11:56 AM

Good for you joe.
dave


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Dani
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:11 PM

I always defer to Joe's wisdom in matters of security and freedom.

You oughta run for something, Joe!

Dani


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:31 PM

You're crazy if you don't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Mooh
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:47 PM

Joe,

The greater good, always. Thanks for watching over us. Merry Christmas!

Mooh.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:48 PM

Joe, you da man, and like everybody else, I accept any decision you make. I mean, I regard it as a privilege to be here, not a right.

But, would it not have been possible simply to delete Jon Freeman's message from the thread, with a note of explanation ? Maybe it isn't possuble to delete single messages from threads, what do I know?

I am strongly tempted to make a smart-ass and triumphant comment on your own choice of the word "censored" in this thread title instead of "deleted", for the benefit of another Mudcatter (she knows who she is) who took me to task on the censored thread for not knowing the difference between censorship and prudent management, but since it's Christmas time and I have become a nice person once again, I will desist.

Murray Murray


Actually, Murray, the title of this thread refers not to MY censorship, but to the name of the thread I deleted (YOU started the thread as "Censored Political Thread" and gave it the name). I thought of deleting Jon's message only, but there were a number of other messages that made reference to what Jon said or repeated what he said. I thought selective deletion was more "censorship" than deleting the entire thread without making my personal judgment of each message, so I chose to delete the thread.
Jon is a good man, and he seems to think he is doing Mudcat a favor by revealing our secrets. He thinks this will force us to tighten our security. We really try to a do the best we can, but it won't help anybody if Jon keeps finding new flaws and broadcasting them to the world.
Those of you who are friends of Jon, please contact him and let him know what you think.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 03:30 PM

All in favour of your actions, but it would be interesting to know just what percentage of 'catters automatically read a thread headed "Censored" as it already has more posts than some get !


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: fat B****rd
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 03:35 PM

I agree with everybody above.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 04:29 PM

Vote of confidence to Joe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: marty D
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 04:34 PM

GUEST, probably a fair number of us read a thread titled 'censored' and probably quite a few marvel at the amount of spare time some people have so close to Christmas. To use that time simply to cause consternation at Mudcat seems so sad. Way to go Joe. I don't know why you even bother with the hassles, but you're obviously appreciated by the vast majority. Have a well deserved Christmas.

marty


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 04:48 PM

Good for you!

My experience is your judgement is sound and your actions are legitimate!

CB


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 06:36 PM

Bravo, Joe!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: PaulM
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 07:35 PM

A question:

How many of you who are sycophantically supporting Joe's position, actually saw / read the thread?

Jon Freeman made some valid points about how the security of the Mudcat was flawed in the past. He expressed a deal of frustration that he was unable to persuade Max and Joe to implement sensible safeguards.

NOTHING that he said compromises current mudcat security.

It is however a little critical about Joe Offer, maybe that's why it's gone.

I've got the original thread cached, so if you want to see what the (non) fuss is about, I'll mail you a copy

paulmcfadden@hotmail.com

Paul


I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, Paul. People who have been around here for a while have learned to trust me, and they know I don't censor things because they make me look bad. In fact, I am very reluctant to censor anything.
Certainly, Jon made valid points. He is an excellent programmer, and he is a good person. However, I think his public disclosure of Mudcat technical information presents a serious risk to Mudcat. There have been flaws in the security of Mudcat. Usually they have been fixed as soon as we could come up with a solution to them. Sometimes, we did not fix the problem exactly as Jon specified, and most of the time we did not reveal to him what we did. Jon's messages serve to publish our weaknesses so that others can do us harm before we have a chance to fix the problem. They also serve to damage the trust people have in Mudcat, by making problems seem much more serious than they were.
I suppose Mudcat would be more secure if we made it a closed, members-only Forum. Certainly, that would be more secure - but at what price? We want to remain open to anyone who wants to talk about folk music. That does involve a risk.
It is my opinion that Jon's statements make that risk greater, and I ask him to please stop.
I'm at a disadvantage here because I simply cannot reveal every personal and technical matter I know something about. Take my word - it's time for Jon to stop.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: mooman
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 07:49 PM

I trust Joe on this one Paul as he has consistently tried to keep censoring to a minimum, deleted personal attacks on 'Catters and tried to safeguard Mudcat security as far as possible. As someone responsible for security of a website myself I believe he did the right thing.

Keep up the good work Joe!

mooman


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 08:36 PM

Happy Christmas Joe. And others. Most others. Hell, all others. Even the bloody trolls.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Banjer
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 09:00 PM

I read the post and saw some URL info that had I really had the inquisitiveness to access the admin portion of mudcat I would have tried. I think Joe made the right call here. It seems to me that if we all scrutinized our elected officials as much as some do our volunteer administrators, there would be less problems in our country. Carry on, Joe....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 09:14 PM

And lest there be any misunderstanding, my concern was that Jon implied that all of our personal messages might be able to be seen by others than whom they should. Joe finally got around to answering that that is not the case, that only he, Jeff and Max can access our personal pages and that is only done when it is absolutely necessary. Had those questions been answered immediately, the thread wouldn't have got to where it did.

As to the threats to security, I never saw them. What I saw was that this site, like many others, has flaws. When they are discovered, they are fixed. In fact, given that this is an all volunteer site, I would say that is done very well.

And finally, no one was attacking Joe, especially for the job he is doing. There was a question raised by a very irresponsible post. Once the question is raised, the way to put it to bed is to just answer it. The way to cause considerable turmoil is to act like someone is out or order for asking that which has been laid in front of them. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. I am glad that it is over.

Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 09:16 PM

Thank you Mick. 'Nuff said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: Mudcat security
From: GUEST,Hacky Sack
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 08:56 AM

What Joe may not want you to know is that Mudcat is not a very secure site. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of computer hacking has access to your registration information, your Mudcat password and your "personal" messages.

Sites with much higher levels of security, think of Amazon.com or CNN.com, not to mention the FBI itself, have been hacked into by teenagers. In comparison, Mudcat is child's play.

BTW, if you want access to this message in the future, print it out NOW. Joe, or one of his Joe Clones, will probably delete it as soon as they're aware of it.


Actually, no, we won't delete your message. It's true. Mudcat does not have the money the government has available for security. We do the best we can, but it is the truth that a volunteer site like this is more vulnerable to hackers (but then, we have no top-secret information here, and the information we do have is of very little interest to most hackers). We do our best to protect your membership information and personal messages, but we cannot give a 100 percent guarantee. Your information is reasonably safe here, and that's about all I can say. We don't ask you to give more information about yourself than one might find published in a phone book. If you do not have this information published in the phone directory, don't submit it here. We do seriously request you to give your real name and real e-mail address when you register.
We operate on an old-fashioned thing called trust and good will. I know that's hopelessly idealistic, but we still want to believe in the goodness of most of humanity.
-Joe Offer


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 10:30 AM

I wasn't going to contribute to this thread, had no arguement over censorhip and did regret my actions (alhough as PaulG says, I mentioned nothing current) but it now seems as if my honesty is being called into question.

Firstly, I did not say the situation over PMs was current, I said or tried to indicate, that I made an urgent PM to Jeff to try and get an error fixed becasue of a row that involved people threatening to post contents of PMs in the thread. Someone had already posted that copy paste text would prove nothing and I feared that someone may try to post a link to a PM to settle any doubt. The implication of such a link being posted was that any one could read any one elses PMs. Carol agreed to drop the row for that reason and a fix was applied 2 days later.

Secondly, it is untrue to suggest that matters have always been fixed promptly. It was a damn near impossible task to get anything fixed until Jeff came along. Jeff, in fairness does try to fix things promptly but some areas that Joe and Max have been aware of for some time still exist and need fixing. Evidence of this can be found at (click).

I would dissagree with Joe Offers: "Like it or not, people who prefer anonymity are second-class citizens at Mudcat" and the implication from "We are especially wary of new members who join with false names and e-mail addresses, and those who give no residence information" that people shoud give residence information to aviod "suspicion" on any system. I find it even harder to accept that Joe Offer should make such suggestions on a system he is so worried about that he even has to censor mention of past flaws on.

Finaly, contary to what Joe has suggested, I became aware of most flaws BEFORE becoming a Joe Clone. One would have thought that being a Joe Clone would have made it easier for me to help get areas that I was worried about for the good of everyone here fixed but things just did not work out that way.

Jon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 10:49 AM

PaulM: In answer to your question (which, by the way, was rather prejudicially stated), I read the thread. I even posted to it. And, of course, my message was brilliant and insightful, but I don't regret that it's gone.

Of course, I can't be sure that a few more messages weren't added to that thread after I read it and before Joe deleted it, but I DID read the portion that revealed a "back door" to Mudcat. In short, there is (or was) a page that would give anyone the power to mess with certain things (for good or ill) if only you knew the URL of that page. There are (or were) no links to it.

The problem is apparently gone now, because I see the URL no longer works the way it did. I assume Max either deleted the page or gave it a new URL. I also assume Max is now working on a more secure way to restore the powers in question to a few trusted members—probably fewer than before.

That page did NOT include the power to view other members' Personal Messages, which is what I think the discussion was mainly about.

What I don't understand is why anyone would reveal this type of information in a public discussion thread. You might as well put a bin of box cutters in an airport concourse, with a sign "Take One."

Mudcat is very much like the small town in which nobody locks their doors. (There really are such places.) Our security depends mainly on the good will of the vast majority of our members, and the fact that people of evil intent have very little reason to be interested in Mudcat.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:07 AM

I should have written, "Our security depends mainly on the good will of the vast majority of our members, on the fact that people of evil intent have very little reason to be interested in Mudcat, and on the ability of those who possess potentially dangerous information to be discreet."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:16 AM

Jim, nothing I said revealed any current back door to Mudcat and I never suggested that PMs were accessible via access to the URL you are hinting at.

Jon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 08:20 PM

OK, Jon. You made your point. Now, I formally and publicly ask you not to make any public statements about technical aspects of the operation of Mudcat - whether you acquired that information before, during, or after you were a JoeClone. I am not placing any blame. I know you had good intentions, but your disclosures do not help Mudcat in any way. If you have any concerns about the security of Mudcat, or knowledge of any problems that will cause problems, please discuss them privately with Jeff or me. Whenever you have given me information in the past, I have forwarded it immediately to the appropriate person. I promise to continue to do that in the future.
I have limited technical ability, and Max has limited time. Jeff also has some limits on his time, but he has done an extraordinary amount of work to improve Mudcat.
Besides that, Jeff is a darn good guy.
So are you, Jon. But please, do not make any more public disclosure of any sort about the technical aspects of Mudcat.
Thanks, and I wish everyone a happy holiday season.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:33 PM

Well I tried a PM about 5 mins after Joes post, maybe just bad timing and he will respond but...

Joe, in a banner you have added, it says:

"One of Jon's major points seems to be that he would like to see Mudcat a closed, members-only Forum. Certainly, that would be more secure - but at what price? We want to remain open to anyone who wants to talk about folk music. That does involve a risk."

You were also the one in the deleted thread who said:

"Like it or not, people who prefer anonymity are second-class citizens at Mudcat"

You are playing editing and deletion games (and I think are beginning to abuse your powers by adding untrue opinions about others in posts - I am pro open to start with...) but which way do you want it? And why would I be arguing against the second class citizens if I wanted things closed as you suggest?

Jon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:45 PM

Sorry, I am pro open with regards to music. If there was a choice, I would probably look for closed for BS where people do pour their hearts out and can get hurt. When faced with an overall choice as one system for all, I am pro open.

Jon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 12:00 AM

Sorry, I intended to use quotes i.e. "second class citizens" in my previous post. To explain what I meant: I am against the attidude of viewing people who prefer anonymity as second class citizens.

Jon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Blackcatter
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 01:01 AM

Like on all websites - I only supply information to the Mudcat that I don't care if anyone knows. This way, I could care less about the security around here.

Certainly, other than occasional reminders to new surfers that this site cannot ever be totally secure and to exercise appropriate caution, discussing the security of this site is inappropriate in the general forum.

pax yall


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 09:32 AM

PaulM...

A little prejudicially penned, hon. You know what they say about flies, vinegar, and honey...

In any case, for me, I *had* read some of the initial thread. And, as I am *not* a hacker, I leave it to those that have better technical know-how than I to make the call, *BUT*, more importantly, I leave it to those who are in charge of this site to ***make their own decisions*** as to how this site should be run.

The reason I support Joe is that he is one of these people, *and* I do not believe in "freedom of speech" on the internet (or in any other privately owned forum/business/venue, for that matter).

If I owned a business, someone came in to give a political speech, and I didn't want it in my place, I'd kick them out. As a privately owned establishment, your 1st amendment rights do not, and *should* not apply. I would be pretty pissed off if the person becried foul on the basis of their 1st amendment rights, and won their court case. Any clues what the future holds in a country where the government tells you how to run your business?

Here in the States, our 1st amendment rights start and stop where your speech about the goverment is concerned, and even where that is concerned, there are limits (you can't threaten the Presidents life and walk). We should all keep in mind (here in this country, anyway) of what happens when the government steps in to control private industry.

The word "Taliban" comes to mind.

So, before you use words like "Sycophant", you might want to ask *why* those of us who support Joes decision have done so. Maybe there is a reason beyond brown nosing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: PeteBoom
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 01:38 PM

Jaysus - dropped in for a minute between visits with the grandkids. Putting on my professional computer geek hat.

Computer security is an oxymoron. Most security systems are little more than adding layers of complexity on top of each other to dissuade all but the most determined individuals. There are steps that can be taken to prevent the random hack-pass, from what I have seen, they have been. On a board like this, one that is not moderated by folks being PAID to monitor and control it, that seems reasonable. To expect more is a little silly (after all, it is NOT someones full time - paid job, its a hobby). To openly discuss ways to circumvent the proceedures is uncalled for. I've seen other boards shut down by the sys-ops because they got to be too much like work.

Just play nice, folks. We're supposed to be here for fun, right?

Pete Walen Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst (at a mid-size corporation that shall remain nameless so they don't have a reason to yell at me again - last time was for an interview on software development techniques. Company name was not even MENTIONED in the body of the story... yegodsandlittlefishes...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: MAG
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 02:57 PM

I support Joe's dicision, not blindly, but as a member who understands that choices have to be made on a site like this. Many aphorisms spring to mind.

Too many cooks spoil the soup (who wants to be the big cheese expert)

And I certainly agree with Joe's comments about suspicious postings with "flame" written all over them.

Hey, where did that party go? I'm gonna run and catch up ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: RichM
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 02:58 PM

The physical structure of the internet is owned mostly by non-government organizations--so are most telephone companies. I don't expect telephone company owners to have the right to censor my conversations. The internet is also a communication forum that can only exist effectively if there is no undue censorship.

I can understand , and applaud the concern that Joe voices in his decision to remove a thread; but I have to say I am against this decision.

Best of the season to all,

Rich McCarthy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Skipjack K8
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 03:42 PM

Hi all. Happy Crimbo. Just read two threads after days of absence, the Bill Sables and this one. One is the reason for the other. For anyone outside the chattering clique, this is a yawnfest.

Anyone remember why we came to the party?

Skipjack


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: marty D
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 06:12 PM

Gee Skipjack. After an absense, why these two threads instead of the many interesting music ones? I think lots of others remember exactly why they came to the party. Too bad a few can only enjoy the party when THEY make the rules. You got my support Joe.

marty


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 10:55 PM

Why is this thread? I didn't read the original post. I joined the Cat because I've enjoyed the comaraderie, the jerks (myself included), the gems (on occasions myself), and am under no illusions of being the owner here. I am a guest at this site. I try to be polite and follow the general rules of societal norms. But then I'm American and my norms aren't the same as those from other lands.

If the site owners want to delete something - rock on. If I put something on this site either privately (PMs) or publicly I assume anyone can see and read it. What good it will do them I haven't a clue. My server's anti-spamming software seems to do the trick and my anti-virus software gets the rest.

I appreciate all of the hard work that Max and Joe, and others I don't know do to keep this place running. If in their opinion what was posted represented a threat - too bad folks - it needs to get gone. And the request to stay private with other concerns needs to be honored also.

Steve


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST,Paul Knox
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 11:00 PM

Well Norton, it seems that Joe does not want you to read an column that I published in the Globe & Mail last week. For your benefit, here it is...


[lengthy article deleted]
I really do want everybody to read the article - in the Globe and Mail, not here. Nonetheless, a copy of the article was posted with appropriate attribution here (click), so people can read it right here at Mudcat. One copy should suffice.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: JedMarum
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 11:37 PM

Joe - you did the right thing. We have too many 'wipers of other people's noses' (as Monty Python might say) - if we have people insisting that bad things can happen to Mudcat and I going to prove it to you.

I remember having a conversation with a Cuban construction engineer when we were in El Salvador. He said evey day the 'boys' (the local communist guerillas) would speak with him and exchange pleasantries while the hydro-electric damn was being built. But one day, when the project was nearing completion they told him to stay away from the damn that day ... my friend knew why, and did. Sure enough the damn was blown up and destroyed. The 'nice guy' guerillas told the locals, "see, your government can;t protect you."

So now we have Mudcat friends doing us all favors by pointing out the Mudcat short comings - and then being insulted when someone doesn't bow in respect for their 'wisdom?" Please! Take a hike!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: JedMarum
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 11:49 PM

... sweet of you to pass on the info, PaulM, that is ...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 12:09 PM

I shouldn't have started this I know but there is a limit to how much I can take...

OK, looks like Joe has me over a barrel in some ways so I won't post anything here and feel that peoples minds are already been made up...

I will however say this:

I have posted my views on security in very generic terms at here I would suggest that those who are posting thier views about what I have tried to do or what I think about security read it and think again.

I would also like to see this thread die.

Jon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 12:13 PM

I'm having a bad time with links, sorry

Jon


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 01:20 PM

Jon Freeman: This thread isn't all about you.

For those of you who haven't followed this controversy from its beginning:

It began with a posting like the one above allegedly from "GUEST,Paul Knox." Now, Paul Knox (as I have recently learned) is a real person, and a professional journalist, and now that I know that, I am convinced that the person who posted this message is NOT Paul Knox. I also found that several articles cribbed from various (mainly British) journalists' columns in various publications have been posted to various other threads in the same manner, probably by the same GUEST.

One of these articles fooled me for a time. In the belief that "Paul Knox" might continue the discussion, I took the trouble to write a careful reply to "Paul's" message. I would not have wasted my time had I realized that the GUEST who posted Paul Knox's article was probably unable, and certainly unwilling, to carry on the discussion in a respectful, intelligent way.

I alerted Joe Offer. My PM to him was titled, "A new kind of troll?" My intention was only to alert other people to the existence of this type of troll, so that they won't be fooled by it, as I was. I still feel that the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, and they will eventually get bored and go away.

But the discussion wandered into the question of whether we should try to use software controls to keep trolls out, and then to Mudcat security in general, during which some (allegedly) damaging information was disclosed, resulting in the thread being deleted.

I am willing to suspend judgment on whether the information was in fact damaging, but the point is, Joe apparently thought it was, and I absolutely support his right to make judgments of that type. In fact, I am very grateful that he is willing to do so, and to take all the heat that inevitably results.

If I had had my way, the original thread would have died before the discussion took that turn. Then "censorship" would have been unnecessary.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: ? for Joe Offer
From: GUEST,in the spare room
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 09:56 PM

Hey Joe,

In retrospect, don't ya think you'd of saved a lot of grief if you'd just let "Paul Knox" post his article?

A lot of the stuff that you decided to censor wouldn't have come up if you'd left well enough lone.

Anyway, you da censor round here. Not me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 10:53 PM

LMAO....First I posted to either thread, but read them both and I gotta' say I'm cracking up over the irony of now having another thread which reviews most of the info in the deleted thread! Geeziz, what a riot!!!

Truly much ado about nothing, more or less.........

Spaw


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: PeteBoom
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:25 PM

Right. The lot of you that think that Joe (et al.,) are out to gag you. You're right. Next subject.

Jaysus....

Pete


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

  Share Thread:
More...


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 21 April 7:29 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.