Comments and Limits


I have ‘unpublished’ two recent comments that attempted to reveal the real-life identity of a commenter who preferred to use a pseudonym here. One of the two was also over the line in making a crude and apparently sexual remark about the commenter. This blog is meant to be an inclusive, welcoming space for discussion; I will not tolerate anything that might make other participants feel unsafe.

The fault here is partly my own, for not making my expectations for comments clear. I will fix that by posting a comments policy soon, which will explain what kinds of behavior are welcome and what kinds are off-limits. Until then, all comments will be held for moderation.


I unreservedly apologise , my remark was thoughtless.


My apologies to you and the party concerned. My intervention was thoughtless, and it was not intended to cause distress.

I can see now that I slipped up on internet etiquette. In print, speculating on the identity of pseudonymous contributors has a long and fairly respectable history. But the web has the potential to broadcast much more widely, and to unintended audiences. It makes sense that the rules should be different.


In print, speculating on the identity of pseudonymous contributors has a long and fairly respectable history. But the web has the potential to broadcast much more widely, and to unintended audiences. Gillian Spraggs

Some of you folks may now understand why I am so upset with my genealogical work being searchable on the internet through the inconsiderate actions of the Americans. The people named in my book contributed to it on the understanding that the electronic database was to be destroyed and it was. For several months their private information was fully searchable on the internet. I expect an apology, which I can pass along to my relitives.

Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia; The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me


douglas

The actions of the “americans” would constitute a very serious breach of The Human Ethics Code for academic research; Individual informed Consent to the use of information supplied, for a particular purpose is definitely not a consent for Reuse of that information for some other purpose.


Douglas,

Have you investigated what the Canadian government might be planning regarding legislation to allow seizure of Canadian out-of-print works, and/or establishing a national opt-out equivalent of the Google Book Registry? If they are, it would explain why the Canadian government—unlike the French government—has not protested the Google Settlement. Getting this information would be a great service to your fellow authors, and enable them to start a campaign opposing any such planned legislation.

Fran


Below is an email I sent to the Honourable Geoff Regan and CC’ed to the Honourable James Moore, the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Mr. Charlie Angus, and others.

Honourable Geoff Regan, P.C., M.P. Halifax West 1496 Bedford Highway, Suite 222 Bedford, Nova Scotia B4A 1E5

Dear Mr. Regan, In a response to this CBC news story (No fast ruling on Google digital library plans: judge) I posted the comment below to the CBC site.
Best Regards, Douglas Fevens 59 Main Ave. Apt. 203 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3M 1A4 CANADA

I, and many others the world over, believe Google & Company (the libraries that supply it with in-copyright works) has stolen their intellectual property. If the United States does not hold them accountable for this alleged theft, then it not only becomes a crime of large American institutions but a crime by America. Canada, by not objecting to the Google Book Settlement, is complicit in this trampling of the rights of others the world over. Google takes what it wants, whether it is your G-mail contact list for Google Buzz or the copyrighted works of others for Google Books. Douglas Fevens, Halifax, Nova Scotia The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me

Post a comment



You can use HTML style tags or Markdown.


Comment Preview: