http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53363
Okay, I'm not posting this to cry the sky is falling. I'm wondering why is this a problem? Read the article and then tell me how ARCHIVING these things is any different than 3 people sitting down for 8 hours each every day and reading everything that is posted. I see it saying that they are wanting to archive these things that are able to be viewed publicly. Comments and tags.
Some seem to be worried about capturing IP addresses. How often do you see IP addresses displayed on facebook, myspace, youtube or twitter? I don't see them, so if a third party is reading each comment, copying them, as well as any publicly displayed tags, what are they getting that anyone else isn't seeing when they visit the page?
If anyone has a problem with their comments being saved for posterity, I suggest they not post on the specific white house pages. But I don't see how they can come up with anything more than anyone else who publicly views the pages will see.
So why am I seeing people getting bent out of shape over this?
I can understand if I post on a government web site why they might want to archive it but to archive every post made on those sites it not what I would consider anything that should be necessary or even considered. Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace are not government web sites nor is any other social networking site.
I have often wondered how future generations will see us from a historical perspective. The written record is rapidly declining and being replaced by electronic and other technologies. And as we all know technology changes rapidly, especially from a historic vantage point.
Perhaps some people already see things they way the earth's inhabitants will see them 2000 years from now, but right now they are in the minority. If historic investigators cannot read the comments and views of the common everyday man/woman of this time, then they are left to assume that although it may be as obvious as the end of our nose to them, all of us were too blind to see it in present times. And there will not be any clay tablets, huge monuments adorned with written records to provide them a hint on it either.
At the same time, knowing humankind's penchant for greed and power, I can see someone taking this same information and using it for something other than what it is intended. Like there aren't any more Hoovers in the world today. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on September 01, 2009, 11:53:06 PM
I can understand if I post on a government web site why they might want to archive it but to archive every post made on those sites it not what I would consider anything that should be necessary or even considered. Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace are not government web sites nor is any other social networking site.
What I understood from reading the article, at this time, everything that is written by or to the the president is archived/recorded and placed in the National Archives. This includes electronic correspondence. What is so different about the social sites that have a page created for the white house? This implies you are leaving messages and comments to the president when you post on those particular pages. Therefore, to be cautious, and not violate any current policy, they want to archive those comments as well. I don't see anything wrong with that. If they are doing it as stated, they aren't taking any private information about individuals, they aren't infringing on your rights if you comment to the sites by keeping your comments. The drawback that I see, and not from a governmental view, but as someone who dabbles heavily in genealogy, these archived comments for the most part will be made by 'screen names' and not real names. Though on facebook, up until recently, your real name did show up, and not a screen name. You now have the option of using a screen name to cover the real name. So for the most part, I don't see a problem with storing what people have to comment about from those sites.
Again, I really think that anyone that fears some kind of backlash should just avoid commenting. They aren't talking about archiving the whole site, just those pages that are assigned to the white house.
Quote from: pariann on September 01, 2009, 11:37:36 PM
So why am I seeing people getting bent out of shape over this?
Because they're paranoid freaks. It was perfectly ok for Bush to illegally tap their phones under the guise of making them feel that their meat-curtains were all safe, warm and tingley but for the black guy to archive sites with messages that were meant for him anyway must be heresy! :rolleyes:
I don't know if it's against TOS or not, so I won't post the exact comment, but the only reason I knew about that article is because a high school friend of mine posted a link to it on facebook, and went into a tirade calling Obama "Joker/Hitler/Marx". Suggesting that Obama add his name at the top of his list. ....Alrighty then, perhaps my friend should go post on the facebook white house site so that Obama can do that? LOL
You might want to reexamine that friendship.
LOL, well this guy is high-anxiety EVERYTHING gets to him. It's not like we are that close, we've just stayed in touch for the last 15 years over the internet. I usually get a kick out of him, and try to avoid the politics.
Quote from: pariann on September 02, 2009, 08:49:05 AM
LOL, well this guy is high-anxiety EVERYTHING gets to him.
He and 'me' should hook up. :icon_twisted:
Now you are scaring 'me'. LOL
I don't have a problem with them archiving all the content of their sites on the net. If it only archives the sites they started and not sites that others start for voicing different views concerning the current or past administrations it seems like it is legal and non threatening. Anyone who posts on those websites should or would know that they would be read by the government. If you don't want to know what you are thinking, don't post on them.
Quote from: Anne on September 03, 2009, 12:35:41 PM
If it only archives the sites they started and not sites that others start for voicing different views concerning the current or past administrations it seems like it is legal and non threatening.
Anything in the public domain is, well, in the public domain!