Website Bans Woman With "Unacceptable" Name 70
Barbarian writes "In an example of censorware gone awry, Digital Freedom Network reports on how the website Blackplanet.com will not let a woman register because her name contains the word "cock", as do many last names. Thinking it was an oversight, she emailed the site administrators and was told, "unfortunately, the letters that form the word 'Cock' is [sic] unacceptable and will not be recognized by our system." The site intends to continue using the censorware, and if the woman wants to register, she can change her name."
SO has anyone tried other names (Score:1)
"You allow their name, or you're just lame." (Score:1)
Dick? (Score:1)
my company's solution (Score:3)
My company had a client that wanted to filter "unacceptable" names like this. However, our solution was to have the "unacceptable" name entry send a flag by email to the client. The client then had an admin interface to manually permit/deny access. This kept the undesirables off the system, yet permitted legitimate uses of certain letter combinations. Seems like the ideal solution, to me.
Let the Market eliminate this one... (Score:1)
Looks like a common practice (Score:1)
Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
Your name is rejected. Here's a simple solution...GO ELSEWHERE. The website is obviously run by incompetent people who care more about posterity than content so why would you want to be associated with them anyways? Anyways, even in this case its not even about posterity, just a silly naming convention.
Regardless of whether its wrong or right it is still THEIR server. If you don't like it, write a letter to the webmaster once again stating why their convention is silly and explain why you will not visit their site (also mention that you will not encourage others to visit either).
Simply: They are incompetent. You have a choice. Exercise your choice.
Examine you in your present, for you may not exist in your future.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
*yawn* (Score:2)
If you don't fit into the mold, then you cannot use our software|website|service. This theme has been repeated throughout history and it's no suprise that it's showing up here.
Censorware is wrong in the same that bookburning is wrong. The problem is, both systems are still in effect.
--
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Censorware just doesn't work (Score:2)
I'm really surprised at the response from the web site that they will not allow here to register her name. I wonder if any of their current members will complain about it. Bad publicity is never good for business.
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:3)
So if this were a large corporations site like CDNow or Buy.com or even Amazon, would you have the same attitude? I think larger coporations are forced to adhere to higher standards.
You should not cope with the problem -- you should work to solve the problem.
--
Scunthorpe and AOL (Score:2)
Great to see the same mistakes being made by dumbass companies today!
AOL - putting the c*nt in Scunthorpe
"Give the anarchist a cigarette"
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
In response to your "large corporation site" problem, it would not happen. They depend on the public image because they are VERY well known sites. If a company that size were facing such a problem, I guarantee that the sites policy would change (as soon as it would hit one of the web's thousands of news places../. included). That is why I was merely stating that for a smaller website that comes a dime a dozen, it really is not worth the aggravation. This is afterall simply a naming convention.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
It Just Occured to Me... (Score:4)
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Re:Scunthorpe and AOL (Score:2)
the AC
Declaration of Indepence Censored! (Score:1)
"But it was signed by some porn star named John Hanc*ck! I nearly fainted when I read it! His name violated my civil rights!"
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
But this is precisely the point. CDNow and Amazon are keen enough to do well that they can't afford to piss people off like this. Therefore they try not to. Ideally, when you complain to one of them because some short-sightedness of their has led to a situation like this, their immediate proffessional reaction should be to apologise profusely and send you a $10 voucher, at which point they stand the chance of impressing you sufficiently that you become a valued customer.
Reactions to little things like this are precisely how you tell a company that has excellent processes and a high level of awareness of customer service from the lame ducks run by millionaire-whizzkid-wannabes that only make them rich becauses people hurl money at anything with a full stop in the name that happens to float on the market.
I agree with the original post, and the one that came before it in this discussion - let the market decide. I've seen this thread, read the names of the companies concerned, and they have fallen in my esteem. Not that won't affect them, but the overall effect of carrying on with such policies over time will mean that a sufficient number of people will end up feeling like me, and even if they don't completely stop using these services, they will look elsewhere first.
The same thing happened with my Amazon purchases - I realised they were not that cheap, and now I go to shopsmart.com first. Sometimes I still end up on Amazon, but only when they've got something that makes me go there (out of print books, or maybe I want really quick delivery, or whatever) that is also worth the price premium.
Market power rules - especially in a medium where going to another shop requires less than half a calorie spent typing in a different web address.
Typos (Score:1)
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:2)
If this arguement were about browser compatibility then people would be outraged.
What, you've made a site that's only compatible with M$??!! For shame!
--
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
There are NO laws that are being broken and only 1 person's name has been under scrutiny. It is a shame. They should fix it. Go elsewhere.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
--
flip side: mandatory account names (Score:3)
A few jobs back the company policy was "first initial, last name." They stuck to that policy even when D. Adcock came on board. Even though I worked with the individual and am fairly laid back, I never got used to that account name. I suspect she rarely used the company email to contact people outside of the company.
At least she had the option at that time. Today, you'll find more work being forced onto web sites. It's not hard to foresee a world where employees are terminated because one bunch of whiny children insists that "We don't have to change our site, you change your account name!" and another bunch of whiny children insists that "We don't have to change our site's account name policy, you change your site!" and the only person actually trying to do something productive is left out in the cold.
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:2)
I'm as opposed to minorities being discriminated against as anyone, and, like most people, being part of a diverse set of individuals, I probably belong to a few minorities depending how you care to define them. But that doesn't mean I think the success or failure of a company should hinge on whether their filters accept my name. As it happens, I've yet to come across a website that can handle my name because they can't do accents, and they tend to have maximum field lengths that are shorter than my surname.
If the company's actions are due to an endemic problem with their customer service or the quality of their business practices then fine - they deserve to fail, and the market will ensure they will as they will be outcompeted by other players and 98% of the customers will end up leaving - all for their own reasons.
But 2% of people being upset with a service is not a trend - it could be either an error term, or it could, in some cases, be a business decision - maybe the company doesn't want that 2% of the business, because it costs them 20% of their effort to go and pander to those customers.
If I'm in the 98%, I don't want a bunch of discontents killing a service I use because their names happen to get jammed in a filter. Luckily, it's quite rare for that 2% to have the ability to kill off the business, so I'm safe. If I'm in the 2%, and because of my name, I quite often am, I'll find another service, it's only a click away - although usually a phone call is enough to fix the problem if I'd rather stick with the site in question.
Re:Scunthorpe and AOL (Score:2)
Sadly not true. I was able to get to the site listed, but I'm often not able to get to other sites mentioned in YROL because of filtering. It's just more evidence of how ineffective internet filtering is, that some sites that really seem as though they might be blocked by filtering software aren't but others (like ESR's home page on my system) are.
Censorware never will work (Score:1)
You're forgetting one thing: trolls have lousy grammar. Although a filter that blocked bad grammar might not be a bad idea...
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:2)
So you move on. And then find another website with the same problem. And you move on again. This isn't the way things are supposed to work!
I may be reaching here, but what percentage of the populous is disabled? Probably a lot smaller than the percentage that isn't. Right? So when a store doesn't have an access ramp, for example, does that mean that they just have to "deal with it" and go somewhere else? Merely coping with a problem will get you nowhere.
Sometimes, it's in a companies best interest to "pander" to the 2% -- you never know, they may account for 60% of your sales.
--
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
I never said deprive them of the service. Not using (or re-writing) censorware does not deprive someone of a service.
--
back in FidoNet days (Score:2)
"Please use your real name." the moderator said. I guess people assume that "Conan" is a real name only in movies and comic books?
--
Re:Typos (Score:2)
You know you drink too much coffeee when... [sorehands.com]
cope with a problem? (Score:2)
One may think, "big deal." And it may be true, for this problem. But then what about the next?
I Agree with their moral decision. (Score:1)
Yours Sincerely,
Asspenis Virginfucka
The World's Worst Email Address (Score:5)
A student at college, Mary Emily Cummins fell foul of the institute's email address policy.
They took the first six letters of the surname followed by the initials of the forname. She ended up with cumminme@something.edu.
Would they allow her to change it? Of course not.
Re:Censorware never will work (Score:1)
You are entirely wrong, my friend . . . .
Re:I Agree with their moral decision. (Score:1)
Re:Let the Market eliminate this one... (Score:2)
Re:Censorware never will work (Score:1)
Some Asshole (Score:2)
If this story is true, it can't be the first time something like this happened to this man. Why not just change the name?
Remember that SNL skit about "Asswipe Jones"?
LK
Re:Me (Score:2)
If your name being truncated means that my bill is lower because the company doesn't have to pay for specialty printing equipment, I'm sorry but it's not worth making 20 people "feel better" about something if you have to gouge 20000 people to do so.
LK
You've got to expect this (Score:1)
He had his name legally changed to "Luke Sissyfag". You wouldn't believe how funny it was to hear Phil Donahue have a conversation with the man "So, Luke, uh Mr. Sissyfag.....um ah, well, what do you think about this?"
If I wanted to change my name to Harry Cockenballs, I'd expect people not to like it. I'd expect it to be blocked. However it is pure idiocy when the rules of these systems are so inflexible that they can't be overridden by a supervisor.
If my name was Michael Dick, or Bruce Butt I'd be upset if I couldn't make use of it in my email address.
BTW I do know a cop named Bruce Butt.
LK
Apparently Emily Dickinson was also inappropriate (Score:1)
Is this really the best use of censorship? Assuming there is a good use of censorship, this certainly isn't it.
Let's have a contest to find out how many legitimate names would be blocked by censorware crap like this.
Here are a few entries:
I think you get the idea.
Re:Me (Score:2)
ROFL, that was a good one.
You apparently have never studied data structures. I'm going to assume that the database app is coded in C/C++. That in mind, names are likely to be stored as NULL terminated strings.
It would be easy program the system to read the bitstream for my name until it hits a stop bit.
Since we're dealing with characters and files instead of serial communications, I'd wager that they use a NULL instead of a stop bit.
To speed database access it is likely that everyone's name records (first and last) are the same size. You can jump from customer #2333412's name to customer#2334542's name by just doing pointer arithmatic. So if you're name is Dean, I'd expect the record to list your name as Dean00000000000. So that Dean, Bob, Mohammed, Newt, whatever is stored in the same space. Last names would be no different. To maximize the speed of accessing the database, it's best to keep all records to the same size. Beyond that, there must be an arbitrary limit. What's reasonable? 10, 15, 30 characters? That's not my call to make. You have to balance access speed, media costs, and memory requirements against some people being sensitive because their unusually long name gets truncated.
It's not like you can go down to office depot and pick up some extra memory for your RS6000 because you need an extra gigabyte of it to manage all of those unused zeros that you now have because you extended the length of your name data fields.
If seeing your entire name on the bill is that important to you, fine. I'll just stick to whomever gives me the best prices and service.
LK
Re:Apparently Emily Dickinson was also inappropria (Score:1)
Re:Some Asshole (Score:1)
Note: She's an attorney / It's lawsuit time (Score:2)
She should seriously consider filing a lawsuit.
Parties named could possibly include the site, the people at the site who refuse to override the censorware and the company producing the censorware.
Could set a very interesting precedent.
Re:You've got to expect this (Score:1)
Basically it's one of those "if you do it for one you have to do it for all" things.
-- Talonius
Another unfortunate userid (Score:1)
Re:Some Asshole (Score:2)
Not because some computers don't like it, because his name is ASSHOLE! Imagine getting attendance called in grade school..."Ass um, ah, Asshole, Samuel?" "Present".
If you had to endure a lifetime of humiliation like that, would YOU want to pass that name and that humiliation on to your kids?
LK
cope-a-cabana? (Score:1)
The reason I'm fishin' 4 a new religion
is my church makes me fall asleep.
They're praising a God that watches you weep
and doesn't want you to do a damn thing about it.
When they want change the preacher says "shout it."
Does shouting bring about change? I doubt it.
All shouting does is make. you. lose. your. voice.
Sitting in church hearing legitimate woes.
Pastor tells the lady it'll be alright; just pray so you can see the pearly gates so white.
The lady prays and prays and prays and prays and
prays and prays and prays and prays...it's everlasting;
there's nothing wrong with praying -- it's what she's asking.
She's asking the Lord to let her cope
so one day she can see the golden ropes
What you pray for God will give
to be able to cope in this world we live.
But the word "cope" and the word "change"
are directly opposite, not the same.
She should have been praying to change her woes
but pastor said "Pray to cope with those".
___________________________
\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//
all pertinent quotes and cultural references, all the time.
Re:Censorware just doesn't work (Score:1)
Re:Another unfortunate userid (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
In the case where they reply, "We can't be bothered to make a 2 minute effort to enable you to use our site", I move on, and if, for example, ebookers.com can't do it, then expedia probably can. I have yet to come across a situation, as you describe, where I can't track down any way of doing business.
Of course, in the spirit of good debating, you expanded the argument to the non-internet world, and to disabled people, therefore somewhat changing the subject and adopting the moral high ground. Congratulations, good debating tactics.
My answer to that comes is in three parts : (1) Is every single internet company therefore in the wrong because they don't enable their websites with special technology for the blind? (sorry, cheap shot)
(2) Most shops in my part of the world have access ramps - but they don't put all their prices and descriptions of their goods in braille - does this represent discrimination against the blind? I suppose that in fact, they do what I suggested above - they adapt based on the individual request for help, and when a blind person turns up to shop, they assign a member of staff to take them through the store and help them with their shopping.
I think that the real reason shops have access ramps is because the shops on our high-streets today are in such a competitive market that they can't afford to have second rate customer service in any respect. They have reached the point where their customer service is a major selling point, because if theirs is second rate, their neighbouring store will start snapping up their business. This will happen on the internet, but the market is still young, and there's enough easy business out there that branding is still much more important than service, so that's where the effort goes.
(3) You compare the percentage of disabled people to the percentage of non-disabled people. But what about the percentage of disabled people compared to the percentage of people who (a) want to purchase from websites AND (b) have names that will get stuck in filters. I think we just went from around (guessing) 5% to 0.05%. We also have to bear in mind that neither of these groups is prevented from purchasing stuff either on the internet or in real life - there are always companies willing to go the extra mile, just not all companies.
Re:Really..whats the problem? (Score:1)
For instance, the policies that extend benefits like health insurance to opposite sex spouses, but not long-term commited homosexual partners -- after all, the majority of people are hetrosexual. Or the policies posting the 10 commandments and other religious icons in public places in the US -- after all, the majority of people in this country are some variety of christians. We should even extend the principle to defend those laws requiring race-specific water fountains and bathrooms -- after all, the majority of people in this country are still white!
All in all, a policy saying that anything goes so long as the majority agrees is a good policy. In this instance, the majority are pleased with the service, and are not being asked to change their names, so why ask for "special accomodations" (like allowing you to use your own name) for the minority?
-- Michael Chermside
PS: For those who didn't notice the sarcasm in the above piece and who think that I really believe it... I pity you. Really.
Re:Me (Score:2)
I went to high school with a girl named Anita Seaman, while I'm at it there was an Anita Johnson as well.
LK
Re:Dick? (Score:1)
--
Re:Me (Score:1)
How appropriate is this? (Score:1)
Prince: Such an unusual name, "Latrine." How did your family come by it?
Latrine: We changed it in the 9th century.
Prince: You mean you changed it TO "Latrine"?
Latrine: Yeah. Used to be "Shithouse."
Prince: It's a good change. That's a good change!
Re:Note: She's an attorney / It's lawsuit time (Score:1)
Dave
Getting it in writing (Score:2)
But if you can talk them into faxing the policy and details in writing to you then do it.
I'd probably go for media fuss becouse lawsutes are painful media fuss is painless and cheap.
Plus you don't get accused of being greedy with media fuss becouse your not gona make any money off this..
and once in the media it's the "peoples" cause not yours... you walk away and live your life...
And millions of Slashdoters e-mail the site pushing for more details...
eventually they'll cave
Don't harrss or insult... just ask for details... be nice... just ask questions.. non pointed polite questions....
Discrimination (Score:2)
Sence this is pure censorship by name the website is pritty much dead in the water legally...
However I think media exposure is better... It puts the website in the darkest light.... while she gets to live her own life in peace
Bigots (Score:1)
Classic Name (Score:1)
Re:Dick? (Score:2)
Dick Assman (Score:1)
Re:my company's solution (Score:1)
Too bad it won't be likely to start a trend.
Re:How appropriate is this? (Score:1)
Re:Me (Score:2)
LK
Re:Note: She's an attorney / It's lawsuit time (Score:1)
Re:Discrimination (Score:2)
I can create a company called "Rinker Industries" and only sell things to people named Rinker. There is nothing in the law that prevents me from doing this. It might even be a clever marketing scheme...
In some situations, discrimination is mandated by law. You can't discriminate on the basis of age, right? Except for when you sell alcohol or tobacco. Then you can go to jail if you fail to discriminate on the basis of age.
Discrimination on a personal level goes by the less inflammatory name "freedom of association" and is constitutionally protected. I can choose who I wish to associate with and who I do not wish to associate with.
I believe you are thinking of illegal discrimination, the law prohibits specific kinds of discrimination in specific kinds of situations. Businesses may not discriminate on the basis of race in hiring, for example, but unless there is a specific law banning a specific type of discrimination in a specific situation, it is inherently legal.
Now, if I was this lady, assuming she is a member of a protected minority class, I would research my genealogy to see how many people alive today had my name, and what their ethnic makeup was. If most people named "Babcock" were African-Americans, she'd end up practically owning the web site, as their filtering of her name would constitute illeagal discrimination in that case.
Check out today's Dilbert (Score:1)
Re:Apparently Emily Dickinson was also inappropria (Score:1)