Corporations Fight Online Anticorporate Statements 254
TheLocustNMI writes "This is an interesting article at BusinessWeek about eWatch, a company that specializes in tracking the comments of, and garnering personal information about folks with a beef with a company. The service isn't cheap, upwards of $5,000 per "screenname". This was apparently used against Northwest Airlines sick-out employees last Christmas.
The BusinessWeek article seems to hint that eWatch is used primarily to root out uncomplimentary messages on "rouge" web sites.
So, should we be careful about what we post here, Usenet, or anywhere else? Especially if we post about our own companies? Interesting indeed..."
Private Nyms (Score:1)
hrm (Score:1)
Let all start posting flames about slashdot and theogies on what time it started to suck. Wait a second batman, they are automatically inserted into this forum if you fiddle with the "Threshold: " drop down box. What is the deal with that?
You know if you sign up with one of these accounts and search for say Slashdot, I am willing to bet that is a DOS right there. "Mmmm that is some heavy load there son"
This is why... (Score:1)
Refrag
Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:4)
Before anyone (else) claims that your right to free speech is being eroded, ask yourself from where you derive your right to unaccoutably.
Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:2)
One of the problems at the root of our current cultural malaise is greed, which is exemplified by the corporation, an entity whose sole purpose is to make as much money as possible by any means possible. If they can break the law and get away with it, they will. If they can screw the consumer, they will.
I'm not advocating a socialist state, because that won't work any better. But I do think there's a middle ground somewhere. Perhaps the size of the corporation could be limited somehow (For instance, AOL/Time Warner has _NO_ need to be that big. They were all making very tidy profits beforehand.). Corporations can be beneficial, and many are. Generally, though, there seems to be an inversely proportional relationship between a given corporation's size and its benefit to a given consumer.
These days everything is an advertisement and you can't get a human on the other end of the phone. It's getting worse.
Perhaps not their intent... (Score:1)
Ham on rye, hold the mayo please.
Screen names and the recent past (Score:1)
This is odd. Why does the article refer primarily to "screen names"? Prices, for example, are quotes on a "per screen name" basis. There's also "aliases," "email addresses," "handles," "nick(name)s" and more. AFAIK, the term "screen name" is almost exclusively an AOL phenomenon. Do these guys just hang out in AOL chat rooms and scour the AOL home pages?
Point Two:
Are these folks even old enough to remember Kibo?
I don't know about anyone else, but I began to assume many years ago that many postings come from corporate moles. After all, if Kibo can do what he did for his own amusement, how trivial would it be for a company that, say, makes canoes to send someone into rec.* to spend a little time, make some friends, then start posting positive stuff about their products? It would be exceedingly trivial.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that it's been going on for years.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:2)
the AC
I smell profit here. (Score:1)
Being a citizen of a non-lawyer-driven-country, I smell large profits here.
Starting now, for a nominal fee, I will post anything, anywhere, on anyone, as long as it is not a Canadian citizen/corporation/entity.
You can send all submissions to my attention, accompanied by your offshore bank account number, and I'll take care of the rest.
I dont plan on going to the great U.S. of A. anytime soon, so that should keep me off the hook for a while.
How does eWatch plan to catch non us citizen's ?
For the humor and sarcasm impaired, this was a humorous sarcastic comment
Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:1)
One should be expected to be held responsible for harm caused by one's actions and by one's words; however, the government should take not be taking neither your liberty nor your property. Reimbursing those you have harmed is what accountability is all about.
Freedom of speech does not make speech free in the sense that it comes without responsibility. Speech is to be free from government action, not all action.
Many people either complain or complain (Score:2)
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:That depends (Score:4)
Court subpoena -> Slashdot server logs -> your IP address -> { ISP logs if necessary } -> your identity.
This can be dealt with by accessing Slashdot only through an anonymizer (public access terminal, the Anonymizer, Freedom network, etc.) but it's waay too big of a hassle for most people.
Kaa
Re:There goes freedom of speech... (Score:2)
If this is what was actually going to happen, then it probably wouldn't create any debate at all. But, as the article itself repeatedly states, this is to be used to "silence" and "re-educate" people that have disagreements with companies. It will be used to have negative postings removed and further harrass those that already have a problem with the company. See, the thing that kills me about this is that people are saying this will make people more responsible for what they say online and that isn't a problem. Well, what about making the companies in question more responsible for their actions?
It is really depressing when you think about it. You used to be able to at least vent on the Internet when a company ripped you off. But now, thanks to this "great product for big business" you will be able to vent, but only if you don't want to be heard, and want to be sure that you will be harrassed constantly by a company that has already pissed you off. They will not use this to gain customer feedback. They will use it to gain power over those that disagree with them. As it will cost a virtual fortune to do so, only big business need apply. Perfect. One more way to make sure those with the money have the right to talk, while those in the middle and lower classes have to sit on their hands and say nothing.
I'm not a doomsayer, I just think we need to be realistic about what companies are going to do with this. Companies take the path of least resistance. Whatever earns them money now. They are not going to fix a problem, because that fix will cost them money. But it won't cost nearly as much (for big businesses) to silence the person stating the problem openly. Great, I suppose that my previous posts about Gateway leave me in for a few problems if Gateway decides to use this....
Re:I hate eWatch? (Score:1)
"But, it's a site about "ewwwww... atch sucks!"
This is disturbing. Let's see if they get me:
HEY E-WATCH, I THINK YOUR COMPANY IS DUMB. I'M GOING TO TELL ALL MY FRIENDS AND ALL THEIR FRIENDS. COME AND GET ME!
Re:Not that bad (Score:1)
No.... they meant Rouge (Score:1)
Corporate power abuses. (Score:1)
Hmm. It seems like these abuses of corporate power are getting more and more. Maybe Nader has the right idea after all. I know who I'm voting for this election year.
This may be rather against the prevalent libertarian sentiment of notables like ESR, but this story seems to me to be a result of the libertarian mindset.
Given the choice of being bent over by a large inefficient government, or being bent over by a large efficient corporation, I chose government. Atleast I have the a _potential_ to make a difference in the government.
-Peter
Re:Plenty of ways to quash dissent... (Score:2)
If I was "found out", all it would take is for some marketroid at MS to send an email to the right person, and I guarantee you I would be fired within the hour. There is no doubt in my mind.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Eeeeks. (Score:2)
--
Re:Constiution doesn't protect corporations (Score:1)
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:2)
-russ
Re:there's more to come (Score:1)
Yes
OT: Links in /. (Score:1)
Yea, why does Slashdot think it's such a good idea to fuck up urls (more precisely the anchor tag itself) in posts and the user-info?
Maybe that bug is on a long to-do list of Rob's
</RANT>
--
Re:This is why... (Score:1)
Suppress display of your number when calling.
And if you really would like to do bad things, buy a cheap pre-pay mobile phone, pay for it in cash, use a lap-top to connect to the internet, turn it on at a the scene of the crime, connect to the internet and do your thing, throw phone away. You won't be traced
Re:Fast Solution (Score:1)
Were there any good MadMax/WaterWorld flicks?
Better go buy a muscle car and start stockpiling dirt, I say.
Fast Solution (Score:2)
---
seumas.com
Re:corporate terrorism (Score:2)
Refrag
OT sig comment (Score:2)
nation to ban the private ownership of guns
Britain banned all non-hunting private use of firearms in the 1671
Game Act, though the act proved impossible to enforce. Emergency
powers in 1914 banned all private use of firearms not explicitly
authorised, and became part of statute in 1920. The advent of
revolvers caused a wave of anti-firearm legislation to sweep Europe in
the early 20th century, so while I don't know the details, I would
expect a similar story in the rest of Europe.
Whew! (Score:4)
Re:Sorry Sir, but you're wrong... (Score:3)
Especially if it just crashed because you accidentally dropped it in a vat of molten metal while "taking it out to clean the connectors."
Re:Another steaming pile of.. (Score:2)
Rouge? (Score:4)
I'd never put anything on a web site of that color, so I guess I'm safe.
Re:Free speech means free listening? (Score:2)
Your questions are salient and need investigating further, but I think that there is a point to be made in opposition:
What is worse, a patient initiating a relationship with his or her psychologist, or the psychologist initiating a relationship with his or her patient? Most of us would agree that the latter is reprehensible and, in most jurisdictions, this type of action would cost a psychologist his or her accreditation. The sole difference in this case is the differential in power. The psychologist has the power, the patient does not, or at very least the patient has less.
This same situation arises in modern business. Large corporations have money, access to media, massive human resources and connections. Individuals have, likely, none of those advantages, putting corporate entities firmly in the position of greater power.
With equal resources, this company's service would be a godsend to all involved. Corporations or individuals could investigate critics with an eye on preventing libel. Unwarranted criticism would likely be stopped dead after a few years of expensive lawsuits and critics would be far more sure of their facts before opening their mouths. Nonetheless, there is in no way equal access to resources.
Corporate entities have already used their power advantage to sway the court process in favour of their deep pockets, thus creating a situation where individuals have a much greater time criticizing corporate actions than the reverse. Only those critics with time and money to spare, or with generous and idealistic friends willing to help out, can effectively counter the corporate legal machine. Is it a stretch for the readers of /., with a jaundiced eye on corporate abuse of power in the past, to see this service being potentially abused? I don't think so; historically, corporate abuse of power is almost a given.
The company evidently considers corporations its prime customers, and the price alone would put most individuals out of the running for this service. That alone means that a probably worthy service will become the tool of those who can afford it. A tool unequally applied to the populace and yet another power discrepancy between those with capital and those without.
Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:2)
Why would a plaintiff with millions of dollars sue a person living paycheck to paycheck? For $200 a week?
Either as punishment (they don't even have to win the suit to win the battle), or to shut him up ("OK, we know you can't afford a lawyer or time off, so just quit talking about how we're stealing pets for medical experiments and we'll drop the suit. Otherwise, you'll loose what little you do have").
Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:2)
Nevertheless it does not absolve the CEOs and employees of these corporations from moral culpability. Knowingly making addictive lethal producs and marketing it to carefully chosen demographics to hook them is still immoral and reprehensible act. Preying on the stupid, young, mentally incompetent, and the ignorant to make money has never been a moral act.
It's time these people faced up to their own personal responsibility in the deaths of millions of people. To say that it's totally the fault of the users is a cop out they shoulder a significant portion of the burden.
Nah... (Score:3)
Not that I'm all for this, mind you. If you fear retribution for your words for whatever reason, you'll just have to be more sneaky. Currently the niche for corporations who want to be sneaky is paying more than the niche for their employees who want to be sneaky. Will this always be the case? Might be some money in hooking up with a union and investigating how to be sneaky back, for instance.
As a friend of mine points out, there are some legitimate cases where a corporation should be able to find out the name of a person; for instance in the case of actual slander or manipulation of the stock market through fradulent information posted on the net. However, there are also times when an employee should have the right to privacy in his communications. And since the legal system seems to be lagging about a century behind current technology, the whole landscape has yet to be mapped.
Oh Yea one more thing. (Score:2)
This is an out and out lie. Your average automobile, bicyle, or even a god damned cigarette lighter is more heavily regulated then guns. How come we have child proof lighters and not child proof guns? Don't come crying to me when you have to fill out some paperwork to get a gun what did you do to get a drivers licence? A god-damned real estate licence is harder to get then a gun.
eWatch plays on the fact that people are stupid. (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I do not read a message on a board or newsgroup, and immediately file it under the "cold hard fact" column of my brain. Just because someone had a bad experience with a company does not mean that company is evil/uncaring. The benefit of having online discussion groups is the expression of many different viewpoints. I, for example, may have had a very favourable experience with the same company, and would wish to point that out so people don't get the wrong idea.
But that is the problem isn't it? People absorb far too much information without analyzing it and perhaps questioning its validity. If I were to say "Company X sucks", there would undoubtedly be some people who would actually believe Company X sucked, even though their only exposure to Company X has been whatever I happened to say in my post. Companies like eWatch use the general gullability of the masses to their advantage, to say to companies "hey, look, if someone says something bad about you somewhere, someone else is going to believe it. And if one person can believe it, who's to say 50,000,000 won't?". As silly as this view seems, its scary enough to make companies cough up big bucks.
Of course, if I happened to work for Company X and I say "Company X sucks", its a little different. Besides the obvious question of "Why am I working for Company X?", there are obligations when posting such a message on a public forum. I agree with companies pursuing employees who badmouth them. After all, I wouldn't want that kind of person working for me. If you have a criticism, you should discuss it internally, not shout it out for the whole world to hear.
Kai
Anonymous Forgot-My-Password
Corporations do not deserve free speech. (Score:2)
Not just big corporations (Score:2)
I *do* care about not being able to get where I'm going because a big-labor leader who makes 20 times what I or the members will ever see engages in a power play.
I *do* care about dying from a heart attack because all of cardiac OR nurses mysteriously were sick that day.
Doing something to support a union should not be some kind of general exemption to the civil and criminal law, *especially* when it harms third parties.
hawk
Re:Eeeeks. (Score:2)
I hereby give Slashdot the right to remove my previous post.
--
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:2)
Ministry of Truth (Score:2)
Re:Oh Yea one more thing. (Score:2)
Wrong car dealers are licensed and regulated ever try to buy a car on a sunday?. So are a slew of other products like alcohol, tobbacco. Not to mention just about any service you buy from outfitters to doctors and lawyers are licenced.
When I was talking about regulation I was talking about manufacturing more then sales. A cigarette lighter is subject to more regulation and oversight then guns.
"Also, the government organizations that regulate cars have never seriously suggested that american citizens do not have the right to own them"
This is just your typical gun nut paranioa. Nobody is suggesting that you don't have the right own a gun. Only that guns be subject to the same kind of regulation that every other commodity is. Yes guns should be registered and licensed just like cars, yes the sale of the should be monitored just like tobacco or alcohol or prescription drugs. Be reasonable here will you, are you concerned that the government knows what kind of a car you drive? how much money you make? how you spent your money?. All these non sequiter arguments about police officers children only makes you guys look like idiots to the average American. Are these the same policemen you are so afraid will knock your door down and confiscate your guns? If so you should be happy their guns will misfire while you are shooting them. As G. Gordon Liddy said aim for the head they are probably wearing bulletproof vests.
Re:Oh Yea one more thing. (Score:2)
Wrong!. First of all you need a license to run just about any business. I have a consulting company and I had to register and get a business license just to give advice to people. Then when I incorporated I had to register with the state. Every business needs to be licensed no matter what you are selling. For some businesses this is simply a matter of filling out a form other business involve taking tests and jumping through hoops. Amongst these are outfitters, guides, real estate dealers, car dealers, factories and yes gun dealers.
"He said (according to radio talk show host Tom Gresham's report):"
You know I just turn off my mind when somebody lists a radio talk show host as a source. I am going to take the position that this is inaccurate until I see the transcript. It's up to the Supreme court the interpret the constitution and I presume they will. I also persume that you don't think felons ought to be armed. Of course my resding of the second amendment says that only those in the militia can own guns. If you want a gun join the military.
"Why does the government need to know this? I'm not a criminal, I'm a law abiding citizen."
Just because the government knows something about you it does not make you a criminal. DO you file taxes? What kind of information have you given the government? Ever buy a fishing license? Did you register your car, motorcyle, boat? Did you claim medical bills? Face it your government knows a TON about you including where you went to school, what grades you got, every job you have ever had, every car you have ever owned, when where and how you sold or bought a thousand and one things. That's what the government does it collects information.
Re:Oh Yea one more thing. (Score:2)
The second amendment starts with "A well regulated militia". Even if you were to accept the 1903 law as being still valid today (how many other 1903 laws are still valid?) you can not escape the fact the the government gave itself the right to regulate the militia and therefore the peoples right to bear arms. As I have stated before I am not trying to deny anyone the right to own a gun just that they accept a reasonable degree of regulation. IMO this means just like any other lethal substance.
As for the declaration of independence it is not officially a part of our government. It is most probably one of the most dangerous documents ever written and no government would ever make it a part of it's constitution. I find it Ironic that the founding fathers esposed almost unlimited freedom when they wrote their declaration of independence but backed way off when they got around to forming their own government. The constitution seems dim next to that document especially considering the fact that the bill of rights came later.
Let me be the first to say (Score:2)
Uh... unless of course the competing products were made by another company that uses this service. In that case, the products are both of superior form and function in their own ways.
Who knows? Being "economically correct" may be as important as "politically correct".
-Ben
Re:This is why we need anti-SLAPP laws... (Score:2)
Since I'm a Republican, maybe I should sue you for slander. The Democrats running my state were eager to sell out the average citizen by passing UCITA into law. The corporations say "jump!", they say "how high?"
Gross generalizations are usually inaccurate. There are many different varieties of Democrats and Republicans. I used to have a Republican congresswoman who voted with the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. If you think that a Democratic (or Republican) politician is going to protect you from the abuses of corporations, you need to lay off the weed. Many politicians are more interested in campaign contributions, bread and circuses, and good P.R. than they are in principles and freedom.
Re:Sorry Sir, but you're wrong... (Score:2)
I don't have a vat of molten metal lying around in case law enforcement shows up at my door. Maybe next budget cycle
the AC
Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:2)
Only if the suit has validity -- but that is simply to recompense the harmed people. See "accountability."
In a suit where the plaintif has millions of dollars to spend and the defendant is living paycheck to paycheck, the plaintif will win without ever going to court. The reason is simple:
The defendant MUST settle by taking the material down since he can't even afford unpaid leave from work to appear in court, much less hire an attourney. Validity has nothing to do with it.
Re:DMCA - It doesn't have to be false (Score:2)
...phil
Re:Don't trust your ISP (Score:2)
Re:Huh? What Good Is This? (Score:2)
Free speech means free listening? (Score:2)
Does tracking what's done and said in public by frauds, liars, and criminals differ all that much from the Honeypot project [enteract.com] mentioned right here on Slashdot earlier?
Does libel have a right to stay up? Does terrorism? If a Microsoft toadie went around posting lies about Linux on web discussions, saying blatant, fraudulent untruths to people who don't know better (and wouldn't listen to you anyway), would it worry you if eWatch went to work on them as well?
If you had a company and someone trashed it on the net, saying it slaughtered innocent bunnies in its research (when in fact the only thing slaughtered was a lot of Jolt and pizza by the coders in the basement), would you look to see what they said elsewhere?
You know, so far as the article goes, eWatch isn't doing any spying or invasion of privacy -- it's just tallying up what people see fit to say in public, and sending that information on to people who might be interested. This is a lot like filtering which is a lot like "Open Journalism", right? And free speech works both ways, I guess; if you say something, then someone who disagrees with you has a right to say that too. Or is that not if the other someone is a corporate? Does the bill of rights not apply to them?
These are all questions, you know, not statements. Answers will have to come from you.
Anonymity? Hello? (Score:3)
This type of thing only reinforces in my mind the need to have anonymous speech available as a tool for citizens to use, since you may want to be able to express your opinion without worrying about gestapo style tactics from companies who find out that you don't like their product.
Nothing new here (Score:2)
While I have no problems with hanging someone out to dry who was passing bogus stock tips in violation of SEC rules, I have a hard time seeing the value of going after a disgruntled ex-customer.
Anyways, this sounds like a great service--for separating paranoid companies from $5K...
Re:Not that bad (Score:2)
Perhaps what they actually do isn't illegal, but look at the article's [businessweek.com] quote from eWatch advertising:
This looks very much like an attempt to convince PHBs that eWatch will hack the "rogue Web sites" and remove "uncomplimentary postings". If this quote is as represented, it is another unethical act at the very least, and perhaps illegal (either as a solicitation to perform a crime, or as a form of false advertising)./.
Re: Personalized ``Spin'' (Score:2)
I would be, shall we say, less than happy to receive my very own personalized spin doctoring from some corporate PR department. Much preferred would be for corporations to do a little self-examination and find out what it is about themsleves that has customers (or employees) so steamed up. These corporations should bear in mind that the ones who actually go to the effort to post a nastygram on a web site or even go so far as to create a web site pointing out the corporations shortcomings are only the smallest minority of their unhappy customers. Word gets out that they're going after their unhappy customers and they'll have a PR problem that they will can't even imagine. And nailing a disgruntled employee after they post complaints about or blow the whistle on their employer will do, um, wonders for their recruitment effort; especially in a labor market tilted in the employees favor like it is now (and is likely to remain, at least for high tech workers, for the foreseeable future).
I would consider it an evening well-spent putting together a cover letter explaining how I really don't want to receive personal attention from their PR department and to please just spend more time cleaning up your act/image/products, etc. etc., and a mechanism for me to easily forward that cover letter (with their email as an attachment) back to them. If anyone out their develops such procedure, let me know about it.
--
Re:5000 dollars? try google for free (Score:2)
a little unclear... (Score:2)
I really don't have any pity for anyone who gets narked out via this service; if youre dumb enough to diss your employer online instead of just quiiting, you're... wel,, pretty dumb.
Re:Don't trust your ISP (Score:2)
When do you plan to port the Freedom Server software to Windows NT, OpenBSD, FreeBSD or other operating systems?
All efforts are currently being spent towards the development of the server software for Linux. Once this has been completed, we will begin developing versions for other operating systems.
Re:Huh? What Good Is This? (Score:4)
Re:Not only that... (Score:2)
Re:Huh? What Good Is This? (Score:4)
One of these illegal acts, under appropriate circumstances, is a strike. Another is a "sick-in".
Let's further suppose that during bitter talks, half of your employees call in sick on the same day. Given that other employers, even those with employees working alongsideyours at the airport, didn't have abnormal sick counts, you suspect that it's the union's doing. Are you being unreasonable in thinking this? [And if you are, why would the union do it???]
You lose hundreds of millions of dollars by being essentially shut down for the day with no advance notice. For some reason, this makes you unhappy. It would *easily* be worth $5k for you to do a search for any evidence showing who organized this criminal act against you.
This is roughly what happened in the airline case; it wasn't a matter of general snooping about in employee's affairs, but a matter of routine discovery involving other parties (the employees) to litigation.
Basically, faced with a sickout, you know that there's some organization going on; it's a matter of finding it.
hawk, esq., not giving legal advice.
Re:it's their right. (Score:2)
Don't trust your ISP (Score:3)
-russ
That depends (Score:2)
If you are the type to be concerned about such things, you should go create a new /. account with a new handle, and some bogus email address (Go create one on hotmail with a psuedonym like Charles Babbage.)
If your /. handle isn't linked to anything with your name on it, there's just no way to track you through it unless people use your real name in responses to your posts, or you do. Otherwise it's too much work to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Maybe one day, with quantum computing and faster-than-light communications... ha ha.
Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:2)
But if a court (a government entity) cooperates with a corporation in unjustly silencing an individual, it is in violation of the 1st Amendment.
Advertisment for eWatch (Score:2)
As a major corperation, you are probably concerned about the spread of truthful information on the Internet about your company. We understand. Thats why we provide quick and efficent finding of anyone who dares to oppose your control. You may have lawyers, but they can't do anything if you can't find out who doesn't like you! And remeber: The Bill of Rights was only ment for people like you!
------
Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:2)
A two-edged sword (Score:3)
That said, since I own stocks in a number of corporations, how would one suggest wording a shareholder proposal to stop the corporation from using this in an extra-legal or aggressive manner?
Ideas?
Re:There goes freedom of speech... (Score:2)
...phil
Re:It doesn't have to be a lie to be censored (Score:4)
All these companies are doing the same thing as the tobacco companies have been exposed as doing for years, yet no one flinches when McDonalds blatantly breaks fair animal treatment laws, or when Disney blatantly breaks labor laws. Why? Advertising, PR, marketing. Tobacco companies have been restricted in their means of advertisment for a long time, which means any PR moves by them are ineffective. Plus, they're the perfect scapegoat. The horrible things that tobacco companies have done are so horrible that no one wants to believe Disney is just as, if not more, ethically suspect. Disney, the one who makes all those cute cartoons and owns mickey mouse.
Anyway, I'm really not going off-topic. It's not about punishing libel or anything like that, it's about censoring the truth, it's about union busting, it's about maintaining control over the captive public whose wrath it seems has no (monetary) limit given the sums now expected in anti-tobacco cases. This is *exactly* the thing oppressive governments do. What you don't know can't hurt you, they say. Well, it's more like what your enemies (consumers) don't know can't hurt the companies.
eWatch may have their nice little mission statement about "Stopping the spread of lies" but whatever their mission, the companies they serve have their own agenda.
And I wonder, who decides what's truth and what is lies? Why, the lawyer with the biggest salary, of course.
corporate terrorism (Score:3)
I have received letters from attorneys in the past for content from my site (don't ask, long story) and posting the emails word-for-word seemed to ensure that i never received anymore from them.
hmmm, if anyone wanted to DoS ewatch's network, it wouldn't bother me at all.
Yes, it's true... (Score:2)
Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs (Score:2)
1) "Among other things", i.e. not limited to.
2) Did you even read the rest of my post? Both the article and my post talked about the example where NWA employee's lost jobs because of the the Investigation. I would say that counts as using the report to determine continued employment. Although, as noted NWA probally already had written consent, the employee may still have had rights to see the report, and contest points on the report before termination took place under FCRA.
Plenty of ways to quash dissent... (Score:5)
If you're an employee, you could be fired. Maybe you're an employee of a subsidiary or company in a "strategic partnership" with the object of your complaints.
Example: Bob works at Hughes as, say, a satellite broadcast technician in their DBS division. He's had several unfavorable experiences with Chevrolet cars, and posts them on his personal website and in several newsgroups. Some sharp-eyed soul at General Motors, parent of Chevrolet and Hughes, sounds the Independent-Though Alarm and Bob's boss makes it clear to Bob that continued employment or advancement in his position at Hughes is contingent upon his silence on the matter of his distaste for things Chevrolet. To make things more interesting, say Bob's finances aren't too great and he's got three dependent kids, so quitting is not an option. What does Bob do?
One need not be affiliated with a company to be silenced, either. The object of your criticism could go to your ISP with a C&D for libel and have your critical website pulled w/o so much as a fare-thee-well. Of course, you could take the company you're criticizing to court to prove your statements to be true, if you could afford the time and legal fees. Most people can't. And if your ISP is in cahoots with or owned by the person you're criticizing (*cough*AOL Time Warner*cough*AT&T*cough*@home*cough* *wheeze* *splutter*), you're already scrood.
The more people turn to the internet for product information, the more producers are likely to attempt to coopt the information sources. They're not after you for vengeance, they just want you to shut up so you don't drive other customers away.
-Isaac
Probally Violates FTC Regs (Score:5)
William Haynes, Divison of Credit Practices (FTC) wrote in an opinion on June 9, 1998 :
'The first issue is whether your company is a "consumer reporting agency" (CRA) for purposes of
the FCRA. Section 603(f) of the FCRA defines a CRA as any organization which, for monetary fees, "assembles or evaluates" credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of regularly furnishing "consumer reports" to third parties using any means or facility of interstate commerce. A "consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1) as a report containing information bearing on an individual's credit standing or his or her "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" that is used or expected to be used for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for, among other things, employment, insurance, or credit.'
I've never seen a report from this company however, if they have to comply to to the FCRA then some points of interest:
1) Section 609 dictates for 2 years you have to record who's asked for the report. And disclose to the consumer the entire file to the consumer, including who has requested reports.
2) Section 607(b) requires a CRA to maintain "reasonable" procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Which means a report can't contain "Probally". Just the facts ma'am.
3) If the company happens to be an Employer then section 604(b) applies, which means they need written consent to conduct the investigation.
In the case of the Northwest Employee I'm sure they had a background check claus in the contract, however, if an employer terminated an employee because of the report and they did not have consent then there may be grounds for a lawsuit, and possible FTC fines.
Section 607(b) requires you to maintain "reasonable" procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.
Tons of fun FTC stuff located at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/index.htm
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5)
That is why I never post anything objectionable, even using an alias pointing to a throwaway mail service. All along the way, websites are tracking everything they can about me, IP address, machine name, OS type, browser type, cookies. As a network guru, it is childs play to trace people on the net when they piss me off.
Truly anonymising TCP connections is very difficult, so I save that for the really important rants.
I'd like to see
the AC
This is why we need anti-SLAPP laws... (Score:4)
SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation - essentially corporations misusing the legal system by filing frivolous lawsuits against individual critics who don't have the means to defend themselves.
This is not so much an online issue - most SLAPPs come from land-use issues.
Some states have anti-SLAPP laws on their books, which make it much more costly for libel plaintiffs who loose in court. Others don't.
Insert U.S. political flamebait here:
This is the reason why people need to hold their nose and vote for Democrats. Republicans are so much in the pocket of large corporations that they try to elminate all methods of redress that individuals have.
Technological fixes (such as anonymity) can't address a legal issue, because the bad guys can use technology just as well as the good guys. You actually have to have the law on your side. That means using the political process, no matter how little respect you have for it.
Re:DMCA - It doesn't have to be false (Score:2)
Anonymous Coward (Score:3)
it's their right. (Score:3)
Huh? What Good Is This? (Score:4)
Damn. $5,000, eh? Someday, I'll be able to afford free speech.
---
seumas.com
Re:Ummmm... (Score:2)
Well, I couldn't get their website to show me a sample report. I kept getting "Transfer Interrupted!" instead of the report. However, the following section seems to say that there are other kinds of information, besides "credit info" that could cause such a report to be classified as a credit report.
A "consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1) as a report containing information bearing on an individual's credit standing or his or her "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living" that is used or expected to be used for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for, among other things, employment, insurance, or credit.'
Like I said, I haven't seen a report, but it looks like they may have a pretty broad interpretation of what is considered a credit report. This is probably a good thing since many factors go into considering your credit-worthiness other than your account balances and credit history.
Re:Don't Invoke the First Amendment (Score:2)
Besides the shareholders can go screw themselves. If they were stupid enough to invest in a company that dealt in death, misery and disease they deserve to go broke. Especially if they were too stupid to sell their stocks when they smelled trouble coming. What kind of a amoral stupid idiot would still own tobacco or gun stock anyways. Better put your money in safer companies.
Rogue websites? WTF? (Score:2)
Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs (Score:2)
Looks to me like a pretty wide-open statement. They probably included the phrase "among other things" as a CYA clause so that any other onerous or potentially damaging purposes for the reports could be covered by their definition. Whether the courts will play along with this or not is anybody's guess.
Re:corporate terrorism (Score:2)
>
If you were actually intelligent, you'd come up with a better argument than this.
So let's try a counter-example: if you caught some guy raping a child to make a porn film, would you resort to violence to make him stop?
Sometimes the ends justify the means. And if you can't refute *that* assertion, then do us all a favor & either shut up or don't breed.
>Y'all need to pull your head out of your ass.
Mote & beam, dude. Pot, kettle, black.
Geoff
Re:Ummmm... (Score:2)
A "consumer report" is, in turn, defined in Section 603(d)(1) as a report containing information bearing on an individual's credit standing or his or her "character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living"
If you read other opinions on the FTC web page they are pretty strict about this. In one case a company hired truck drivers to check people out in the city hall while they drive their route. In this case they were pulling public records on the target person. The copies of the records were sent to the agency and combined into a report. The FTC opinion states that this company is a CRA and is subject FCRA.
It doesn't have to be a lie to be censored (Score:3)
Wrong! I'd venture a guess that eWatch cares not of the validity of the information, but just that trademarks are being used. One of the greatest successes of the www._______sucks.com was a woman who took on a pest control company. Everything she said was true, but they still went after her for trademark infringement.
eWatch will simply automate the process of serving a DMCA order to the ISP of sites which do not agree with their customers.
I haven't heard from them yet. (Score:2)
Hmm... (Score:2)
People Fight Online Statements They Don't Agree With
This is an interesting article at Slashdot about eFU, a website that specializes in tracking the comments of, and garnering personal information about folks with a beef with another person. The service isn't cheap, upwards of $0 per "screenname". This was apparently used against anti-Microsoft people three months ago. The Slashdot article seems to hint that eFU is used primarily to root out uncomplimentary messages on "rouge" web sites such as itself.
Businesses are getting away with things these days no person could ever have...
Politics of fear and abundant labor... (Score:2)
So as a result, he bitches because his boss is an autocrat with no actual wisdom to justify his position, only seniority. So what if he vents his frustrations... I think that companies that treat their workers like shit just because the swing of the pendulum is towards a buyer's market in labor at the moment are digging their own grave. Loyalty works both ways. If you abuse your employees because you know they are scared to talk, and they can't find a way out, you'd better damn well believe that when they do find a way out they'll take it, and when they found a way to speak their mind it's human nature. It's like the people who beat their dogs, no wonder they get bitten.
Re:corporate terrorism (Score:3)
So to protect "Free Speach" you would not mind somebody shutting down a companies free speach?
Isn't this kind of like saying "We will not tolerate any show by Dr. Laura regardless of content because she is intolerant?".
A first ammendment that only protects the speech you agree with protects little.
(IMHO of course).
Sorry Sir, but you're wrong... (Score:2)
The evil makeup industry (Score:4)
At the departmental level, a whispered "she gained 10 pounds" may be sufficient. At the executive level, it's different. One snide post about "her pasty complexion" sells plenty of rouge, but not before her career is rouged, err, ruined . . .
Hell, these aren't even *my* opinions, let alone my employer's . . .
Mod this up! (Score:2)
More good info.
Re:Probally Violates FTC Regs (Score:2)
"Private investigators and records search firms that Cargill hires to report on court rec-ords are CRAs under the definition set forth in Section 603(f); individual researchers hired by such firms are not. See the enclosed staff opinion letter (LeBlanc, 6/9/98), where we discuss the status of such parties in detail."
Source: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/slyter.htm
Another steaming pile of.. (Score:2)
Wooo, lets all be afraaaaaid of the holding company! Gimmie a break. If you dont like a company, you have a constitutionally protected right to say whatever the hell you want about that company, provided you dont cross the line into slander. You can get up on a soapbox, but you cant yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant, or is lying to you.
Bowie J. Poag