What's Yahoo! doing with YOUR family secrets?
reviewe...@ukonline.co.uk
<html>
<p>I inadvertantly wound up repeatedly posting and re-posting a couple
of articles on another newsgroup by mistake a little while ago because
-- for some strange reason -- my telephone kept disconnecting from my
computer server and messages which I had thought were 'lost' wound up
being posted on the newsgroup -- one as much as twenty minutes after
it should have either been posted ... or been completely erased.</p>
<p>In any event, just so that people would know that _I_ am not
'spamming' groups, I started going around to some of the newsgroups to
let people know that it was just a phone problem, when I ran across
alt.parents-teens and had to stop.</p>
<p>Over the last 48 hours, Yahoo! has responded to an international
boycott of GeoCities content providers ('homesteaders') unhappy
because (a) Yahoo! bought GeoCities in June and (b) imposed a NINE
PAGE 'terms of service' declaration on GeoCities users who previously
had a single page of legalese to deal with by (c) forcing a FIVE PAGE
'terms of service' adhesion contract on GeoCities users, barring
anyone who refuses toagree to the terms from updating their own web
sites.</p><p>The reasons for GeoCities content providers refusing to
agree to the so-called 'terms of service' are varied, but, among them
are: the Yahoo! 'terms of service' permits Yahoo! to go ANYWHERE on
ANY GeoCities web site and publish on the Internet ANYTHING they find
there (without compensation); forces content providers to give up
their own personal right-to-privacy; forces web site providers to
allow THEIR VISITORS to be spied on by Yahoo, so that Yahoo! can (and
will) follow EVERY location a given computer visits, and, by using
'cookies' and mailing lists, compile a master list of information
about EVERYONE who goes ANYWHERE onYahoo! or GeoCities, information
which they have ALREADY openly statedthat they WILL provide to other
businesses and to law enforcement agencies; and so on and so forth.
</p><p>For those of you who would like to PERSONALLY express your
opinions to the Yahoos at Yahoo! over their policies of keeping track
of EVERYTHING you look at or post on Yahoo! or Geo-Gulags, and taking
and keeping anything they find for their own profit, someone has
kindly JUST provided me with the name and contact information of the
Yahoo responsible for extorting copyrights from the Geo-Gulags content
providersand forcing them to sign away the right-to-privacy of all of
their visitors:</p>
<pre>
Jill Richardson
Copyright Agent
c/o Yahoo! Inc.
3420 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 94024
U.S.A.
By phone:(408) 530-5080
By email: copy...@yahoo-inc.com
</pre>
<p>Again, the Yahoo in charge of copyright violations is:</p>
<br>
<center>
<A HREF="mailto:copy...@yahoo-inc.com">Jill Richardson, Copyright
Agent</A>
</center>
<br>
<p>Maybe you don't care what Yahoo! knows about what you look at or
where you visit on the Internet, but do you care about what they know
about your children? Aren't you just <i>dying</i> to have Yahoo!
publish what you <i>thought</i> were your kid's secret love notes all
over the Internet?! And aren't you happy to know that Yahoo! will not
only publish those love notes, but they will also keep track of your
children's names, ages, your home address, what your children buy,
what they like to wear, what games they like to play.... AND Yahoo!
will happily sell or share that information with anyone who has the
money to pay for it.ANYONE. </p>
<p>Of course, Yahoo! won't sell your children's names (they've
promised!), but how much would they charge a pedophile operating a
phoney business out of a post office box to find out: in Postal Zone
12345, how many girls between the ages of 13 and 17 are there who are
Ricky Martin fans and buy Skechers? or, how many boys between the
ages of 6 and 12 are there who like Hulk Hogan and buy jackets for the
local baseball team and who wear Adidas shoes? Here's one thing that
they have already announced (for free) to the whole world: 45% of
their users are girls and women -- so much for the safety advice of
hiding behind a "handle" to protect yourself on the Internet: anyone
'stalking' Yahoo.com already <i>knows</i> that 45% of the people he's
likely to come across are females -- he's got an almost fifty-fifty
chance of guessing one private piece of information about your child
already, thanks to Yahoo!</p><p>BTW, the new 'terms of service' which
Yahoo! is demanding that ALLGeoCities content providers sign includes
a clause which states thatshould any disputes arise over the 'terms of
service' which YAHOO! has
dictated, the ONLY courts in the world
which have jurisdiction overany disputes regarding those 'terms of
service' are the courts ofSanta Clara, California, USA. So, if you
live in say, England or Canada or Illinois or New York or Texas or
Utah, and Yahoo sells enough information about the children in YOUR
area to some scumbag who is able (God forbid!) to <i>hurt</i> your
children, be certain that YOU keep enough money set aside to be able
to travel to California regularly and hire a California lawyer for
three to five years, because if Yahoo is allowed to have their way
RIGHT NOW, that is the way things on the Internetwill be FROM NOW
ON.</p><p>If you yourself are on GeoCities or know someone who has or
had a GeoCities account, and for some reason which they cannot
explain, they suddenly cannot access their own web site, please
reassure them that they are not alone. Who knows? Over the next week
SOMEONE might actuallydo something to take care of the problem ... if
they aren't too busy selling all of your private family secrets to
strangers.... </p><br>
</html>
Please remove the SCHFMH before replying by email.
***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
about other online services we offer our subscribers.
you're reviewer
these user agreements?
I'd be interested, perhaps from a less neurotic psycho, what these
changes are.
I guess it's true that england is caught up in the same sort of sexual
hysteria that the U.S. was a few years ago. It figures given the U.K.
seems to be an equally screwed up sexually repressed country. you have
to go on and on about "pedophiles". Pedophiles interested in peoples 17
year old daughters? So i guess every male that might think a 17 y/o is
attractive is a pedophile. So, how many lives have you been able to help
destroy? How many kids have you been able to assist in screwing up? How
responsible are you for setting your culture back several generations?
And why do you have to work this particular neurosis into this subject?
Get a life. Stop trying to influence people. Get a therapist, you're a
loony tune. PSYCHO!
you're reviewer
reviewe...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
> i'm some psycho rabble rouser trying to deal with my unfortunater past by inflicting > it on everyone else
Eclectic
> So i guess every male that might think a 17 y/o is
>attractive is a pedophile.
Actually I think legally you are correct?
Majin Vegeta
by saying in message <#uZ9cY7y#GA.349@cpmsnbbsa05> on 11 Jul 1999:
Just goes to show how stupid teh consent laws are.
My opinion is that theconsent laws should be alterd in the following way
any two people within two yars of each other would be legal (ie a 17 year
old guy and a 15 year old girl, etc.) and the overall consent age should be
16.
Majin Vegeta
--
Prepare for trouble...
Make it double...
To protect the world from devistation
To unite all people within our nation
To denounce the evils of truth and love
To extend our reach to the stars above
Jesse
James
Team Rocket blasts off at the speed of light!
Surrender now, or prepare to fight!
Meowth! That's right! (By Team Rocket of Pokemon, Jesse, James and Meowth)
Eclectic
Majin Vegeta wrote in message <8E0088F7BM...@news.pathcom.com>...
>eclec...@my-deja.com (Eclectic) has forced me to open my fucking mouth
>by saying in message <#uZ9cY7y#GA.349@cpmsnbbsa05> on 11 Jul 1999:
>
>>you're reviewer wrote in message <37857E8A...@person.net>...
>>> So i guess every male that might think a 17 y/o is
>>>attractive is a pedophile.
>>
>>Actually I think legally you are correct?
>>
>>
>>
>Just goes to show how stupid teh consent laws are.
>
>My opinion is
My opinion is that nobody can "force" you to do anything. If you feel
others can "force" you to do something (like in the first line of your post)
you shouldn't be having sex.
Majin Vegeta
"forced me to open my fucking mouth" isn't litteral....its another way of
saying "this person has inspired me to post by saying:" thats all.
