{"items": [{"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/451028228250161?comment_id=451037318249252", "anchor": "fb-451037318249252", "service": "fb", "text": "I am strongly in favor of the right to be anonymous, untracked, and forgotten. I say this as a person who posted plenty of stuff to usenet and arpanet lists in 1983 and before (when I was about 20 years old), much of it now archived and easily found, some of it at least somewhat embarrassing.
In those days the posts were thought to be ephemeral and shared only with the folks in on the conversation, who probably numbered in the hundreds, and most of whom I knew by reputation, if not by sight. Sucks to be me, I guess.", "timestamp": "1340242369"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1340242863193", "service": "gp", "text": "That first comment you quote seems to me to express a bizarre concept of \"rights\". If I have a right not to show up in a Google search, wouldn't that imply that no site with a decent amount of traffic could even mention me in any way without getting my consent? That certainly isn't how we've treated other media in the past (suppose newspapers had been subjected to such a restriction).\n
\n
\nI think what's more likely to happen is that we'll adapt to the new lack of forgetfulness by becoming generally more forgiving. I'm thinking of this in terms of political campaigns- we will (hopefully) get to the point where everyone expects that every candidate has said some stuff in his past that doesn't make sense or was foolish. Instead, what will matter is the frequency or\u00a0recency. At least, if that doesn't happen, it will become impossible to ever elect anyone.", "timestamp": 1340242863}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1340243625"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1340244393996", "service": "gp", "text": "\"If I have a right not to show up in a Google search, wouldn't that imply that no site with a decent amount of traffic could even mention me in any way without getting my consent?\"\n
\n
\nIt could be that this would be a restriction on search and aggregation instead of on publishing.\n
\n
\n\"becoming generally more forgiving\"\n
\n
\nThat would be reasonable, but it may assume too much of us.", "timestamp": 1340244393}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1340244438797", "service": "gp", "text": "\"That would be reasonable, but it may assume too much of us.\" I know =(", "timestamp": 1340244438}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/451028228250161?comment_id=451052668247717", "anchor": "fb-451052668247717", "service": "fb", "text": "Justin, a discussion of copyright confuses this question somewhat. Traditionally, copyright involves an author's right to ownership of a written work (also photos, movies, and some other stuff). The idea is that the author created a work, perhaps of value, and should have rights associated with its use, for at least a limited time. This is different from the idea of saying something in electronic conversation and wanting it to be forgotten.
And then there is the distinction between copyright and DMCA. I like copyright for a limited time, and I think it was valuable for that. Copyright was originally intended to be limited in scope, and the benefits for the author were balanced with benefits for society after the copyright expired after 14 or 28 years, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790", "timestamp": "1340244699"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/451028228250161?comment_id=451052951581022", "anchor": "fb-451052951581022", "service": "fb", "text": "@Justin: I would be surprised if posting to usenet didn't imply some sort of permission to distribute. That's the point of usenet, after all. And you can't generally revoke things like that.
Legislating a time limit that Facebook can't get around in their TOS is tricky because in general you do want to be able to sometimes give time-unlimited rights to use your words: wikipedia, for example.", "timestamp": "1340244740"}, {"author": "Danner", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/451028228250161?comment_id=451056364914014", "anchor": "fb-451056364914014", "service": "fb", "text": "At my work we have am informal rule that you can't be held responsable for shitty code from six months ago via git blame. I'm not the same coder as I was then, I might have, quite possibly in fact, learned a better way to do something. Perhaps social tolerance can be found, that my words from 3 years ago don't reflect on my current person. Alternatively, perhaps I should change my name every 3 years, to reflect this. Computers are too damn powerful to legislate like this, we need to realize that what we say sticks, but should forgive people for their past, because people change all the time, without even knowing it. Yeah, I've got skeletons, they are a part of my history, and I've got value from those experiences, both from embracing and rejecting them.", "timestamp": "1340245259"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/451028228250161?comment_id=451068161579501", "anchor": "fb-451068161579501", "service": "fb", "text": "Danner, re being held responsible for your 6 month old code, I hack medical devices that are regulated by the FDA, CE, and other international regulatory bodies. Not only am I responsible for my code, but inspectors come to my office for periodic surprise inspections, and sometimes they carry guns (mostly because FDA inspectors also go down to the waterfront to inspect food cargo). In any event, not only am I responsible for my code for more than 6 months, but if it caused really bad problems (hurting or killing people), I could be in deep trouble, as in violating federal laws, ending up in jail, etc. Not likely, not expected, but possible.
If code is in a medical device or a financial transaction or part of any other important system, someone needs to be responsible for it. I've been hacking for35 years - at some point I have to stop saying, Dude don't blame me, I wrote that code more than 6 months ago!
Of course, there are different kinds of embarrassment. There's code that's broken, kludgy, sloppy, damaging, dangerous. Sometimes you don't have time to do it the best way, but at least you have to not make a horrible mess for the person who gets stuck cleaning up later.", "timestamp": "1340246782"}, {"author": "Danner", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/451028228250161?comment_id=451229821563335", "anchor": "fb-451229821563335", "service": "fb", "text": "We are still responsible in respect to the code's behavior - Code review, unit tests, integration tests, automated tests, and manual qa are all a basis for code getting out the door. Everyone on the team is responsible for that code. I'm talking more about style and design - I'm not responsible if I created something for one purpose, then a year later you decide to add to my old code - if I didn't make it modular enough, or it doesn't adhere to quality guidelines, either the team is responsible, or it's just a fact of life that old code sucks.
How does this translate to the wider world? Is my point about forgiveness invalid because of medical code?", "timestamp": "1340278209"}, {"author": "Andrew", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/451028228250161?comment_id=451292031557114", "anchor": "fb-451292031557114", "service": "fb", "text": "Danner, it seems with all that shared responsibility of a large team in the software engineering process that you can't hold one person responsible, even if their name is on the change management system commit for the offending code. The whole idea of regulatory processes is to minimize errors. If you work in a big group, the load (including the responsibility) is spread around. If you work in a small group, it's more focused.
I agree that \"old code\" can be a problem, usually not because it's old, but because it goes through many hands who don't have time to handle it with appropriate care. There are many works of art (including in the software world) that are both old and beautiful. In the software world we are fortunate that bits don't wear out - physical machines can get old and frail, but old bits are identical to new bits, at least until you try to bend them to work in a new context.
Re your question about time and forgiveness, most of us have indiscretions, some of them youthful. We understand that some of them can be explained simply by \"I was just a kid.\" But if the task at hand is dangerous enough, the responsibility is long-term, as in with nuclear sites, oil rigs, medical devices, etc.", "timestamp": "1340288168"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/451028228250161?comment_id=451363674883283", "anchor": "fb-451363674883283", "service": "fb", "text": "@Danner: \"you can't be held responsable for shitty code from six months ago\"
When applied to computers, solving things legally sounds absurd: after six months you could request your name be taken off any code you'd written. If this sort of forgiveness is something you want, you're doing it the right way: socially.", "timestamp": "1340297296"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1342755860048", "service": "gp", "text": "http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=2249", "timestamp": 1342755860}]}