Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Media Your Rights Online

Turning Up The Heat On On-Line Registration 464

Saeed al-Sahaf writes "CNN is running a story on the growing number of print newspapers with on-line editions that are requiring registration. Apparently there are some folks out there who don't like this 'feature'! I found a few things interesting about the story: Privacy groups say it's a dangerous practice and promotes spam; I didn't realize people put real personal info into these things (110-year-old surgeons from Bulgaria named Mickey Mouse). About 15 to 20 percent of the registrations for the Philadelphia Inquirer turned out to be bogus, a figure that was much lower than I would have thought. Also mentioned in the story is a web site called BugMeNot.com, which lists 'communal' logins and passwords for on-line newspapers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Turning Up The Heat On On-Line Registration

Comments Filter:
  • by Snover ( 469130 )
    Haha, wouldn't it be a kicker if someone made a subscription account public so everyone could read the articles from the distant future...
  • by DCowern ( 182668 ) * on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:28AM (#9427326) Homepage
    If you go to BugMeNot.com and enter http://slashdot.org, you get:

    CmdrTaco
    password

    Sheesh, I'd expect better from him! ;-)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:29AM (#9427335)
    ...but I imagine that 'joe@aol.com' probably doesn't...
  • by Insomnia ( 11375 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:30AM (#9427339) Homepage
    Of course, now that BugMeNot has been publicized, how long until all these sites check that site often and just disable all accounts that ever get listed there?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      ...and then they create another new account...

      I don't think that anyone will keep up with and pissed off and semi-organized group of users who don't want to be tracked.

      Besides, I'm sure that they have fixed their computers so they won't boradcast an IP address...
    • Judging from my experiences today, I would say it's already happened. A dozen of their keys for nytimes.com didn't work.
      • The nytimes is easy, just use a filter so that your referrer URL isn't the automatic registration site (mine is always the page I'm trying to view) and automatic registration works great.
    • by vehn23 ( 684035 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @03:37AM (#9427705)
      I'll never understand the business model of a newspaper that puts its articles on their website. How the heck do they expect to make money from this? Cause its not from people clicking on their 2"x1" Tiffany's ad or from the inevitable spam people get when they like, actually use their real info when registering.
      • by Simon ( 815 )
        I'll never understand the business model of a newspaper that puts its articles on their website.

        The business model here is the same as for the dead tree version ==> Advertising. Tradional newspapers make money from advertising, not from selling newspapers. The money you pay when buying a copy of a newspaper doesn't cover production costs for most papers. The rest is made up by advertising money.

        --
        Simon

      • Newspaper revenue comes from the print ads. So long as people aren't unsubscribing from their paper in favor of the online version, they can put (and do) ALL their content online and still be fine. Case in point, I subscribe to the daily Washington Post even though i read almost the entire thing online. I rarely open up the hard copy, but occasionally, if I didn't get the chance or there's something I really want to keep, I'll crack it open. I don't think too many papers are in dire straits because they
        • by kgarcia ( 93122 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @09:46AM (#9429700) Homepage
          Disclaimer: I Work at a Newspaper in the advertising department...

          the thing about online, is now most papers are selling online/print package deals. So you buy your paper ad, add an extra fee, and your ad goes online as well. It works great for the local retailers, even ef people don't actually click through, because the exposure online is longer than in print. (ex. in print, an ad runs for one day, and unless you buy multiple days, or weeks, the effectiveness goes down. On-Line, the ad stays in rotation for a week, which is a better deal for the small local retailers, since they get more exposure locally). They also usually tie-in listings and info pages to advertising, so as long as the retailer signs a contract for "X" number of days, then their listing stay on-line for say, 6 months in the local retailer info or whatever... This days, having an on-line version actually does bring in a decent ammount of revenue, especially with the cost of operating a website vs newsprint and press costs.
      • by yelvington ( 8169 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @09:05AM (#9429229) Homepage
        Others already have posted the obvious answer that newspapers make most of their money on advertising, not circulation. I'll add some precision. (I am a strategist for a newspaper company.)

        Three revenue drivers traditionally have been coequal for printed newspapers: Classified advertising, display advertising (the big ads on news pages), and circulation.

        However, circulation revenues are rapidly declining due to market pressures, and circulation costs (a problem of print distribution, but not of Internet distribution) consume more than circulation sales brings in.

        Display advertising has declined about 15 percentage points over the last couple of decades, largely due to retail sector consolidations and Wal-Mart (which does not advertise very much in newspapers). So newspapers are increasingly dependent on classified advertising ... which happens to work extraordinarily well on the Internet.

        The audience is moving from print to the Internet, so it is imperative that newspapers find ways to serve that audience online (and deliver advertising to it).

        On the Internet, the only business model that has been demonstrated to work for newspapers is the open, ad-supported model. The typical paid site gets something like 1.5 percent of the audience of the printed newspaper, while an open site may actually exceed the audience of the print product. So successful newspapers have open Web sites and rely on advertising for support.

        Successful newspapers have implemented classified advertising pricing strategies that harvest that Internet-generated value. The single most effective advertising program implemented by newspapers is the "Top Jobs" program originated at sfgate, [sfgate.com], which lets key classified advertisers pay extra for exposure on regular site content pages.

        Regardless of what slashdot groupthink might dictate, the reality is that local retail banner and tile advertising also works. However, the Internet -- because of its potential global reach -- creates unique problems for local advertisers.

        Consider the Washington Post. Its advertising base is local. Its Web reach is global. If you think about that for maybe five seconds, you can see why they have implemented registration. They have to develop two completely independent ad sales strategies -- one based on a global audience (which is why they ask business questions of nonlocal registrants) and another based on a local audience. And they need to be able to target local advertising based on geographic information from registration and also national advertising based on the B2B questions from registration.

        It is an article of faith on slashdot that "everybody" lies on registrations. My own data shows under one percent falsification. Perhaps most people are not as dishonest as slashdotters. :-)

        As for the whine about "inevitable spam" ... please demonstrate where a newspaper has abused the email addresses provided by its users. No newspaper shares those addresses with advertisers. Every news company carefully controls the use of those email addresses -- even the Tribune Company, which requires that you consent to receive ad mail as a condition of site access, severely limits both the number and the nature of the emails. It would be bad business to do otherwise.

        • by epine ( 68316 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @11:05AM (#9430718)

          That was a great post. Wow, it would be cool to hang out on a forum where that kind of post was typical, rather than exceptional. Cool for us dorks, in any case.

          I don't agree that 99% of logins are accurate. Perhaps 99% of logins are plausible. While I don't believe that *everyone* falsifies logins, I've made my own best effort to pick up the slack, and I know plenty of people who aren't slashdorks who put their correct address on their VISA card application with some reluctance.

          What I would give out freely is my GPS coordinate, to single degree precision, which is sufficient to place me within a mild climate of the Pacific Northwest: bring on the ads for lattes, gortex jackets, and hiking boots.

          What I find distressing about the cold math of that post is the extent to which advertising has become an unchallenged assumption of American society. Newspapers will change, but ads must go on.

          Why don't we simplify the process? For $5000 cash I'll volunteer to stick my head into a souped up MRI machine, have all my emotional associations reprogrammed by powerful American corporate interests, spend the rest of my life buying overpriced products with marginal performance (but I'll feel *sooo* good about it due to the emotional reprogramming I'll never notice), and be able to sit in front of the television for an hour and watch an hour worth of programming (no more ads for me, because these were inserted medically, on a one-shot basis). If every 30 seconds I spend in the MRI having my emotions rewired saves me from watching the same ad for Gap Khakis 300 times, I'll count the time well spent, even if my emotional reprogramming forces me to wear Gap Khakis until I'm incontinent.

          If advertising wasn't possible, if some immunity sprung up in the human genetic condition to thwart the imprinting of emotional desires through the images and sounds of desirability, then the media industry would have to be based entirely on paid content. I could live with that. It would lead to better content. For instance, $100 million dollar that have be sprayed on Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan could have been spent instead on writing some scripts worth producing (a chorus of Sopranos on every channel).

          I'm looking forward to the day when a typical home PC can animate virtual supermodels on demand to model any aspect of daily living. Say for instance I like Tsarist stout (I do), I could on my home PC create sequences of virtual supermodels having virtual supermodel fun while cavorting around with thick mugs of Tsarist stout of a brand of my own choosing. Amazing! I could reprogram my own emotions to feel cool about drinking the beer I actually like!
          Wouldn't that be amazing ... to feel cool and *like* the beer you are drinking at the same time?

          No, wait, it wouldn't work. The point is, when I spend $10,000 too much for a carbon spewing SUV, part of what I'm paying for is the secure knowledge that my friends and neighbours have all been exposed to hours worth of emotional conditioning to regard me as being as cool as my wheels. Without advertising, we wouldn't know what the products around us symbolize, and we might have difficulty figuring out which of our neighbours is rich, cool, or sexy. Damn, it can be so difficult figuring out who is sexy and who isn't without the massively socialized product cues. I guess we'll have to keep advertising after all.

    • As bug-me-not logins are disabled, more will be created. I suspect the rate at which they are disabled cant catch up to the rate at which they are created either.

      The net community is much more motivated to stay ahead of the newspapers on this one. People are annoyed and they've got a tool to do something about it now.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:32AM (#9427344)
    About 15 to 20 percent of the registrations for the Philadelphia Inquirer [philly.com] turned out to be bogus

    That percentage has just risen :)
    • How about a contest. How many times can you get the word 'cunt' into a login?

      Someone make sure that a Mike Scunt gets registered. They will undoubtedly cancel all accounts that have the word 'cunt' in them. And when they do, imagine what fun it will be to complain that the account for Mike Scunt was cancelled.
  • by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:34AM (#9427353) Homepage Journal
    I live in Austin. I used to read the Statesman online, but now they require registrations, and the damn thing asks for the password every single time.

    So, I read www.kxan.com instead. I think that no matter where I turn, I can find an equivalent article from a competitor. Even content such as what salon.com carries can be found elsewhere. Slate.com and theatlantic.com can give me lots to think about when salon.com's advertisements fail to run on Linux.

    So, no biggie. If they make it easy for me, I'm content to set myself up as a 99 year old woman from Ahzerbaijahn. But if they bug me twice about it, or if they fail to test their advertizing/authentication scheme with the browser that I choose to use, then I'll never visit their shithole again.

    So long, Austin American Statesman. You suck!
    • by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @03:19AM (#9427660) Homepage Journal
      I think it is great that different newspapers try different things. It gives us a chance to see what works and what fails.

      It seems to me that newspapers lose more for requiring registration than they get from that little bit of demographic information.

      Newspapers that require registration end up losing boat loads of traffic from search engines and they tend to lose the valuable backward links for article citations in blogs and what not.

      In the long run, of course, the most successful format for online news would be the hybrid model that gives some features for paying, others for free registration and has a good amount of info available for free to build and maintain casual web traffic.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:34AM (#9427354)
    Just a theory, of course, but I bet the newspapers could care less what info. you use to register, as long as you do. And if you register with a new name every time, even better-- that's twice the number of readers they can claim to have to their advertisers.
    • Not true (Score:5, Informative)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:47AM (#9427401) Journal
      In order to use the data they have to prove that it is true. Advertisers know all too well about falsified audience figures.

      They are not going to be too impressed with marketing data like this. If people can be proven to be lying about one thing in a survey then all the other data is suspect as well.

      Compare it with banners ads sold on number of shows, clicks AND sales. The first are insanely high but also easily faked. Clicks are slightly more reliable but any advertiser is really intrestted in the number of sales generated.

      So if your site can sell 1 billion views that is barely worth anything. If it can produce 100.000 clicks that might get you a few bucks. But generate 1000 sales and you are golden.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @04:01AM (#9427778) Homepage
        ...people generating the audience know all too well about falsified sales figures. "Oh sorry your 100,000 clicks barely produced sales, here's a nickle for your trouble".

        That's why they've mostly agreed on clicks as the "currency" of choice, since both can verify the number of clicks. Then the advertiser can look at his click-to-sales ratio and decide if it's worth it. Of course, this leads to the nefarious practice of redirecting innocents because they generate clicks.

        Going by sales is better all around, particularly for the consumer, but it also requires a considerable higher level of trust between the companies involved.

        Kjella
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:34AM (#9427356)
    The day the online LA Times started requiring subscriptions... ...I stopped reading the LA Times online.

    The day the online Washington Post started requiring subscriptions... ...I stopped reading the Washington Post online.

    Luckily, the NYTimes didn't require a valid email, once upon a time...

    There are still enough free sources of news on the Internet-- if some papers want to cut down on their advertising exposure and online circulation, fine. Screw 'em. There is no reason they need my name to send me their news and ads.
    • by timmyf2371 ( 586051 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:47AM (#9427406)
      Simple - if you want to read someone's content you abide by their rules.

      There is no reason they need my name to send me their news and ads

      Weird. Despite having been registered with the NYTimes for 2 years now, I've never received any communications from them be it news/spam/anything else nor has the email address I provided them been given to anyone.

      • by miu ( 626917 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @03:45AM (#9427734) Homepage Journal
        Simple - if you want to read someone's content you abide by their rules.

        Right, and he made the statement that he would not read their content as he doesn't like their rules.

        The real problem here is that some sites are more professional about the whole privacy issue than others. Some, like the NYT seem to be very good. Other sites have been a huge mistake to sign up for, IT industry rags seem to be the absolute worst - I never sign up for those anymore with anything other than a disposable webmail account.

        I'd like to see a useful accreditation for a site's privacy policy. As it stands right now a site with a good policy can change pretty much at the whim of the owners. Even a site that sincerely swears on a stack of bibles that they will never sell your info is subject to being sold to weasels who will bury you in spam.

    • by dave1791 ( 315728 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:55AM (#9427602)
      Ummmm... Why do people bitch about the beer not being free?

      What is the big deal? The washington post, nyt, etc are comercial operations and have to pay to keep the lights on. You can pay to read the newspaper in print or read it online for free provided you give them something in trade (i.e. account info).

      They have to pay those journalists and pay for the Reuters/AP feeds. If you want to read their stuff, be prepared to trade for it. $/ or info.

      If you want free beer, there are a million crappy blogs...

      • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @07:30AM (#9428375) Homepage
        Except that those sites are ad-supported. There is already a tradeoff going on there... You're trading eyeballs for info. That's not very risky. The thing about online registration is that you're trading a lot of safety for not much info. True, they could be nice and not spam your inbox, spam your house, clog up your phone with marketing calls... Maybe their tracking info doesn't monitor your entrances to aljazeer.net, or your propensity towards reading Palestenian sympathetic diatribes (Remember, everyone in the US government just bowed down and kissed the dead feet of a notoriously bad McCarthyist). They'd never hand that info over to someone who would misuse it. And OK, so they're running a system well and would never be hacked. But why take that risk?

        What the free papers are offering are a large risk in exchange for not much reward, a risk that you wouldn't be asked to take if you were reading the dead tree edition. Would you read a newspaper if the newsstand man required a valid drivers license, and watched over your shoulder taking notes?

        As what many people consider the only remaining viable source of information in this country, newspapers have a unique responsibility to the democracy. Just as voting is annonymous, so too must be information-gathering. Give that up, and who knows when the next witch hunt will find you...

        • by digitalgiblet ( 530309 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @07:56AM (#9428517) Homepage Journal
          Cgenman said: "Would you read a newspaper if the newsstand man required a valid drivers license, and watched over your shoulder taking notes?"

          When you get the newspaper at the newstand you PAY for it with MONEY. The bulk of that cost goes to defray the cost of printing. A major daily paper has HUGE expenses that keep going up, yet they don't raise the price of a paper very frequently.

          The profits from a newspaper come from advertisers who are willing to pay a fair rate for print advertising because it works. So far most online advertising has failed to meet the expectations of advertisers, so they don't want to pay much for it.

          Newspapers know that the world is changing around them and they are trying to adapt. Are they making the right choices? Don't know. I don't like registering any more than anyone else, but I do know that if newspapers don't figure out how to make a LOT more money online, they will cease to exist. The trend is for anyone younger than say 45-50 to get their news online rather than from print. The good news is that it costs a LOT less to publish online (newsprint costs are soaring -- newsprint is the paper itself). The bad news is that the BULK of the jobs at a large daily paper are NOT reporters and editors, but printers and circulation people. That equals a ton of lost jobs in the future if newspapers go totally online.

          We're coming up on 10 years of large numbers of people actively using the Internet and we STILL haven't figured out a way to exchange money for information that people are willing to use that will generate enough money to make it worthwhile to provide that information. Yes I'm a capitalist. Yes I expect people provide goods and services only in exchange for SOMETHING that can be equated to money.

          It is basically a paradox. People pay for Internet service, so they figure everything out there should already be paid for, yet if you required ISPs to pay into a fund that was distributed amongst all web sites and services, each site would make microscopic revenues and would cease to operate.

  • by Radish03 ( 248960 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:37AM (#9427361)
    ... because since I've switched to firefox, I need to remember them again at least once to input (Since I'd been using autologin on most sites for months/years) and I use several variants of my name and passwords depending on the site and the requirements and I forget which I use where.
    • I'm hoping that in the long run, solutions like KDE's password wallet become more popular. That way when I move computers, I just copy over a single file to move all my passwords to the new location. It beats cookies anyway. Now if we could just get Firefox to use the damn wallet, I would switch from Konqueror. :-/
  • by Granos ( 746051 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:37AM (#9427365)
    They found that 10-15% of email addresses are bogus. This makes perfect sense, because most users who register probably figure that they need to recieve an e-mail to confirm registration, (even if you don't, as in the case of the Philadelphia Inquirer). If you look at Name/address/phone number/other personal info, then the amount of falsified data is probably at 85%+. Of course, there's no way to run a database queue to find out how much of that is fake, since they can't just count bounced e-mails. But to the companies e-mail is really all that matters anyway, so the fact that the other info is fake is moot.
  • by alphan ( 774661 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:40AM (#9427379) Homepage
    I didn't realize people put real personal info into these things

    I know people who give their email username AND password even when trying to use "send/forward to a friend" links in a newspaper.

    That said, I don't think lying is an option for many people.

  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:41AM (#9427381) Journal
    Either make your site pay only or make it free. Putting up the registration has to be the worst. They admit that 20% of the email addresses is false. However this is easy to check. Checking the rest of the data is not so easy. So in effect it is totally useless.

    No sane advertiser will pay for a spot based on research data where such an easily checked piece of data is already proven to be false 1 out of 5 times. Income, job, interest are then likely to have a far higher error rate.

    I do know that newspapers have to make money and that giving their content away for free does not make too much sense. But this doesn't make sense either.

    If they want to get info let them start with basic geographic data. Don't show someone with a european IP ads for america only products. Surely that shouldn't be that hard?

    • They admit that 20% of the email addresses is false. However this is easy to check.

      I'm not sure this can 'easily' be checked -- issuing a VRFY is no longer reliable and even sending mail and not receiving a bounce is not foolproof. Just because someone puts 'sfc@foo.com' and it doesn't bounce means it's a real address..

      No sane advertiser will pay for a spot based on research data where such an easily checked piece of data is already proven to be false 1 out of 5 times.

      That should be true, but does t

  • slashdot logins (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:42AM (#9427387)
    slashdot
    slashdot

    Works on quite a few sites.
  • by JWSmythe ( 446288 ) <jwsmythe@noSPam.jwsmythe.com> on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:44AM (#9427390) Homepage Journal
    After all these years of filling out fake information in online forms, I'm not really very sure what my own name, address, or social security information is any more.

    Maybe that's why the IRS is less than entertained by my tax returns.

    Name: John Smith [namestatistics.com] (note the resemblance [slashdot.org])
    SS#: 078-05-1120 [snopes.com]
    Addr: 1 Main Street
    Anytown, USA

    Just kidding, I've been sending notes to the IRS for years reminding them I am from a galaxy far far away, and we don't believe in taxes. :)

  • by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxruby&comcast,net> on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:45AM (#9427394)
    They call it "Information Poisoning" and are absolutely baffled why on earth anyone would ever practice it. Just for useful reference for other peoples information poisoning efforts I have an easy one to remember

    Young America, MN 55555

    This will match the zip code to the city and will pass those systems that try to verify against bogus data.

    They don't care about the people who refuse to sign up, this is meaningless to them. But if they get enough bogus data, those databases become significantly devalued.

    And to whoever has that bob@jones.com email address, I offer my sincerest apologies.
    • by nbvb ( 32836 )
      12345 is Schenectady, NY .....

      poor foo@bar.com... he gets a LOT of my email ...
    • I tend to be obvious about my information poisoning. My name for registration purposes is "Private Individual", my address is 123 Fake St., Fake City. My email address uses the domain @example.com. The only truthful information I usually give is my country -- I figure that much won't compromise my privacy, and they could easily figure it out anyway from my IP address.

      If they insist on other demographic info, my occupation is "Other" and my birthdate is in the 1800's.

      I really do hope they pass my info to t
    • by ckd ( 72611 )

      I use:
      1060 W. Addison
      Chicago, IL 60610

      (It's a Blues Brothers homage; that's Wrigley Field. I hate registration Nazis.)

  • Why pay? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WenisMonger ( 787750 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:45AM (#9427397)
    I understand that some people may be particularly attached to certain columnists or sections in their favorite newspapers and would want to pay for the convienence of an online version. But overall I see no real reason to even bother with a paid subscription to news that can be found for free somewhere else.

    The internet is a huge resource of information, and if people are uncomfortable or feel that their privacy has been infringed by being asked personal information, there are plenty of other sites that carry the same news.

    Demographic information is a very valuable resource, but only if accurate information is submitted. But for now, there's no stopping those who value privacy from posting bogus info.

  • fake reg (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RTPMatt ( 468649 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:46AM (#9427399) Homepage
    bout 15 to 20 percent of the registrations for the Philadelphia Inquirer turned out to be bogus, a figure that was much lower than I would have thought.

    I thought the same thing, but almost every time i ask a nontech-savvy person, they tell me they put their real info in. Also, many of these people will also put your email in to those 'send this to 5 friends for $1 off!' type deals. I have had to teach everybody in my family that when you do things like this it adds to spam. Some of them seem to think that its wrong to give fake information, or that you may be tracked down or something. people need to be educated about this stuff!
    • No kidding... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Otto ( 17870 )
      Some of them seem to think that its wrong to give fake information, or that you may be tracked down or something. people need to be educated about this stuff!

      If they could track you down that easily, why would they be asking for your information in the first place?

      You're right, really, people just don't think much, do they? I agree... people need to be told about this sort of thing. I was doing some searching with my dad a few weeks ago for something fairly esoteric, and ran into a registration using his
  • by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:49AM (#9427407)
    For sites that require a valid email address for registration, there's an excellent site called www.dodgeit.com

    You don't need to create an account, just invent one.

    Then go to the site and you (and anyone) can look at the mail sent to that address. Go try it out, go to the site, and punch in "ihatespam" for example and you can see all email sent to ihatespam@dodgeit.com
  • BugMeNot Extention (Score:5, Informative)

    by psyclone ( 187154 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:50AM (#9427411)
    Don't forget about the Firefox BugMeNot extention [texturizer.net]. Very useful.

    If only sites like these were hosted on some sort of P2P network where any browser could access it, but the 'site' could distribute load across many hosts (and have differing information -- bad that it's not global and constant, but good that it's not controlled and thus can always exist -- an acceptible trade-off).

  • by Anonymous Coward
    It's amazing how many websites already have billg@microsoft.com, info@sco.com darl.mcbride@sco.com and other common addresses already registered as an active user. This usually works for the, "enter your email and we'll spam you before you can proceed" registrations like on Quicktime or Pinnacle Patches or thing like that...
  • Someone here, a while back, posted a way to "tag" your email addresses, so they'd still be deliverable, but you could tell who was responsible if you started getting spam.

    It was something like

    user#nytimes@example.com
    user%nytimes@example.c om

    where user@example.com is the real address, and something similar to the above would be what you would enter while signing up for a site.

    I can't recall what it is, but it would be very useful if anyone can remember.
    • by timmyf2371 ( 586051 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:15AM (#9427482)
      Whenever I register for any online site or service, I use a custom email address. I have my own domain name which I have unlimited aliases for - they all go into the same POP3 mailbox, but based on the address I can detect and block any site which spams/gives my email address out.

      ie, my amazon account is registered to amazon@domain.co.uk and my slashdot account is registered to slashdot@domain.co.uk

      Anyone who decides to spam me or give out or sell my email address will be found.

    • I believe the poster is thinking of SMTP features such as the following:

      user(slashdot)@example.com
      user+slashdot@exampl e.com

      Depending on your ISP, these may or may not work, because these are not supported by all mail hosts.
  • by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .ettexut.> on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @01:56AM (#9427426) Homepage Journal
    Mann said in an e-mail that the complaints generally fell into three categories: People who had technical problems, those who objected to giving out personal information, and those who "railed that we were pigs and were 'ruining the Internet!"'

    "We helped the first group through it. We reassured most all of the second group with a strong privacy policy. The third group still doesn't like it and I presume many of them did not register with us," he said.

    It seems like everyone likes to say that they have a strong privacy policy, but it is often the case that the claim of a strong privacy policy is just a bunch of reassuring words with no basis in reality (remember Toysmart? [nytimes.com] And from what I understand, not much has happened regarding attempts to create legislation.). As long as there are no laws in the US that regulate the use of personal data that are comperable to the laws in Europe, these newspapers could pretty much do whatever they want to with the data.

    Now fine, I understand that these newspapers need to get advertisers' money in order to survive. But why not be straightforward about it? For example, if they asked readers to do anonymous surveys in order to help their advertisers, they would probably get far more favorable response than this register-all-your-personal-data-so-we-can-lie-to-y ou-about-not-selling-it-to advertisers bullshit they're doing now.

    • by anubi ( 640541 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:45AM (#9427578) Journal
      "Strong Privacy Policy"... Bah! Humbug!

      I get these things from my bank all the time, neatly enclosed with all sorts of other advertisement flyers in my credit card statement.

      It miffs me off everytime I read one. Its the couchy language they use.. like "only sharing personal information as permitted by law."

      What I want to see is the word required by law.

      How do you feel they would think if I told them I would haxor their system as permitted by law to verify confidentiality of my personal information, especially after its been shown how the RIAA can apparently use similar techniques to verify misuse of their copyrighted information.

      Its obvious that that piece of paper they sent me is just to fulfull some legal requirement that says they must inform me that they are going to share my information, but in order to mislead me, they couch it in "businessese" lingo to make it look like they are only going to violate my trust if they have to. But that's not what they actually say at all!

      I just try to limit my exposure by doing business with as few of these guys as possible.

    • We reassured most all of the second group with a strong privacy policy

      Of course they have a strong privacy policy. They keep their list of subscriber addresses very secure.

      After all, if the list was publically available, it wouldn't be worth anything when they wanted to sell it!

    • I think everybody realizes that "privacy policies" are worthless.

      1. All "policies" of online outfits contain a clause that says that they can change the policy at any time with no notice.
      2. There are no penalties for a company violating its privacy policy.
      3. There's no "cultural" reluctance to market user information. Snail mail customer lists have been a standard item of commerce for decades.
  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) * on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:00AM (#9427438)
    The actual quote was:

    The Philadelphia Inquirer started online registration in March, asking readers for e-mail, home address, gender and birth date. About 10 percent to 15 percent of the 300,000 registrations to date have bad e-mail addresses, said Fred Mann, general manager of Philly.com.

    Just because an email address will accept mail does not mean the rest of the information is accurate in any way. I have a few junk-dropper email addresses that I'll point these things to in case there is something it might send that I would need (like a password). But the rest of the information can be totally false...

    So the real amount of bad data may be closer to the number you were thinking of in the first place (I'd guess 30-40% bogus registrations myself).
  • How old? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sancho ( 17056 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:00AM (#9427440) Homepage
    103 year old surgeons? Heh. I forget where, but one website I encountered wouldn't let you enter a birthdate that was 100 years ago or more. I guess my 103 year old grandmother wasn't allowed to view the site.
  • by Killswitch1968 ( 735908 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:00AM (#9427441)
    If you can't get a login/password easy, and need a valid email address to confirm registration, try mailinator.com.
    They are email accounts that require no passwords, or even any setting up. They are throw away accounts designed to curb spam.
  • by B.D.Mills ( 18626 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:03AM (#9427452)
    When the latest movie hits the cinemas, you have to pay $10 to $15 (depending on currency) per viewing. If you're prepared to wait six months, you can rent it for $5 and view it a couple of times. If you wait a year, you can get it as a weekly video for less. If you're prepared to wait a couple of years, you can see that same movie for free when it is on TV.

    The longer you're prepared to wait, the less it costs.

    Newspapers should do the same thing. Keep the online edition free, and have no soul-sucking registration to view, but only allow the viewing of articles from non-current newspapers. The online edition would then become a free archive service. People who want today's news can buy today's newspaper, or wait a day or two when it's posted online.
    • Actually atleast the biggest Newspaper in Finland "Helsingin Sanomat" has the option of subscribing to it via the web. Their web page has basic news for free, but to get the rest, you need to either get the physical paper or pay them 9,95 /month or 3 single. But on the archive thing, they actualy do not make it free, instead they charge extra for doing searches in old archives, for the daily cost you only get week old papers.
    • by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @03:09AM (#9427643)

      Newspapers should do the same thing. Keep the online edition free, and have no soul-sucking registration to view, but only allow the viewing of articles from non-current newspapers.


      Ironically, it's the complete opposite. I work for a newspaper, and the only thing we charge for is archive access.

      A newspaper's archive is priceless. Where else are you going to get the obit for a relative who died 15 years ago? Only one place, your local newspaper's library.
  • It's Google's fault (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:23AM (#9427511) Homepage
    Google apparently cuts deals with sites so that Google's crawler can read them, while others can't. Those sites show as "(subscription)" in Google News. If Google took the position that "if we can't get in as a normal user, we won't index it", this "registration" thing would stop.
    • by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @06:45AM (#9428180) Homepage Journal
      This is one of my pet peeves with news.google.com.

      I go to look at what is happening in the world. I see a story that catches my eye, so I pop it into a new tab. Repeat a few times.

      Now, start looking over the tabs. Register. Register. Register.

      Sod you. Sod you. Sod you. (The Brits have a really great term here, esp. if you understand the derivation - I was amused that they let Spike say "Sod this" several times on Angel and Buffy....)

      I'd like to be able to tell news.google.com "Look, if I have to register to see it, don't even bother me with it."

      Sorry folks - while as a content provider you have every right to require me to register to see your content, it is DAMN CRASS of you to lead me on by getting linked from a search engine. It would be like the folks in the stores with the trays of samples offering you a sample then saying "Oh, by the way, you have to have a FooMart Plus Loyalty Card to get a sample."

      And whilst I am ranting - has anybody else noticed the number of sites that use Javascript and "hide" the story from plain old HTML (by using <div type=hidden> tags)? Once again, they get a big "Sod you with an arc welder" from me.
  • by gwoodrow ( 753388 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @02:33AM (#9427543)
    When I was a kid, I was always fascinated by how drivers on highways/interstates could be so mean to each other (cutting each other off, flicking each other off, etc...), and yet still occasionally help a brutha' out by flicking their headlights to warn of a sneaky hidden cop.

    I've got a bit of hippy in me thanks to a 70s generation mom, so I love to see any example of people banding together to fight annoying corporate trends like login requirements for free content. I previously had not heard of BugMeNot.com, but now I'm going to stick a link up on my site to spread it around a little more - as well as adding the firefox extension.

    Of course, I suppose I should disable logins for my site in order to avoid hypocrisy/irony... although that'll seriously cut into my meager revenue... :)
  • Systematic error. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @04:39AM (#9427870) Homepage
    Actually, I'd wager a bet that the email-adress put into such online registration-forms is more accurate than any of the other info.

    That is because quite a few sites require you to actually enter a valid, working email-adress to be able to register, typically they'll send out a validation-email with a link for you to click on or something.

    On the other hand, there's no reasonable way for a website to check any of the other info you put in, I am certain that more thouorugh research would show that though only 20% of the email-adresses where outrigth false (as in bounces), another significant part are "spam-only" or "throwaway" accounts, and even *more* of the info collected in all other fields is incorrect.

    It'd not surprise me in the least if 75% lie when asked privacy-invading questions with no easy method of verification such as "household income", I know I do. This is more than enough to make the collected data complete junk, and negate any imagined positive effect of collecting it in the first place.

  • by sirshannon ( 616247 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @05:39AM (#9428007) Homepage Journal
    As one of those unfortunate domain addicts, I have an over-abundance of domain names. Being king of your own domain means you can have any email address you want, so I register with unique addresses for each site I sign up for. NYC@[domain].com at newyorktimes.com, slash@[domain].com here, charlotte@[domain].com at charlotte.com, etc, etc.

    In 3 years of doing this, the only spam I have ever gotten from signing up for ANYTHING, EVER, was from Honda.
  • by blastedtokyo ( 540215 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @06:11AM (#9428082)
    If the newspapers wanted to fight fake registrations, they could easily have a script modify the content that the user would see.

    For instance, they might show ridiculously ad-ridden pages (with a 2 minute DHTML/flash/full screen "click to continue to article" ads) for those with bogus registrations (based on a bad email address). They could do anything from showing non-updated (day old) news or, at worst, add "not" after every "was" or "had" and completely throw the reader for a loop. Of course in the last case, they'd probably need to modify their logo/title to show that it was no longer their newspaper to maintain their credibility.

    The technology to do this is trivial. If the day comes when a falsely-registered user is worth less to the site (because of advertiser's refusals to pay) than non-readers, I could very well see this happening.

  • Yep, It works (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bugmenot ( 788326 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @06:17AM (#9428100) Homepage Journal
    Got this username/password from bugmenot.com. Too bad I won't actually get any Karma if this comment should be modded up.
  • by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @06:50AM (#9428203)
    Why does online registration offend, but not offline?

    Why so much angst about online newspaper reigstration when we've been providing the same information to the same newspapers for years when we get a paid subsription to the dead-tree version?

    The same info gets collected and entered into the paper's databases.

    Why is providing a (real) name and address so someone can deliver your subscription not a privacy issue, but everyone gets hysterical about keying the same info into on web form?
    • The offline delivery tells the paper that you are a subscriber. The online delivery tells them which articles you read, via tracking cookies. This could be used to profile you based on your reading interests. Who knows who's interested in those profiles? It's probably not just advertisers...

      If I subscribe to the NYT for home delivery, for all they know I'm an illiterate who just uses it to wrap fish guts and recoups the cost of the paper by clipping coupons. If I read the NYT on the web, they know I'm
  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @07:50AM (#9428485) Homepage Journal
    Isn't there a web standard data format for this subscription info? Like an incremental set of groups of info, starting with username/password, then adding real name, then contact (email), then phone/postal, then credit card, then demographic (age, occupation, etc), etc? A form would ask for , and you'd see a button marked "Send personal info". Click it, get a dialog box with the requested info items already entered, retrieved from the browser's local Preferences database. Each item would have a yes/no checkbox. Close the dialog with a button for "SEND" or "CANCEL"; "UPDATE" would open another dialog for editing the locally stored data.

    The days of remembering personal data, spending time retyping it, and making mistakes would be gone. Multiple profiles, with different data selectable in the dialog, would manage different personality scenarios. Submission transactions would be logged. Resubscriptions, including revisions after identity theft, could be automated. And the submission could be digitally signed, with the hash kept as a receipt by both parties. The copyright on one's personal info could be enforced. Possibly a standard default license, requiring the recipient to supply a copy (minus private data) of every list to which one's identity has been added, with selectable optional stronger license requirements (payment, non-distribution, etc).

    I recall some kind of "Privacy Platform" standard, but it never arrived, either stillborn or orphaned. Now we need it more than ever. Where is it?
  • by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @09:00AM (#9429177)
    People here are always complaining about registering to read news. All those jokes about giving your first born child to the New York Times. Yeah, they're funny, but let's be serious for a moment.

    First of all, the New York Times is a FOR PROFIT company. Second of all, they have employees to pay so that their employees can then eat and feed their families. They offer their service for free. All they ask in return is that you provide some information so that they can target ads. Is that so much to ask for? Would you rather just lay out cash?

    Frankly, I was more than happy to provide the NYT with real registration information. I use their service and I'm very happy that they provide it for free. I'd be pretty upset if they had to start charging for it because everyone was sharing registrations or providing false information.

    Complain about it all you want, but I think it's a very small price to pay. I registered years ago with correct information and to date, they have not sucked my checking account dry, trashed my computer, or done anything else sinister with the information that I'm aware of.

    Too many people in the online community feel they're entitled to get stuff for free, but you have to remember that there are people behind the scenes, real people, with jobs that need to feed their families.

    I'm personally very thankful that so many news sites do offer their stories for free.
  • by Rai ( 524476 ) on Tuesday June 15, 2004 @09:02AM (#9429195) Homepage
    Registration is a slight pain in the ass, but I don't mind filling their spam database with garbage like this.

    First Name: First

    Last Name: Last

    DOB: 1/1/1900

    Email: nottelling@almostspamless.com

    Password: 12345 (same as my luggage :) )

    Would you like to receive our newsletter: Sure!
  • Orion Blastar, my handle, my alias, and many organiztions think that name is real. I have a Yahoo address all mail for Orion goes to, and I check it every day. I always ask not to be put on third party list and not to add my name or email to lists, but it gets added anyway.

    Apparently Orion gets credit card, insurance, bank account, loan, etc applications with rates better than I can get with my real name! I am not sure how, but somehow Orion got a credit history better than mine, with no income reported or recorded at all and no record of ever existing besides online web site registrations. If I did not use my real address on the registrations, I would have never known these things. He does not even have a SSN or any record of existing anywhere on the planet. ;)

    Orion Blastar is the ghost in the machine, the man who never existed, but gets treated better than the man who does indeed exist and is behind the ghost. :)

    In a way, Orion Blastar is an Internet experiment of mine that went way out of my control. Based on a fictional character I used to play in a role playing game, and with fictatious posts in various forums, and pretending to be a space pirate, and various other nutty things. Plus a way I can register with an online web site and still stay anoymous. Woot! Who knew it would go this far?

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...