Text 13556, 133 rader
Skriven 2008-09-11 00:37:31 av Mark Lewis (1:3634/12.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Dale Shipp
Ärende: 2008 Cooking Picnic
===========================
-=> On 09-09-08 21:46, Dale Shipp wrote to Mark Lewis <=-

 -=> On 09-08-08  23:11,  Mark Lewis <=-
 -=> spoke to All about 2008 Cooking Picnic photo <=-

 ML> i just wanted to find out folk's opinions on me adding all the 2008
 ML> Picnic photos to my gallery along with all the other COOKING echo
 ML> picnic photos...

 DS> My opinion is that you should not be do that.  I explicitly do
 DS> not give approval for such public display for the pictures that
 DS> I took and uploaded to Janis' private ftp site.

i can understand that... however, i also feel that photos with no
descriptive text do not offer any security risk... for that matter, what
kind of security risk is there??

 ML> i haven't heard a word from anyone concerning security (or copyright
 ML> if that's a concern) and i explicitly do not enter any descriptive
 ML> details other than possibly giving the names of folks in the
 ML> photo(s)... and, while on this "security" subject, no one has voiced
 ML> _any_ concerns to me about any security (identity or otherwise)
 ML> concerns...

 DS> It was discussed at the picnic.

i wasn't there, remember? ;)

 DS> It was mentioned here.

with the stuff i've been dealing with in real life (recent son's death,
mother's recent cancer diagnosis, etc), i haven't read much
of anything in here...

 DS> It is a matter of privacy.

as written above and previously, i can understand that... and with
photos with no descriptive material accompanying them, what "security
risk" is there? none of the photos can be used for passports, for
example ;)

 DS> It is a matter of avoiding public display
 DS> and indexing to the world at large.

that is easily taken cary of... it only requires one or two lines to
tell the engines to not follow or carry the photos... this is actually
part of what i alluded to in my above, quoted, message... i re-iterate,
_no one_ has voice any of these concerns to me and my hosting of the
existing images i have...

 DS> Janis has agreed to host the pictures on her ftp site where she
 DS> has some control over who has access to the pictures.

she has the exact same control that i have... but i will also point out
your use of the term "ftp"... none of the photos i host are availabel
via ftp other than one or two highly guarded and monitored accounts...
ftp is one of the most abused and "attempted to be hacked" account
formats out there...

 DS> Especially, she has blocked the site so that Google and other
 DS> index spiders cannot access them for the general public to search.

ok... again, that is no problem... again, no one has voiced any concerns
to me about my hosting these images, either...

 DS> There was a consensus of the people involved in the discussion
 DS> that this was the proper thing to do.

i can understand that but i also have to wonder about the knowledge and
understanding of how things _really_ work came into play in this
decision... again, i is easy enough to protect the photos... i have no
less than 4 ways to protect them and can force at least two in tandem...
no big deal, really...

 DS> Your site does not provide such protection.

yes it does! no one has asked for otherwise!

 DS> It is indexed and accessible via Google search.

yeah... and the idea of hosting photos for access via the web is what?
no chance of locating them? if that's the case, then why even allow them
to be hosted in the first place? :?

 DS> In my opinion, that is an invasion of privacy since most of the
 DS> people named and displayed there have not given permission.  No
 DS> public magazine would display photos without permission, and I
 DS> believe that web sites should follow the same procedures.

uh... (#1) i'm not a public magazine... (#2) no one has told me that
they do not want their images displayed... (#3) only some of the photos
i host have any descriptive text accompanying them... (#4) what is the
actual risks involved?

 ML> dale (and other moderator(s)), if this is offtopic, please let me
 ML> know... it doesn't matter to me if these talks take place in here (ie:
 ML> in the open) or in private but i'd like it if all interested parties
 ML> are included in the discussion(s)...

 DS> Others are free to offer their opinons, but we don't want
 DS> extended or heated discussion on the matter here.

well, i'm not looking to extend or heat the discussion(s) in any way,
shape or form... i'm just rather disappointed that i'm able to host
photos of past gatherings but nothing current and no one has said
anything to me, AT ALL, about their privacy concerns with the photos
that i do have hosted :(

i mean, goood grief... it is nothing like the genealogy data that i host
covering some 29000 people and some 8000+ marriages :(

they are, after all, simply photos... i've had only two (maybe three)
"sets" of photos sent to me that contained any type of descriptive
text... some because the photos were renamed to the descriptive text and
others because of the descriptive text that was sent along with the
photos specifically to put with the photos... however, all of that can
easily be "adjusted" so that _now_ there is none of this "privacy
matter" in view... other than that, and again, no one has expressed any
concerns /to me/ about what i'm hosting, which is, BTW, a completely
/free/ service to the echo, as a whole... the data that has been indexed
can be removed from those indexes by simply telling me and allowing me
the time to get hold of those indexing services that have this data and
having them remvove said data from their indexes...

in any case, i feel like i've been slapped in the face for some reason
that no one has expressed to me for something that i've apparently done
in the wrong :( :?

)\/(ark

... Kill me. Kill me NOW.

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)