Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Dubious ethical activity' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Dubious ethical activity
Authored by: SOX on Oct 05, '04 12:09:31PM
Gmail has said they dont want any third party automated account managers accessing their system. The reason is obvious, the service is free and they pay for it with ads and other community activity centered on google. Defeating this will either lead them to defeat the third party access and/or degrade the overall system. Or maybe earn their bucks some other way like sharing your e-mail with interested corporations.

perhaps the worst idea I saw was the release of GmailFS which actually mounted the gmail as a unix file system and allowed you to store a gigabyte of data on each account you had. the demo for this included copying the entire application firefox on the GFS then launching it, then as a kick in the pants, using it to go to the google webpage.

It would be easy to laugh at this oroborus sort of humor. But consider the following. One could easily write a MacOSXHintsFS files system that stored and retreived data placed in these very comment fields. Would that make you happy to see Rob's system corrupted to the point where you had to wade through acres of garbage to find real comments and so exploited that rob could not afford it? I dont think so.

So think ethically before doing these cute party tricks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dubious ethical activity
Authored by: fds on Oct 05, '04 01:14:42PM

Or you could just get a spymac.com account. Same free 1 GB of space plus officially sanctioned free POP3 access. Only trouble is it seems to block all yahoogroups.com traffic.

By the way, I personally don't give a rat's ass about causing any kind of trouble to google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and the like, a sentiment I'm sure many of us share. Comparing that to abusing macosxhints and Rob's resources is quite a stretch.

If Google can't actually handle you filling up your 1 GB and using it for anything you please, they shouldn't be offering it in the first place.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Dubious ethical activity
Authored by: chyna4xena on Oct 06, '04 01:35:33AM
Although it might seem OK to cause 'trouble' for multi-billion dollar companies, in this case, that 'trouble' won't affect Google, Inc any, but it WILL affect Gmail users.

It isn't difficult to understand: If Google, Inc starts losing ad revenue from Gmail because people use these third-party methods to access their accounts instead of going to the Gmail site (and getting the ads) then Google will either stop providing the Gmail service, or they will start charging for it.

Your last line missed the point entirely - Google has no problem with a user filling up their 1Gb, nor do they have a problem with you using it for anything you please. They do (and I do, and other Gmail users do) have a problem with users circumventing the advertising because that means eventually no Gmail for anyone.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Dubious ethical activity
Authored by: vonleigh on Oct 07, '04 11:49:34AM

Just because a couple of nerds figure out alternative uses, doesn't mean that all of a sudden they'll cut the service for the other 99% of the using population.

Even a hint like this, because it has some unix commands, will be glossed over by the majority.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Dubious ethical activity
Authored by: osxpounder on Oct 24, '04 01:55:53AM

Sure it does.

---
--
osxpounder



[ Reply to This | # ]
Dubious ethical activity
Authored by: karnat10 on Oct 06, '04 08:17:12AM

Agreed, think ethically before doing stuff on the web, don't disturb others and don't hurt the good.

But please, don't be so pitiful with corporations, even if it's Google. Corporations don't act altruistically and have always shown without any shadows of doubt that they maximize profits and minimize spendings and legal compliance. There are no 'good' corporations. Google is admittedly acting non-evil at the moment, but they're still a profit-maximizing entity, and they have a huge potential to be evil.

This attitude dictates our behaviour as customers. We have to maximize our profit as well, at least when dealing with other profit-maximizers. If not, we're going to lose. So, if a certain activity is technically possible, legal, and not disturbing others, do it! It's their fault if they let you do something on their site which is against their interests.

I mean, we don't NEED any particular corporation. Any large corporation will sooner or later become slow, expensive, too powerful, and generally think it's indispensable. Well, nobody is, because if they fail, others will come, and will do a better job.

I'm not advocating any disturbing activities here, but if someone is 'stupid' enough to offer a service on the web, they have to do it right or face the consequences. On the web, there is no room for mercy.



[ Reply to This | # ]
a Billion dolalr corporation does not need help!
Authored by: alexmathew on Oct 06, '04 11:55:20AM

Google is what it is because of users - now they are another corporation that seems to assume that everyone has to help it somehow because.....(list any reason here)

for one thing I never liked the "cute", "snobbish" and "degrading in some respects" manner of handing our gmail accounts. I have one - but obviously someone at google is enjoying seeing people grovel, willing to auction their stuff and worse to get an account.

google may or may not survive - but it wont be because or in-spite of users - they are a multi-BILLION dollar corporation and can take care of themselves - thankyou.

if you really want to help - try to help small self funded companies like spamcop.net who are fighting legal and DOS attacks from spammers.

Any sympathy for google is wasted here.
AM



[ Reply to This | # ]
a Billion dolalr corporation does not need help!
Authored by: chyna4xena on Oct 06, '04 07:45:33PM

karnat10 and alexmathew have both missed my point completely.

As my original message actually made clear, it is NOT Google Inc that I have sympathy or support for - it is the USERS of Gmail that I have concern for. These users are not multi-billion dollar evil corporations bent on world destruction; while you two are playing at being faux anarchists, try and remember that.

karnat10 states, incredibly, that "It's their fault if they let you do something on their site which is against their interests." and also "if someone is 'stupid' enough to offer a service on the web, they have to do it right or face the consequences". So you advocate vandalism on wikipedia.org? You are okay with people hacking and/or phishing online banking sites? Your "if you can do it, then it is OK" philosophy is nothing more than a modern day "Might is Right".

I find it very odd indeed that you would both fail to understand that it is not just Google Inc who would be affected by the disappearance of Gmail - the users would suffer, whilst Google, Inc continued to profit.



[ Reply to This | # ]
No-one here's an Anarchist - faux or other wise
Authored by: alexmathew on Oct 08, '04 07:46:34AM

The point is techniques to do something with a service that its not meant to - is part of being cutting edge in the tech world - I understand your concern for the users - but its actually irrelavant with google.

Every technology (other than discovering the theory of relativity, I guess) is derivative. If I see something that exists, I must try to do something else with it - most of it is completely legal (ethical or not - is something left to the Amercian board of censors!) and if called illegal - its usually protecting someones vested interests. RIAA does a great job with the legal aspect of things. Ripping CD's was hack sometime ago - do you rip any CD's? Do you know that according to RIAA ripping even your OWN CD's is illegal - leave alone being unethical!

If google really wants to STOP people from using gmail as a disk - they can. The app does not attack any user accounts - nor does it incovenience the users - considering that the users begged to get on gmail(BETA) anyway - it forces google to actually THINK rather than sit on their behinds and bask in the glory of a search engine! (Their SMS offering is joke - but thats another topic.)

Finally, I dont intend to use gmail and I dont intend to use this app - but its nice to know that there are people left in this world who will challenge the status-quo.

Bye
AM



[ Reply to This | # ]
Re: No-one here's an Anarchist - faux or other wise
Authored by: chyna4xena on Oct 08, '04 09:35:33AM
alexmathew, just because a "cutting edge" thing can be done, does not mean it should. Why don't we create a "cutting edge" bomb that can destroy the entire planet in one go ? I don't accept that technological development (whilst it is a good thing) can be an excuse to behave either illegally or unethically.

"The app does not attack any user accounts - nor does it incovenience the users"
No-one said the app by itself would do anything. The concern is that Google Inc have already stated they do not want third party automated account managers (TPAAMs) accessing Gmail - for the obvious reason (ad revenue), and that Google will shut down Gmail unless ad revenue is greater than costs. Did you consider that the complete loss of Gmail will certainly "incovenience the users" ?

"If google really wants to STOP people from using gmail as a disk - they can"
This isn't just about using Gmail as a disk - it is also about using a TPAAM with it. I don't think that Google could easily stop people using TPAAMs. A TPAAM could, in theory, send exactly the same requests as a normal web browser - how would the Google servers know the difference ?

"Ripping CD's was hack sometime ago"
Um, no it wasn't. The ability to read CDs was built in to the player, it wasn't "hacked" in! And just because the RIAA takes an unbelievably conservative position on IP doesn't condone people breaking the conditions of a free service and thereby denying it to other people.

"its nice to know that there are people left in this world who will challenge the status-quo"
Challenging the status quo is one thing, wilfully committing an act that negatively affects thousands of people is another. Just because you are "challenging the status-quo" does not mean what you are doing is right! Someone could, after all, challenge the status quo of you being alive.

Sorry about the long comment, but there is one more thing - I believe that Einstein was only able to develop special relativity thanks to the efforts of countless predecessors, including Maxwell and Lorentz.


[ Reply to This | # ]