Posted on 11/03/2001 11:55:35 AM PST by butter pecan fan
No, not at all. Being cautious about giving your phone number to a complete stranger is entirely reasonable.
On the other hand, posting messages publicly casting suspicion on another member of this forum SOLELY on the basis of the length of time that person has been an official member, such as:
Now, how do I get past the suspicious thoughts that the poster of this thread has been here less than a month?
and such things as publicly discounting my opinion, which others have done in other threads - simply because I'm relatively new here would definitely fit into the category of paranoia, and sometimes worse.
But, it seems (as someone who has recently joined this esteemed forum) that at least some of the people here have their established "clique" and don't really give a flip about being welcoming to newbies.
And some are just... a bit paranoid. Or cautious. Well, I can understand that part. After all, most of us (myself included) don't broadcast our full names here, just "monikers" like "Nita Nupress" and "butter pecan fan".
But it's no excuse for abusing recent arrivals.
You have the distinct misfortune of having one of THE main suspected FR shills posting on your thread and pushing the idea. That's equivalent to going to a job interview for a clergyman's job and then having Bill Clinton show up to offer himself as your personal reference for honesty and integrity. :-/
Toughen up!
Oh my! I have apparently been keeping company with a suspected shill. I imagine it isn't the first time, but it does seem to have put a damper on the entire thread. I think I will take a break and go look up tonk in the canteen or something.
Those who read my original proposal carefully might note:
a) I designed the system specifically so that no individual member would possess contact information for no more than 4 individuals (assigned pretty much at random), plus the host. In doing so, I brushed aside my minor security concerns about publicly giving out my OWN phone number, assuming the not unlikely scenario that I were to end up serving as "host".
b) I suggested such contact information would consist of contact phone numbers, plus a FIRST NAME. There are cases in which a last name may have to be provided as well, but as long as there aren't two "Bradleys" or "Williams" at your place of work, a first name only should do just fine.
Incidentally, I also considered having a slightly shorter contact list of 3 names, rather than 4, but I don't see it makes that much difference for the privacy concerns, whereas statistically, the communication chain is going to be a whole lot stronger and more stable with 4 potential contacts. 3 contacts is iffy, 4 should provide great continuity, 5 in my opinion is just not needed.
c) Therefore (and specifically with regard for privacy), the ONLY person to possess the full list of contact information (and it might not even ultimately be the full list, but that's an advanced topic for another day) would be the "host", whoever he or she might be.
I SPECIFICALLY AND CLEARLY SUGGESTED that somebody beside myself might serve as the host - for example, someone centrally connected with the FreeRepublic web site, if there were such an individual available, eager and equipped to do that role.
Such an individual would need to be interested and engaged, and actively involved though, as there are at least a few administrative tasks that would have to get done. He or she would also need to be pretty reachable in the event of a major emergency.
I basically offered to expose my own phone number to the world (or at least to the network, which I presumed would be fairly open, so it amounts to the same thing), and take on the admin work, because I know from experience that the person who comes up with an idea usually ends up "getting" to run it.
If folks here want to choose someone besides myself to do the host role, that's fine with me, just as long as the person meets the needed criteria. Believe me, I don't need your phone number for any reason. I've got plenty enough to do besides call people for no reason.
And if things are so bad around here that people feel NOBODY who hasn't been an active member for a year should even be privileged to be a part of the warning network, and trusted with 4 other people's first names and telephone numbers, plus the knowledge that they somehow frequent this forum (such contact info could easily be divorced completely from their online identities if people are that concerned), well, all I can say is, things must be pretty bad.
Unless you can really convince me otherwise, I personally would not favor, for example, excluding new people from such a network which might potentially save their lives just because they're new. As you will find in my original proposal, I envisioned part of the role of the "host" as being there to help deal with those who will inevitably do something to abuse the concept. It's not that hard to envision means by which this can be done, but I'll leave that for another post.
Personally, my bigger concern is getting people into the network who: a) are going to be reasonably reachable in the event of an emergency, and who: b) will reliably commit to not LOSING the contact info needed to perpetuate the chain, and who will actually make the call or calls needed to keep a major alert going.
In any event, you (and others) should be aware that the privacy of all participants was and is at the forefront of my thinking; that I specifically stated I don't have to run the thing; and in specific regard to your comment -
I cringed again at one suggestion that the phone list might be posted because I too keep an unlisted private number.
I would also absolutely and totally oppose such an idea.
My comments are not based at all on your length of time at FR. I would express the same note of caution to someone/anyone who has been here as long or longer than I have. Some of us have been, shall we say, burrs under the saddle to various powers that be, and we tend to try to develop a certain level of trust with others before we share all that much personal information. In point of fact, I wasn't even thinking of you when I commented to Nita earlier.
You can call it paranoia if you like, but there have been one or two who seemed overly interested in who I am in "real life" - and quite, frankly, I'm one of the more "open" FReepers around.
Your idea is a good one. I've even toyed with something like it myself. But whereas I'd be willing to share with some here, others I wouldn't be. I noted that you were not asking for numbers yet, but I also noted that if and when you do, your plan will make it necessary that you share those numbers with at least a limited number of other folks.
[And if you must know, there are one or two folks who were already here when I arrived who I wouldn't share that information with on a bet. :-)]
Important point.
Uhh ... if you call me at 3:00 a.m. to tell me there's some more white powder in New Jersey, I'm changin' my number.
And if you need me to call you about anything in Houston, it'll be too late. LOL!
This is correct. I have however tried to cut that number to a minimum, and keep the process fairly anonymous.
To elaborate on an idea expressed above, contact information shared (even with the host) can be limited to:
This information can be divorced from your online identity, even for the "host".
How? Simple. Spend a few minutes to sign up for a new hotmail or yahoo account (using a different name than your handle here) and email your minimal contact info to whoever is serving as host.
For network quality, the host should then (in my opinion) run a quick check against his member listing, confirming that your phone number is new and that you are not a known abuser of the system. He or she should then dial your number (the main one at least) to confirm you can indeed be reached.
All this would serve the vital purpose of establishing reachability and a bit of credibility for the new member, and helping prevent any booted abusers from rejoining the system.
How?
Someone could theoretically harvest 4 phone numbers by joining. If they joined multiple times, using different phone numbers, they could harvest more than that. They wouldn't know your online identity (even if you didn't bother hiding this from the host, it wouldn't be passed on), but they would have your first name and phone number, and would know you have probably frequented this forum in some way. They also have no control over whose contact info they would get - they would simply be getting contact info for 4 random FReepers, with no link to their online identity.
Hardly worth it. However, let's assume someone does this, since some moron inevitably will.
If a member reports, say, suspected telemarketing abuse, it's going to be limited to 4 people. Since the host can easily deduce who had access to those specific 4 people, it may not be too hard to track down the culprit. Such a person can and should be excluded from the chain. If he tries to reenroll to harvest more phone numbers, he'll at least have to do so with a different phone number.
Some will complain that this isn't airtight enough. Well, it's not perfect - but personally, I do get occasional calls from telemarketers. I find out who they are and then tell them to put me on their "do not call" list. They then have a legal obligation to do so.
In fact, most who telemarket are "real" companies; I suspect only a few independent bozos would even attempt such a scheme. Though some of course would.
Others might fear that some friend of Billary in government somewhere is going to get ahold of their phone number. It's possible, but (even if you ignore the gradually declining numbers of Billary friends in government) if you follow the outlined anonymizing procedure, and generally even if you don't they won't have any connection to your online identity.
Frankly, IMO, if you've put pressure on them and they have connections and want to bad enough, they'll probably track you down from your online posts using far speedier, more reliable and efficient means.
Anyway, security of information is indeed a significant concern, but as I believe others have expressed as well, I think there are ways in which the potential problems can be made minimal. I probably haven't covered all the holes we may want to cover yet, but I hope some of the ideas I've outlined here make at least some progress towards that goal.
Thanks for your comments - IMO they have contributed towards refining the concept, which is the #1 purpose of what this thread is all about.
Yours is a well-thought out response, but I don't think you quite grasp the subtleties of the situation just yet. With your indulgence, may I offer a short "tutorial"? Thank you. :-)
I used to be in the business of finding people who didn't want to be found, let us say. When I went looking, one of the first things I wanted to find, if it was available, was a phone number of the person I was looking for. Simply put, if I've got your phone number, I've got you. Give me your phone number, pay my expenses, and in less than a week I'll have your daily routine down pat - when you go to work and when you go home, plus the various routes you take; I'll know where you buy your groceries, if you pay your bills on time, and if not, why not; I'll know the names and daily routines of the members, if any, of your family, or of the friends you live with; there are other things I'll know as well, but that should be sufficient for our purposes here today.
It's true that all this same information can be traced through a cyber screen name and the connected ISP, but it's easier for those who know how to do it to build up a series of almost impenetrable buffers between their cyber ID and their real ID. Phone numbers, even unlisted ones, don't avail themselves of such buffers.
Furthermore, as to you as an individual, I applaud your efforts in front of the VP residence last year, assuming your motives were "right". I don't want to be offensive, but it's precisely your motives that I can't know; most of us don't even know our own motives in every single instance, let alone the motives of a complete stranger.
Let me illustrate. A long time ago I was one of the rioters on Peter Fechter Day in front of Charlie Checkpoint in West Berlin. When the police charged, I ran just as hard as everyone around me to keep from getting knocked in the head. During all the beer drinking afterwards, I was fully accepted as one of "them". Yet, I wasn't there to riot; I was there to collect ID's and information on those who were instigating the riot.
I don't doubt your word that you were protesting Algore. I don't have any reason to doubt your motives for being there. At the same time, I don't have any reason to accept your motives as "good" on their face. Trust is earned; it isn't given out just to be thought of as a "nice guy". At least, not by anyone who has lived a life as long and, shall we say, interesting, as I have.
Speaking of that "interesting" life, I've been cut, I've been shot, and at different times I had two contracts out on my life. That was all many years ago, and as you can see, I'm still here. Most of the others who were involved are either dead, or too old to worry about, and so far as I know, no one is "after" me today. But ... old habits which have proved to be beneficial die hard.
Some might call an attitude such as mine paranoia, and maybe to some degree, it is. I prefer, however, to call it discretion born out of experience.
So ... to reiterate, your idea is a good one, but it still needs some refinement. I'll be gone most of the day now, so don't feel like you need to respond "right away".
[Just for your info, Nita. Checked your mail lately? :-)]
One thing would be to only allow a user to post ONCE. If a moderator, at leisure, decides the posting is appropriate, he can reset your alert-post privilege. If your post is a stupid vanity, your privilege stays revoked.
This would weed out the jokers fast enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.