about the timestamp Re: [CIMC-work] second response on blocking spammer

[Chris Kaihatsu]

Christine, all,

I am absolutely in agreement that CIMC -- as with any journalistic organization -- respect the confidentiality of its sources. That's why we do not keep IP logs as they could forseeably be used in a way contrary to a source's best interests.

On the issue of timestamping, I've raised the issue of correcting the timestamp on posts so that it is accurate. I don't think that having inaccurate timestamps provides any protection to anyone, since a person may simply notice the difference between the (real) time at which they submitted an article, and the (fake) time that the CIMC site says the article was posted. 

I'm actually not sure if the timestamping has been made accurate with our use of the new codebase, but I am arguing that it should be.


Chris







________________________________________ 
Save lives -- bring the troops home now!

At what price the U.S. bubble? The overhead
for nationalism is not worth it.







On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 20:15:23 EST, ChrisGeovanis at aol.com wrote:
> my main plea in this debate is that we NOT set up structures that 
> would allow 
> anybody else to, like, use our date to invade someone's privacy. we 
> are still 
> burning our logs, right? and this still means we can't actually count how 
> many hits the site is registering per week, right? (too bad if true, 
> but i'll 
> take no data over privacy-exploitable data in a heartbeat).
> 
> christine, technologically challenged.
> 
> In a message dated 03/04/2004 10:49:49 AM Central Standard Time, 
> ianb at colorstudy.com writes:
> 
> 
>>  Subj:Re: [CIMC-work] second response on blocking spammer 
>>  Date:03/04/2004 10:49:49 AM Central Standard Time
>>  From:ianb at colorstudy.com
>>  To:garthliebhaber at care2.com
>>  CC:imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
>>  Sent from the Internet 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  Garth Liebhaber wrote:
>>>  i was pretty diligent in chasing his trolling the last time 
>>>  around.  i think if anyone clearly qualifies to be blocked, it 
>>>  would be this gent.  let's just try to be diligent.
>>>  
>>>  though, here's an idea.  if we've got his email, perhaps 
>>>  there is a way to initiate correspondence via an 
>>>  anonymous email and thus secure the ip address.  do we 
>>>  want to be so cloak and dagger, though?  
>>  
>>  No, that would be way more difficult.  It's not actually very hard to 
>>  log an IP address, but we'd have to sort this guy's address from 
>>  everyone else's, and I'm a little worried about setting up the code, 
>>  because then we'll have dormant code for tracking IP addresses and I 
>>  don't really like that precedent.
>>  
>>  Hmm... maybe we could put an image on the page when an article 
>>  submission goes through, and leave it there for just a little bit 
>>  pointing to another server, collect the stats that way, then tear that 
>>  all out.
>>  
>>  (And none of this will work if he has dialup)
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Imc-chicago-working mailing list
>>  Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
>>  http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working