We plan to bait and switch you. Click here to agree.

Why is it that so many privacy policies and EULA's state that they can change whenever the site or publisher has a whim to do so? I might quote some examples later, but I don't have time right now.

Well, I got to thinking: why do people even put up with that kind of nonsense? What happened to loyalty? I think it's a reciprocal relationship. If you find businesses that are dedicated to serving their customers (read: they won't change their promised contractual relationship on you) you can give them your loyalty. But why do so many customers give their loyalty to companies who have long drawn out agreements only half of us really could understand--if we tried really hard.

Well, I guess I just remembered my earlier post about mozy. I found a worse agreement recently, where basically the site said they could change the agreement--and they would only post a notice on their site for a day. They just keep pushing the limits. Well, there are online services out there that can watch for changes on a webpage. So if you presuppose that the privacy agreement won't move to a new webpage, you can set up a service to notify you whenever one of your many favorite sites changes their agreement.

One of the great things about del.icio.us and google is that they make sure you can take your personal information away from them, and still have it. Del.icio.us lets you download a backup of your bookmarks that can be imported to firefox or internet explorer; google will allow you to delete your browsing and search histories, download your email, download your rss feed lists, and so on. In other words, they won't bind you to using their services. That means if they change their privacy policies in a bad way, you have a mechanism to leave them in the dust--to choose somebody else. There are other search engines out there, other free email providers, other social bookmarking sites.

Part of the problem is some of the social capital certain sites have. For mozy online backups, it's not very strong. You can buy another backup solution anytime. But facebook? Your friends are all there. You can't move your profile elsewhere--not very easily anyway. However, even on facebook the problem of social assets (your friends all being there) can be mitigated. Facebook petitioners have stopped several stupidities (some involving privacy violations) -- and the company has shaped up. After all, if people leave en masse, they lose a lot of revenue (advertising, I think, mostly). How can the problem be mitigated--or how can you leave facebook and take your personal information with you, even your friends list? Well, you can't, but most of the applications are from other sites anyway. I have a family tree application, a goodreads account, a pandora account, and a few other applications going. There are a couple that are exclusive to facebook I am sure. But if I leave facebook, I still have my pandora.com account, I still have my reading list and history on goodreads... It wouldn't be a total loss. And it's not like facebook doesn't have competitors. Facebook might not die a sudden and horrible death if you and your friends leave, and maybe they won't even feel a pinch (especially if you lot never click on their ad links). But you can give your business to someone else who does treat you better. You can help decent businesses grow. And you can establish quality relationships with a higher degree of trust. When you invite new friends to join a social network, or when they are considering joining one, guess who has already done some homework for them? You. So help good businesses thrive.

Don't give business to businesses who basically declare they have no respect for your original terms and agreements--that they reserve the right to switch the rules on you, even without notifying you.

But if you do feel a need to use such sites, make sure to google the phrase monitor web page for changes; 15 million searches on that phrase have already been made, after all. Then, point whichever service you choose at your EULAs and privacy agreements. Then stay loyal to the online businesses you choose until they prove they don't deserve it.

On another note, do some googling on a site before establishing a business relationship with them.

google for "somesite.com security OR privacy violations OR vulnerabilities"

News as Research

I grew up learning that good essayists challenges their own ideas by reading sources that oppose their own view, and even presenting their arguments in their own essay. People expect responsible journalists to give both sides of the issue.

I see too much of biased journalism. I also see too much misrepresenting the other side of the issue, or cases where there are many sides of an issue.

I think the real problem is not just with news agencies. It is with people who don't seek alternative viewpoints that challenge their own ideas. This is at the core of real science--testing your own hypothesis means challenging it with any alternatives you can dream up.

It's time to start doing real research, people. It's time to start verifying sources, to start seeking out opposing viewpoints and subscribing to them (even if you don't agree, you are better informed if you read them).

Of course, nobody can afford to read every story in triplicate (their favorite journalist/news source, an opposing viewpoint, and an alternative third viewpoint). I think this is what the scriptures mean when they say every man ought to be engaged in a good cause. But I think it behooves us, when questions of national importance come up, or when we have an opportunity to vote with either ballots, donations, or our time--it behooves us to be informed. That means learning two other viewpoints, and questioning whether another viewpoint might exist. That means praying for help to see what is right, and then: "It becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor."

Sometimes (or often) you won't agree with friends on what you've learned. So learn to be able to peaceable disagree, and learn to exchange research sources rather than emotional exchanges of words.

This I tell myself. Now off I go to read the other presidential candidate's site. And a third presidential candidate's website.

-----
Articles that triggered this blog post include Orson Scott Card's essays on the current election situation. He's a democrat, but he opposes Obama. I oppose obama, but I am not a democrat. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but I think his essays have a lot of good to say.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-12-1.html

End User License Agreements.

Okay, I realize people tend not to read license agreements. But when I see things like this in a EULA, I think "Did anyone review this?" and I realize these people have little respect for their customers:

Mozy.home's license agreement has the phrase: "Do not taunt happy fun ball." No kidding. And here's the scary part: the license also says they can modify it anytime, and will only post a notice on their website for 15 days. Moreover, they reserve the right to delete your data, and claim absolutely no liability for loss of data, etc. There's nothing about privacy, so even though data is encrypted, who knows if they don't also have the key? Bleh. Forget mozy online backups--I have no confidence in the security of putting my data on their servers.

If you want something worth having, pay for it. I think I'm going to buy Norton Ghost or SyncbackSE.

Truth value and All Statements.

Please indicate whether each of the following sentences is true or false. If it is neither, then describe what it is instead and explain how something can be neither true or false.

I do not guarantee I have the correct answers for all of them.

"This sentence is either true or false."
"This statement is false."
"This sentence is a lie."
"This sentence is not true."
"This sentence is not true if it's not nonsense."
"This sentence is also nonsense."
"This statement is as true as the one before it."
"This statement is true if it's not nonsense."
"If a sentence must be true or false, then this is neither."
"This phrase is not true, but this sentence is."
"This phrase is true, but this sentence is not."
"Sometimes this sentence is nonsensical."
"Sometimes this sentence is true."
"This statement is never what it appears to be."
"This statement is always untrue."
"This statement might be false."
"This statement might be true."
"It is not clear whether this sentence is true or false."

Finally, can you come up with a sentence that would stump someone who has correctly categorized all of the above sentences?