Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

EFF Guide To Blogging Anonymously 286

Posted by CowboyNeal from the playing-it-safe dept.
jacksonwest writes "Annalee Newitz and Kurt Opsahl just published a great how-to on blogging anonymously. How To Blog Safely About Work (Or Anything Else), covering both the legal and technical aspects of blogging about your job and staying truly anonymous. A must read for those blogging from or about their office."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EFF Guide To Blogging Anonymously More

EFF Guide To Blogging Anonymously

Comments Filter:

  • Too bad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thundercatslair ( 809424 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:20PM (#12172571)
    that this [bbc.co.uk]person didn't see this article earlier

    • Re:Too bad (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CSMastermind ( 847625 ) <freight_train10@hotmail.com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:58PM (#12172779)
      oo Wow. You know I disagree. I think she made the right decission to not post anonymously. If you look at the site there's nothing wrong with the pictures. It's not like she was hurting the company name by doing it and on a personal note, if I was in her place, I wouldn't want to work for them after they did that. I don't know, I'm proud of who I am, both in real life and online, I'm not afraid to take credit for what I say but that doesn't mean I don't from time to time need to do things anonymously.

  • Iran and China (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:20PM (#12172572)
    Most useful in Iran, China and may be in USA
    • and Canada too [blogspot.com]! The ban was lifted today, so no more worries for us oppressed Canucks!
    • If government really wants to know who made a post, or blog, they can track you down. They have unlimited money and manpower. You would be suprised the tricks they have up their sleve. Who is to say that government does not let a person show their cards before moving in? It is like a busting a drug dealer. The police won't arrest a drug dealer the first time they see him selling drugs. They will wait and video record what he does the next month or more, and then nail him and everyone else.

      And with the pat

  • Queen of the Air... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:22PM (#12172579)
    Quote: California has a law protecting employees from "demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises.

    Posting pictures of yourself isn't illegal, but it didn't help the Queen of the Air...

    • Re:Queen of the Air... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by radish ( 98371 )
      away from the employer's premises.

      Those photos were taken on one of the employer's planes, and thus, are not covered by that law. They would likely have had more trouble firing her if the photos were taken at home, and she wasn't wearing uniform, and rightfully so. But if you do something at work which is explicitly against your terms of employment, expect trouble.

  • My strategy (Score:3, Funny)

    by slyxter ( 609602 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:22PM (#12172582) Homepage
    is to bash on a co-worker [blogspot.com] and then send the link to everyone at the office

  • Just be careful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lecithin ( 745575 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:23PM (#12172586)
    We always 'google' our perspective new-hires. People have been not hired because of the content discovered.

    Just be careful in what you do, and it should be good.
    • I'm curious what industry you work in. Lol after you said that I googled myself and my freinds. It's intersting to find people online journals and things. It's scary to think that we leave a trail behind online.

      • Re:Just be careful (Score:4, Interesting)

        by lecithin ( 745575 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:32PM (#12172639)
        "I'm curious what industry you work in."

        The software industry. I would estimate that 98% of the people reading this would know the company.

        I don't believe that it is policy of the company. I think that it just started in 1 division and spread out a bit. HR probably wouldn't approve.

        • Re:Just be careful (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anonymous Luddite ( 808273 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:53PM (#12172758)
          >> 98% of the people reading this would know the company.

          ahh. You mean SCO?

        • Re:Just be careful (Score:5, Insightful)

          by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @11:26PM (#12172928) Homepage
          Considering his other comments [slashdot.org], I'm guessing Microsoft.

          JK.

          On the other hand, do be careful with Google. If you google me, I've apparently built bike frames, been a tax attorney, am Colorado's premier one-legged skiier, made several games, founded a birdwatching society, and am several computer consultants. One or two of these people is actually me. I'm one of 9 or 10 of me online. Unfortunately, according to the phone book there are over 50 of me in the US alone, meaning that if you google my name you only have a 1 in 5 chance that I have anything online at all, and then a 1 in 10 chance of guessing which one I am. And I don't have a very common name. If your candidate is named "Tom Jones" or "Hong Li" or "Sanjay Singh", you're pretty much firing at random.

          As a side note, I've always wondered if someone with your name could sue you for defamation for doing dumb things under your own name online...
          • Well, sure. They can try to sue you. But by your own experience, how could they prove that *you* (psychophysically) are the 'you' (named defendant) that is also 'you' (named plaintiff)?

            And if you sue yourself, can you actually win a judgement?

            .... trots back over to Groklaw where it's less confusing

          • Considering his other comments, I'm guessing Microsoft.

            Well, that would make sense. I could well imagine that M$ software is the result of hiring programmers on the basis of their blog content and Usenet postings rather than, say, programming ability and experience.

      • Re:Just be careful (Score:5, Informative)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @11:11PM (#12172847)
        It's scary to think that we leave a trail behind online.

        No, it's stupid to think that you don't. Especially if you are blogging, where the entire idea is that you leave a trail behind online.

        Here's an idea for those who'd like to blog about work: don't. Seriously. I'm as pro free speech as anyone, but being in favor of free speech doesn't mean I think people should be gabbing endlessly on cell phones during theatrical movie showings or that strangers should be screaming in my ear as I'm walking down the street or that employees should be talking about their employers on publicly accessible blogs. I mean, use your freakin' head.

        Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do that thing.

        And if you do, and you have to face the consequences of it, tough tits. It was your choice. Nobody asked you to write a blog. In most cases, nobody but your employer probably even cared to read it.

        To think you can actually write something in public online and not "leave a trail" is beyond naive.

        (And yes, I practice what I preach - I have a blog, and I have another site as well. I have never even mentioned the name of either my current employer or my previous employer online. It should be pretty much common sense, but I guess it isn't. These are things you do not publicly broadcast unless it is part of your job to do so.)
        • The thing is that I don't blog. The things I find about me under google are freind's journals, stats from the sports I played, and some newspaper articals. People who don't know how to turn on a computer could be mentioned several times online by people they know.
    • I'm sure you have also been reinforced in your decision to hire someone too, because of what you found when you googled him/her, right?
      • "I'm sure you have also been reinforced in your decision to hire someone too, because of what you found when you googled him/her, right?"

        Yes! I have found out that a person is a bit more than they presented in person. This has influenced my take on them to the good as well as the bad.

    • cue the subpoenas (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sean Clifford ( 322444 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:39PM (#12172681) Journal
      Cue the subpoenas [wikipedia.org]. :)

      Googling someone does not a background check make. If you googled my name you might get the impression that I'm an Irish athlete and mountain climber. Not so.

      Forget google.

      You need to do a background investigation on your hires - criminal and civil - check job history, references, and do a skills assessment.

      I don't care if someone mouthed off on Slashdot, Boing Boing, The Well, or wherever. I care about whether or not I can trust them to do the job and play well with others. Googling someone won't tell you these things.

    • I always "whip out my dick and ask for a blowjob" our prospective new-hires. People have not been hired because of the poor fellatio technique.

    • Pseudonymity (Score:4, Interesting)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @11:04PM (#12172805)
      Advice to Chinese dissidents: If you are going to be anonymous, use a pseudonym and digitally sign your stuff .. so that others know it's actually you and/or your dissident group .. that way you can build credibility with a reduced chance of being screwed.

      Being totally anonymous isn't very effective, unless what you are saying can really stand on it's own (that is, it's stating provable logic rather than facts/events).

    • That's against the law (Score:5, Interesting)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @11:09PM (#12172832) Journal
      We always 'google' our perspective new-hires. People have been not hired because of the content discovered.

      You can't lawfully do that. If someone found out, they could sue you and whoever posted the information for defimation. It is the reason why former employers never can say anything bad about a former employees.

      Likewise, my personal opinions have nothing to do with my ability to do a job. Googeling to find out what political party a person belongs to, their world views, and the like is a bad practice. I know of a guy who sued a company because they asked for his social security number on an application, then did not offer him work. According to state law, that is illegal. The only reason to ask for a social security number is to pay taxes, and an employer that asks for it is implying they have offered you a job. Same thing goes for asking about marital status, or age.

      People should know thier rights and sue when violated. Otherwise corporations will keep crapping on people, paying less money, forcing people to get work as contractors, hiring temps, and the like. It all means the death of good paying jobs with health care and job security.

      • Re:That's against the law (Score:5, Interesting)

        by norton_I ( 64015 ) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Friday April 08, 2005 @01:11AM (#12173495)
        You can't lawfully do that. If someone found out, they could sue you and whoever posted the information for defimation. It is the reason why former employers never can say anything bad about a former employees.


        Only if the information is false. The truth is an absolute defense against all defamation and libel suits. Even so, I doubt the prospective employer can be held accountable in most cases. However, a person (or former employer) saying something bad that is false (or not provably true) about someone, which causes them to not get hired is definately actionable.

        Now, there are certain types of information which you are not allowed to make hiring decisions on, but those are a specifically enumerated list (age, race, sex, religion, marital status, intent to have children, medical conditions, etc.). Asking about those on a job application is illegal, and if you can show that a prospective employer found this information on Google and probably used it to discriminate against you, then you have a suit.

        If, however, I use google to find a web page you wrote 5 years ago about how you hate puppies, and do not hire you, I am almost certain that is legal. I have a friend who was essentially fired for not cutting his hair (he was an hourly employee and they refused to schedule him any hours until he cut it). There is no legal recourse unless you can claim that the discrimination falls under one of the recognized and protected categories (ie. "my religion prevents me from cutting my hair").

        Also, consider that you can be denied employment for refusing or failing a drug test, even though your guild has not been legally proven. I personally think this is a travesty, but it is not illegal.
    • How do you know the search results pertain to your prospective employee? Both of the search results I get when I search for my name in quotes are about someone else with the same name as me. I believe he also happens to live pretty close to me.
    • A few years ago, I wrote a pretty inocuous essay about globalization, and the effects of the IMF on Argentina. I've also written critically about electoral politics.

      Is that why I have 7 years of experience in PHP and MySQL, yet I can't find a job? Even when I have examples of code that I've written and a pretty damn decent portfolio?
    • Unless the content discovered had anything to do with the prospective employee being incompetant for the job he was being considered for I think it should be completely irrelevant what google turns up.

      Just what kinds of things have/would you find through a google search that would disqualify a candidate?
    • Please tell me what company you work for and I will be sure never to darken their door. I have no interest in involving myself in any company that engages in what is an obviously unethical screening practice.

      I bet your company makes people take polygraphs [antipolygraph.org] too.
    • How do you know you're googling the right one?

      When I apply for jobs I use a virgin e-mail address from a domain I've only used for job hunts. Sure, you can google on my name, but there are a bunch of us out there.

      How do you differentiate my Usenet posts about computers from the guy with the same name who posts about drugs and politics on other newsgroups?
    • Out of curiosity, what sort of things have influenced your choices? (obviously, without giving too much away...)

    • We always 'google' our perspective new-hires. People have been not hired because of the content discovered.

      "We always proofread things that our prospective new-hires have posted on the internet. People have been not hired because their spelling and grammar aren't perfect."

      Still believe that you're using fair screening procedures?

      What someone has said or done on the internet prior to applying for employment with your company is, generally, none of your business. I'll grant that there are possible exception

    • We always 'google' our perspective new-hires. People have been not hired because of the content discovered.

      Like use of handwriting recognition, this looks to be a good feature a prosepctive employee can use to determine that the company they are talking to are a load of B-arkers.

    • Heh! I thought I'd chime in with the others warning about how useless it is to google somebody's name. Especially in my case as my name is a combination of a verb and a noun. Imagine how hard it was for me to figure out the intended meaning of "Gunmen [my name] Theatre" ... I was missing the verb there for a while, until I realized that my name was the verb and the article wasn't about a person sharing my name at all.

      According to google, I am:

      * the author of a tutorial on bending metal tubes
      * a football p

    • Re:Just be careful (Score:3, Interesting)

      by harikiri ( 211017 )
      I started a blog about the goings on at the office a while back, after disatisfaction with my bosses management style, and somewhat dodgy approach ("you want me to do some work for you? What's in it for me?").

      Recently, I've been helping a coworker with getting his personal website up, and have been pointing him to my website as an example. In referring to my website, he later took a look at it one evening, and found the link to my blog about the office, and mentioned it the following day.

      Thankfully, he sh

  • Or don't be a pussy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:23PM (#12172589) Journal
    If free speech is to mean anything, it must be done with a name and responsibility attached. Anonymous speech is really worthless, consider the quality and substance of AC posts on this site.

    If you have something to say about your company, then say it. Have some balls and do what it takes to make change. Unless you're willing to put your name and reputation on the line, why should anyone take your speech seriously?

    So you have a choice, skulk around in the shadows like you are some kind of lowly criminal looking to the world like you're trying to get away with something, or stand up and post proudly and make a big noise. If you want to be treated like a criminal, then act like one. The EFF has just posted your guidelines. If you want to be treated like a human being with something important to say, then post without fear.

    • "Free speech" (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Applies to restrictions on speech by the government. It does not mean your employer has to allow you to say anything you want about them and still retain your job. Speech can still have real consequences.

      • Re:"Free speech" (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CSMastermind ( 847625 )
        Well there was a good ac post. Parent is right, speach does have consequences. Still I agree with the /. way of things, if you want credit for something put your name on it. I do think it's important to be able to post without anyone knowing who you are. The same way that you should be able to tip off the police, buy things at the store, and other legal things without having a tag attachted to you and someone tracking you.

    • Re:Or don't be a pussy (Score:5, Funny)

      by Clover_Kicker ( 20761 ) <clover_kicker@yahoo.com> on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:28PM (#12172617)
      Thanks for your advice about signing your real name to web posts, Dancin Santa. Is that a Swedish name, or Dutch?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Or not.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by laughingcoyote ( 762272 )

        Given the situation you've described above (and I certainly empathize, I have three children of my own), I think we must ask ourselves, how free is our speech? For many of us who live paycheck-to-paycheck, getting fired is as grave a threat as jail time. Is our speech free while our employer is permitted to exercise such authority, even while that same authority is denied to elected officials?

        For all those who are going to jump on me, I'm not talking about blogging WHILE at work-your employer has a right

    • Post my real name, are you crazy? As if I don't get enough spam, junk mail, and telemarketing calls already!?
    • Free speech is great.

      The right to free speech does not extend to your employment unless you have a contract that says it does.

      As has been said a million times before on Slashdot whenever this sort of thing comes up, most U.S. states and many foreign countries have "at-will" employment, meaning your employer keeps paying you money solely because they wish to. They have the right to terminate you at any time, for any reason*, and you do NOT have the right to a job.

      *With reasonable limitations. For instance
    • Libel is so much more fun.

      I assume that most people who don't want to get caught for their work related blogging are writing something questionable, if not downright illegal.

      Trade secrets, rumors, lies... it's easy to forget that most of the things you think about your boss isn't true and that the company isn't really going under (like you wish). Not that being anonymous is equal to lying. I see your points but the statement "If you want to be treated like a criminal, then act like one" always scares me.
    • Yeah, I posted a review about Bellsouth's DSL service and a week later they let me know I was fired for talking bad about them. Even though 90% of the review was good, I just mentioned that I didn't like the CS rep. Never did I say I worked for them.

    • Re:Or don't be a pussy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by norton_I ( 64015 ) <hobbes@utrek.dhs.org> on Friday April 08, 2005 @01:36AM (#12173587)
      Anonymous opinions are worthless. Anonymous facts are not. Of course, in the real world, the difference between facts and opinions is somewhat blurred, but you can have valuable anonymous speech.

      Obviously it is nice to have an identity attached to information to help determine how credible it is, but even with no faith in the accuracy whatsoever, it can trigger independent research. This is the same as when information comes from a well-known but untrusted source.

      Whenever one of the nut-job religious extremist organizations says anything about sex (birth control, STDs, homosexuality, premarital sex) I assume that their is some grain of truth in it, but has been distorted beyond recognition. However, I usually do further research to determine what the truth is (which is often different than my previous conceptions, even if it bears almost no relation to the tripe spouted by said organization).

  • Blogging from the office (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:31PM (#12172635)
    Don't do it!

    It's way too easy for your employer to get any network traffic. My employer had a keylogger installed on one cow-irker's computer. Well, I suppose you could get away with it as long as you only speak in glowing terms about your employer.

    We had a case recently where a bunch of stock brokers were fired (and sued as I recall) because the sms messages they thought were safe; weren't!
    • Keyloggers and sms messages being tapped. Doesn't sound like a place I'd like to work. Heh then again I remember about two years ago some of my freinds got in trouble (I was lucky not to be around at the time) because win 98 (then installed on some computer labs at the school) had some terminal program (man I forget what it's called now) that we used as an instant messanger to talk to each other across the network. Well one of my freinds screwed up sending a message and broadcast it to the whole school
    • >> We had a case recently where a bunch of stock brokers were fired (and sued as I recall) because the sms messages they thought were safe; weren't!

      Can't find a link, but I know the case AC is talking about.

      The group was looking at quitting to form a company in competition with their employer. They apparently exchanged communication to this end via company supplied blackberries.... D'oh.

      Can't imagine letting a group with such poor judgement handle my investments.

  • Anonymity inversely proportional to value (Score:4, Interesting)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:33PM (#12172647) Journal

    I don't see how you can stay anonymous and say anything really interesting about your office. Of course you can say "my office has cubes" and nobody will smell you out, but if you say "I know all about the shape of the new iMac" there are only a few people that could have known that, and they will figure you out. Certainly there are variations within those two extremes, but the more unique and valuable your knowledge, the more likely they are to nail you.

    • I think it's possible for anonymous people to write entertaining things about their own offices precisely BECAUSE so many offices are similar. Readers will relate to the funny, frustrating, and uplifting events that the blogger relates.

      Consider how popular office-related sitcoms can be, even if they're pretty generic: "The Drew Carey Show" and "The Office" come to mind, and there are tons more. The point of the humor in these shows isn't anything about that particular office, but about offices in genera
      • Midtown NYC white-collar criminal defense firm.

        I'm betting there are less than two dozen of those. From the details of her blog, I doubt it would be hard to discern her true identity.
        • Actually, there are at least 100 law firms fitting that description, that I'm familiar with/have done business with, anyway. It's kind of a happening practice area, these days.

          I'm tempted to post a link to the blog and let you give a second opinion, but I'd rather not put Slashdot up to the task en masse. Because I'm sure that she CAN be found out, given time and effort, by an interested-enough party.

          I disagree with you about how easy it would be--I just scanned the last 10 postings or so, and there's n
  • Not sure if I2P [i2p.net] has been mentioned in any of the slashdot headlines yet.. most likely in a month or two after the UDP transport has been implemented and most of the bugs ironed out.

    I2P is basically the network layer anonymized, apps like apache/jabber/irc/etc work fine over it with sometimes only minor mods (to ensure anonymity is preserved.) And no, it's not freenet replacement as some have thought.. different beasts they are.

    I'd plug my own eepsite but that would defeat the purpose of using i2p woul

  • +5, informative. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Oliver Defacszio ( 550941 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:36PM (#12172667)
    Don't use your real name? Don't mention the name of the place at which you work? Wow! I should be writing all of this down, right next to my "How Not To Drown While Doing Dishes" instructional.

  • Why the fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EvilCabbage ( 589836 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:39PM (#12172685) Homepage
    How about a guide to using some common sense?

    I blog my ass off, but I sure as shit don't mention anything I shouldn't. I know the limits of the law in my area and what I could potentially get in the shit over. Occasionally I tread a pretty fine line between kosher and not-so-kosher (a recent issue over feral animals comes to mind), but I know where the line is that you just shouldn't step over.

    What's so hard about just not being a dumb-ass these days? If you want to keep your job, don't blog about work. Simple.
    • In my case, I have a job that treats me well and gives me interesting work to do. So I don't think it's a huge imposition on me when I err on the side of not posting anything from work, or in accounts like this where I post from work at other times, that might create trouble.

      In general, I don't get the mentality that there's an obligation to get away with every last shred that you can. I don't need my bosses reading about clever new ways to screw with me without suffering consequences, so why can't I show t

    • Occasionally I tread a pretty fine line between kosher and not-so-kosher (a recent issue over feral animals comes to mind), but I know where the line is that you just shouldn't step over.
      If you insist on raping badgers you deserve all you get. Dear god, man! Have some self-respect!
    • I know where the line is that you just shouldn't step over.

      Excellent reasoning, citizen! Remember, don't rock the boat--those in power don't like it when you do. Posting anonymously is an act of subversion!

      Always obey the wishes of those in power, for they are never wrong.

      EvilCabbage, you are truly an inspiration to all your brothers and sisters in the Party.

  • It's easy (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just tick "Post Anonymously"

  • Maturity rather than Anonymnity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:52PM (#12172751)
    The whiners who make up details about their boss, give away corporate secrets, or try to attack someone in an unfair manner are what should stop. There are many people's weblog entries I've read where they sound like spoiled brats. Comments and trackbacks indicate that they're writing this out of a self-esteem problem or just a nasty streak of insanity.

    But there are many ways to write a negative web log that still tries to be completely fair and see things from the other person's point of view. I read a number of these (I actually started reading their logs for some tech project they were on but kept on after finding out that they have lives that don't revolve around first person shooters). They seem to write out of a need to get some sort of honesty about what's going on.

    One fellow in particular that I enjoy reading writes about his boss, problem clients, assertive sex partners, and demanding family members. He's fun to read because he's figured out that in most cases he is the "problem" rather than all of these people he writes about. He is, after all, the only common link between all of these problematic things. When he writes about a stressful change at work he's not bitching about "the worst decision his boss ever made" but rather "a change his boss made that eluded his understanding".

    If I were a future employer and came across his blog, the level of maturity he displayed would go a lot further than whether he mentioned someone by name. Not everyone's that way, but jeez, if you are completely anonymous writing stuff seems like a waste of time.

    If you want to leak a secret wrongdoing, send it to a reporter's email address. If you want to write about your stresses and successes, do so in a mature way. If you want to bitch and moan and try to assasinate someone's integrity, be prepared to take the consequences for your juvenile tantrums.

    • Wow, that sounds interesting, like a blog that i would actually read. Care to link me up?
    • The whiners who make up details about their boss, give away corporate secrets, or try to attack someone in an unfair manner are what should stop. There are many people's weblog entries I've read where they sound like spoiled brats.

      And you are the one to judge people's words? Let me get this 100% right. If you don't like what I say, then you can deprive me of my livelyhood? It must suck to be a capatalist in North Korea. Or pro-Tiwan in China. Or a socalist in the USA.

      But there are many ways to write a

      • And you are the one to judge people's words? Let me get this 100% right. If you don't like what I say, then you can deprive me of my livelyhood? It must suck to be a capatalist in North Korea. Or pro-Tiwan in China. Or a socalist in the USA.

        Er. If I went around the office posting notices that my boss is an asshole, I'd expect to be fired. If I put the same message on a billboard across the street...I'd still expect to be fired. The fact is, most terminations aren't the result of incompetence--they are

    • Not really (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 )
      See, the "you're the only link" guilt trip only applies when one really is the only link. I.e., when it's about people _you_ chose to interact with, and interactions _you_ had some control over. Simplifying the awfully complex graph of social and corporate interactions at work into "you're the only link" is an _awful_ over-simplification and just plain old false.

      Example: a lot of the people you meet daily (including on the street, in the train, at the restaurant where you "did lunch" with a client, etc) ar

  • Surprisingly chilling advice from EFF (Score:3, Interesting)

    by loggia ( 309962 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @10:53PM (#12172759)
    While there are some good tips in EFF's suggestions, the guide is alarming in its willingness to chill free speech.

    By the time you finish following all the guidelines, there would be little point in writing at all.

    The best advice surely is to consider that you may lose your job for voicing your opinion -- and that as the EFF points out, a little bit of vagueness will generally not be enough to hide your identity.

    Beyond that, weigh seriously the importance of your job versus the importance of publishing your thoughts.

    • Re:Surprisingly chilling advice from EFF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MoralHazard ( 447833 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @11:36PM (#12172986)
      "Free speech" is a nice little term that gets bandied far too often in a nonsensical way, by people who don't think about rights concepts in a particularly rigorous way.

      If an employer's decision to censure or fire an employee based on work-related blogging is an infringement of free speech, then what about a person/group who decides to boycott a company because they disagree with that company's decisions? Or how about when there's a demonstration outside my window and I shut the window because I don't agree with them and don't want to hear it?

      "Free speech" becomes an *abusive* concept when you deprive people of their rights to avoid associating with people they don't like, or to take otherwise legal actions (like not shopping at a particular store) based on their opinons about an entity. After all, isn't the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association embedded in the exact same amendment as the right to free speech?

      "Free speech" cannot mean "speech without consequences from anyone". That would just be silly. I'll say what I want, and you'll decide whether you want to associate with me based on how you feel about it.

  • Information Gathering from Blogs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 07, 2005 @11:13PM (#12172863)
    Let me be the first to say that I, and many others, within the information gathering business use blogs including slashdot to collect information about our competitors. Competitors can be from business to government agencies.

    Passive information gathering from open sources goes on all the time especially here on slashdot where certain people give away pretty useful information about the current state of where they work including technical and operational matters.

    Some of this information might seem innocuous to many of you but for us 'in the know' we realise that some of you posters provide us with a goldmine of competitive intelligence because we recognize its context. It's basically reverse social engineering in action and it works because humans are social beings who want to 'connect' with their online social peers. We don't even have to resort to using 'recruitable weaknesses' like ideology, money or sex. Some of you people just blurt it out just because you want to be accepted.

    Here this bloggers who work in sensitive environment: Awareness of your surroundings can be a wonderful thing.

  • Annalee Newitz, will you marry me? (Score:3, Funny)

    by mankey wanker ( 673345 ) on Thursday April 07, 2005 @11:41PM (#12173023)
    Seriously, that lady is just so cool. I have yet to read one of her opinion pieces with which I disagree with her perspective. A woman can be forgiven so many faults with so much going on between her ears.

    Mom, Dad - this is my girlfriend:
    http://joi.typepad.com/photos/cc_anni versary_03/ci mg0171sized.jpg

    That's her first google hit under the images tab. Classic.
  • Bit surprised nobody has mentioned Tor.[0] Tor is a way for individuals, groups to source and share information but avoid some of the pitfalls. Tor is a useful tool for making your data (somewhat more) anonymous. Tor allows users to better hide the source or destination of their activities on-line. Tor unlike conventional encryption focuses on the header component of TCP packets so it makes it harder to determine the source or destination of your packets and ultimately your data. You can read more about how it works [1] and the Tor Protocol Specification here [2] and how it works here [3]. Tor should be another essential tool in your security kit.

    Reference
    [0] Tor, EFF Overview: http://tor.eff.org/overview.html [eff.org]
    [1] Tor, How it works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html [eff.org]
    [2] Tor Protocol Specification: http://tor.eff.org/cvs/tor/doc/tor-spec.txt [eff.org]
    [3] Tor: How it Works: http://tor.eff.org/howitworks.html [eff.org]

  • Slashdot AC policy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jay-be-em ( 664602 ) on Friday April 08, 2005 @01:05AM (#12173474) Homepage
    I was curious as to what Slashdot's IP logging policy is, particularly for AC posts. From the faq, fyi:

    We log the usual stuff (IP, page, time, user, page views, moderation, and comment posting, mainly). A few other odds and ends too, but mostly the data is used to make moderation possible. We keep the logs for 48 hours.

  • timing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thdexter ( 239625 ) <dexter@NoSPaM.suffusions.net> on Friday April 08, 2005 @01:48AM (#12173633) Journal
    Wow, today my friend got fired for blogging about the Nintendo DS. He was working for Guillemot in NYC and didn't say anything that hadn't already been made public by Nintendo, and Guillemot OK'd that he could blog about it so long as he didn't reveal anything proprietary or whatever, but then after some DS hacking site linked to his blog as a source of "insider information" (their words), Nintendo caught wind and sent a notice to Guillemot about it, and they considered it a breach of contract (after they'd already said the blog posts were okay), and had to fire him. Oh well, he hated the job anyway.
  • Remember to encrypt your blog. Don't hand out the public key to anyone.

  • see also invisiblog.com (Score:3, Informative)

    by jpn ( 21688 ) on Friday April 08, 2005 @06:55AM (#12174665)
    Invisiblog [invisiblog.com] lets you post blog entries via the anonymous remailer network.

  • Easy... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <.theaetetus.slashdot. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday April 08, 2005 @09:31AM (#12175837) Homepage Journal
    I just ROT13 all of my blog posts, and my PHB can't figure out how to decode them.

    (On a side note, in BareBones' BBEdit, if you ROT13 some text, it pops up a warning that "this operation can not be undone". Either some programmer is having fun, or someone doesn't quite understand the concept.)

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close