jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | reply to I see
Re: Openmedia's effectiveness Look at the bottom of their last email.
There is an unsubscribe thing. (I have my mail reader set to ignore HTML or convert it to text and I can still see it).
If you unsubscribe and they still send you stuff, then you can complain. But as long as you signed the petition and you do not unsubscribe, then can you really complain ?
Their communications may not be perfect and could stand some improvement, but are they really spam ? openmedia isn't some hidden chinese/indian firm selling pils that add 3 inches to your toes. It is a well known canadian organisation, so when they have an "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of their message, can you really accuse them of "spamming".
Perhaps they are informing you about something which is important but which you are not interested in. So unsubscribe and be done with it. |
|
|
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | No JF. Sending mass emails WITHOUT first opting in is SPAM. It doesn't matter if there is an unsubscribe link or not. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Didn't people opt in when they signed the petition ? |
|
1 edit | reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:Look at the bottom of their last email.
There is an unsubscribe thing. (I have my mail reader set to ignore HTML or convert it to text and I can still see it).
If you unsubscribe and they still send you stuff, then you can complain. But as long as you signed the petition and you do not unsubscribe, then can you really complain ?
Their communications may not be perfect and could stand some improvement, but are they really spam ? openmedia isn't some hidden chinese/indian firm selling pils that add 3 inches to your toes. It is a well known canadian organisation, so when they have an "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of their message, can you really accuse them of "spamming".
Perhaps they are informing you about something which is important but which you are not interested in. So unsubscribe and be done with it.
said by jfmezei:Didn't people opt in when they signed the petition ?
JF, you don't understand, do you?
10,000+ people, and many of those DSLr forum members, *NEVER* subscribed to them in the first place.
10,000+ people, and many of those DSLr forum members, *NEVER* signed their petition in the first place.
What is it that you don't understand? Why is this so hard for you to grasp? |
|
| Someone has come down with the typical internet fanboy syndrome, where bad/evil things start looking good and reasonable. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | When mlerner agreed to give those 10,000 names, did he strike a deal to protect those names, or did he just give those names out without any conditions ?
There are always 2 sides to a story. *IF* openmedia was given those names without any preconditions, why should they be blamed for making use of names ?
Now, if those names were given to openmedia with a caveat that they should be used solely for UBB issues, and openmedia is not using those names for other issues, then you have a valid beef.
Howevere, if those names were given to Openmedia and half the people on the list went and signed the petition online, that half become bona-fide members of openmedia and they are no longer getting communications because they were on mike lerner's list.
I don't think Mr Anderson has evil intents. And this is why I feel that some constructive help would greatly imporve Openmedia's image. It is clear from this thread that some people have a clear problem with how openmedia is working.
And no, I am not a fanboy. I am more of a devil's advocate. I've sent my suggestion to steve privately and he hasn't replied. You can deduct from this that my suggestions weren't all that pleasant. |
|
| There is nothing that will 'fix' Openmedia
Its just not a relevant organization anymore. It had its time in the sun and now its over, and I think that is okay. |
|
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:When mlerner agreed to give those 10,000 names, did he strike a deal to protect those names, or did he just give those names out without any conditions ?
There are always 2 sides to a story. *IF* openmedia was given those names without any preconditions, why should they be blamed for making use of names ?
I'll make this short and you can do your own research into what spam is and what lists are, what privcom says etc
Can Steve Anderson and Open Media provide anything meaningful that these 10,000+ people provided consent of any type to be spammed when in fact these 10,000+ people never had any dealing with Steve Anderson or Open Media?
Steve Anderson knew very well what he was doing and did do.
Also, since you are defending their spam actions for money from people who never had anything to do with them, nor gave any type of consent, I think you should contact the government and have them rewrite some of this page just for you
»www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.···html#q11
It doesn't matter what mlerner did or didn't do. His actions are not what is being debated here, so lets not drag him in. The kid was used. At least he had the honesty/integrity to say what he did since day 1, and did not run away and hide like Open Media has done after spamming people and using the information that they knew they should not use.
How many other lists or harvested Emails did they use?
How many fake signatures did they put up on their petitions?
This puts a lot of things on the table as very questionable.
said by jfmezei:Now, if those names were given to openmedia with a caveat that they should be used solely for UBB issues, and openmedia is not using those names for other issues, then you have a valid beef.
The real beef here is that Open Media drooled at a very specific and targeted list of peoples private info for money. People who never had anything to do with them. People who had given zero consent to be targeted and spammed by their nefarious acquisition of personal information they they knew they should not have and use.
Since they targeted people who never had any dealing with them, this raises question on their whole privacy policy.
You can keep on defending their spam actions and use of private information from a very select group of people for which they never received consent, but I don't think it's making anyone look very good defending these type of actions.
Now I can add more to this and point out some things that are quite funny as people here learn about the 10,000+ people who never had anything to do with Steve Anderson and Open Media. Like his Quote to the Vancouver sun stating:
"It got more traction than anything we had ever put up.
"Within a few days, 10,000 people had signed it. That doesn't sound like a lot now, but at the time it was our biggest campaign ever."
Oh, look... there is that "10,000 people". I wonder where that came from?
It throws a lot of things into question. Don't you agree, JF? For some reason I think you will find something to defend this...
For me, the actions have spoken. If someone asked me to give an example of hypocrisy my first words to define it would be Open Media.
Hypocrisy:
Canada' anti-spam laws that they write about
Canadian Privacy that they write about
Their privacy policy
Hypocrisy, JF. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | When HP fired the VMS engineering team to be replaced by drones in india, the lady in charge of customer relationships refused to allow her indian replacement to have access to her distribution list.
When customers had signed up to that list, Sue had promised to never hand the list to anyone else and she upheld that promise.
If you have a private list and you hand the list over to another organisation, the responsability falls upon you for releasing the list and let the other orgaisation use it. And and if doing so, you provide no restrictions on the use, then the other organisation can use it as it wishes.
I am not privy to the transaction between mlerner and openmedia so I can't say if openmedia's use of the list is allowable or not.
Do you not feel that Openmedia can play an important role in upcoming issues ? If so, why not constructively help improve its policies with regards to fundraising and email communications to alleviate some of the beefs you have against them ? |
|
| said by jfmezei:If you have a private list and you hand the list over to another organisation, the responsability falls upon you for releasing the list and let the other orgaisation use it. And and if doing so, you provide no restrictions on the use, then the other organisation can use it as it wishes.
You are blaming mlerner only. or at least *you* are trying to put 100% of the blame on him.
Does Open Media not have any responsibility? Or are they hypocrites? Preach one thing, yet do another?
You are also saying once steve anderson & open media took the list(s) then they have a right to spam people and to hell with any consent or privacy.
Then you completely ignore his first "10,000" people quote.
You also ignore how it makes everything about Open Media questionable.
You ignore their hypocrisy.
You ignore the fact they Steve Anderson and Open media showed they have little regard for consent and privacy by sticking all these people in a database to be mined for money.
You ignored the government webpage on it.
That is quite a lot of ignoring. Is this the ignore topic going on in Canchat? Am I in the right thread?
But I guess you must question it also since you are trying hard to ignore it while pretending you don't know what consent or spam is while defending them.
Have they decided to share with you their side on all this? After all, they are "open" and "approachable", right? If so, care to share it with everyone here?
Or maybe they will only state like they did last year, "this isn't the place to discuss this".  In other words, we don't want people to know what we did.
Openness is a key to success. Are they open? Running away like last year, imo, shows they are not.
So far the only beef I have seen to date is their beef with privacy and anti-spam. |
|
| maybe JF sees a lucrative future for himself in consumer advocacy and lobbying and doesn't want to burn any bridges publicly with OM because they could probably join forces and pump the public (and maybe even some corps) for money on a number of issues.
just some food for thought! |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | reply to Ignore this
Re: Openmedia's effectiveness Please read carefully what I wrote. I stated that I had no information on what deal mlerner did with openmedia.
If he made a deal with them and openmedia broke the deal, then the fault lies with openmedia. If he made no deal and did not put any restriction on the use of the list, then you can't blame openmedia for continued use of that list
The types of reactions I am seeing here explain why openmedia is not intetested in participating here. I would have expected there could have been a smarter dialogue on how to improve openmedia since it is clear people here seem to find a lot of things that need to be improved.
But I guess such dialogue is not possible. It is a shame. |
|
| said by jfmezei:If he made no deal and did not put any restriction on the use of the list, then you can't blame openmedia for continued use of that list
Why?
What makes you think they would have zero responsibility taking data that isn't theirs, even if given via a back-door?
What makes you think they would have zero responsibility for making a very specific database on people who never gave their consent to open media to be spammed or databased, or added to their petitions?
I think you have a lot to learn about consent, privacy and spam. And so does Steve Anderson of Open media.
If talking about this in the open is not "smart dialog" to you, then maybe you have no worthwhile dialog to contribute other than pimping them and helping them to spam more people?
It's better to run and hide and not talk about it because it isn't "smart dialog" to you. heh.
As for "Open" media not wanting to participate here, that is their choice.
They ran when this was brought up a year ago.
They pulled a guilt trip on sbrook about the forged Email headers.
Running and hiding from the tough questions seems to be their strong point, while you try and speak for them by being condescending and playing dumb and electing to say being "open" isn't smart dialog.
There is more to this that involves another party who is also electing to stay quiet (and it's not mlerner), and I think you know this. But hey, it's best to bury questions than to be open.
Raising questions is now not "smart dialog". How about that.
Can you go any lower? |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | If anyone who signed mlerner's petition is not happy that he gave their names to openmedia, then they should take it up with mike lerner. The onus is on him to explain under what conditions he gave openmedia access to those names and whether openmedia honoured or not those conditions.
And if it would greatly help if you didn't hide behind anonymous postings. For all I know, you are one of the lawyers working for Mirko since it is Bell that stands to gain by smearing Openmedia. |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| reply to lucrativeftr
said by lucrativeftr :just some food for thought!
You either got something to say or you don't.
I can confidently say that JF's thoughts are pretty well "nourished" and he wouldn't be posting if he wasn't clear on what he wanted to say.
I'm not going to say that I agree with him all the time (or even most of the time) but the notion that JF would be underhandedly astroturfing for OpenMedia is patently absurd.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again? |
|
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:If anyone who signed mlerner's petition is not happy that he gave their names to openmedia, then they should take it up with mike lerner. The onus is on him to explain under what conditions he gave openmedia access to those names and whether openmedia honoured or not those conditions.
And if it would greatly help if you didn't hide behind anonymous postings. For all I know, you are one of the lawyers working for Mirko since it is Bell that stands to gain by smearing Openmedia.
Once again you are showing yourself.
And once again *you* are putting 100% of the blame on mlerner. Not only are you now back-peddling but now you actually come out and blame him instead of beating around the bush and playing dumb.
Like I previously said, *you* have a lot to learn about privacy and consent, as does Steve Anderson and Open media.
You both have a lot to learn about SPAM. You know what spam is now? You know... that thing that Open Media did w/o consent to people who had nothing to do with them? And no, it wasn't mlerner who spammed people w/o consent nor did mlerner send snail mail with totally fabricated statements stating how he got the CRTC to declare the Net an Open Medium on his own. Nor did mlerner spam people with lies about how he got the CRTC to pass special laws all on his own then asked for money in the same letter.
Oh? You forgot about the snail mail of lies? I didn't. I got it. As did others here.
You might also want to read up on this type of marketing when you take a list w/o peoples consent or harvest them, make a database on them and also make fabrications in the snail mail in order to solicit money.
mlerner didn't do this, as you are saying here. Open Media and Steve Anderson did this.
mlerner was used for a very specific list of people that is worth money on the market. Even above average money when the list is specialized like this was and targeted a very select group of people.
Steve Anderson treated each of those people on that very specialized list as a dollar sign when he sent out his fabrications snail mail.
So don't blame mlerner here JF, as you are doing (or trying to do in order to protect your buddy). mlerner didn't do *any* of this. Unless of course if mlerner wants to say he got 50% of any money and took part in it. As well as a portion of the supposed $70K from the resellers to get this job done.
Also, it doesn't matter what conditions anyone set on peoples privacy. Where did you get this ludicrous idea? Care to share the link?
Does privacy and consent now require backroom dealings? Again you don't have a clue and are basically saying anything. And what you are spouting here is absolutely ridiculous. What you are saying is that there is no privacy and no required consent with backroom dealings. I can't help but chuckle. Stick with Bell-CRTC filings JF...
Here, I took all of DSLr's Emails and spammed people with lies for money. But it's ok I had a backroom deal with the owner to only do it 3 times. If I do it a 4th time I am out of order and broke the conditions of betraying peoples privacy. LOL |
|
| reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:I can confidently say that JF's thoughts are pretty well "nourished" and he wouldn't be posting if he wasn't clear on what he wanted to say.
I'll wholeheartedly disagree with you here.
In this topic he has pretended to not know what spam is. Not know what consent is. Blamed mlerner, then didn't blame him, then backtracked and blamed him again (but blamed more clearly this time). Wants to stop questioning things under the guise of not being "smart".
And this is by memory....
I can go back and read more trash and come out with a more comprehensive list, but it's mosty a lot of nothing except how Open Media and Steve Anderson are blameless for anything. Anything contrary to this is not "smart dialog" |
|
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:And if it would greatly help if you didn't hide behind anonymous postings. For all I know, you are one of the lawyers working for Mirko since it is Bell that stands to gain by smearing Openmedia.
Open Media smeared themselves with what they did. All by themselves. Then ran away from it.
And if you are all of a sudden paranoid about non-registered people because you can't PM them, then ask DSLr to remove all non-registered posts because you don't like seeing what no one should be allowed to say in public, in your opinion. |
|
 WiFiIt's In The Air
join:2002-06-06
NiagaraFalls
·Start Communicat..
·ikTel Networks
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:Didn't people opt in when they signed the petition ?
I recall opting in when I signed the petition. |
|
