Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

If you did not or do not have access then how did the email go out directing people your new site?

Am I missing something here?

Margo: I'll answer your question when you do me the courtesy of complying with Webdiary ethics.

I have never considered my privacy violated by the notice of changed address.

In fact I am grateful to you and your team Margo for enabling me to continue being part of your Webdiary community.

I saw your message on your last post. Couldn't have been clearer.

Then I got spammed for a day with the new address.

I was just glad to find you again. Fairfax needs to grow up.

I do not think that the message complained about was your relocation of web diary email. I received no notice about this. I was unaware of your move until Fairfax editor in chief, Mark Scott posted an entry about your departure on the old web diary on 23/08/2005. There was no redirection to your new site.

I found your new site indirectly via the "Your Democracy" site. There may be quite a few web diary readers stranded unless they are technically sophisticated enough to use google to find the new location.

As for the strange emails, I received 9 of these on the 22/08/2005 and 3 on 23/08/2005. They appeared to come from 12 different people and none were about relocation of the web diary. The first was a request for help relating to the request for a network password by web diary, most of the remainder were "I have the same problem" messages and the last few were complaints about reciving multiple messages.

The old web diary is no longer linked from the SMH.com front page. I don't suppose you can persuade Fairfax to restore that link and to post a "web diary has moved to" message?

Margo: Hi Carlyle. I don't suppose I could. I wish it was otherwise, but it isn't.

I'm with Marilyn Shepherd. I was quite upset and frustrated when I found Webdiary could not be found at the usual SMH site. However, I was very happy to find your new site via Mr Google. I think people who accessed the previous Webdiary on SMH and are now complaining are being a bit precious about the whole deal.

The important aspect is that Webdiary still exists. Thank you Margo and team.

I don’t know what all the fuss is about. I got a string of confusing emails, none of them a problem. One of them opened: “So many new friends!” Hello, whoever sent that one. You and I at least are not scared weird little paranoiacs. Or would-be amortisers.

I think I got Webdiary’s new address from Crikey or somewhere.

Congratulations Margo for having the character to become independent, though I am not sure how you will manage financially without a regular income from Fairfax. I was lucky enough to discover your new location, but had some difficulty doing so. Look forward to reading your contributions and those of others. Keep up the good work trying to keep the bastards honest, because too few seem interested to do so in the public arena.

'If you did not or do not have access then how did the email go out directing people your new site? Am I missing something here?'

Ethically quoted, and question repeated. I'm not overly bothered, but it does need answering, because I did get some hundred and twenty odd e-mails over a couple of days, and I expect others received the same.

Margo: Indeed, Stuart. When I ceased being a permanent employee of Fairfax last year and went on to a 3 year contract, FF outsourced the hosting and maintenance of the new publishing system that came with the contract. I had access to the backoffice of this Moveable Type operation. All comments came to me in that back office. I was responsible for reading, editing and publishing them, and did so. I was Webdiary's publisher.

By the way, Stuart, the copyright in your work is YOURS. Never forget that. And never give it away. Give permission to publish in a particular space etc sure, but don't give away your property. It's your work, after all.

The sad story pt 2

Most e-mail listservers default to the position that anyone on the list can send a message to the list. And that is what the setting was (but should not have been) on the Webdiary Update list - so when someone replied to that initial e-mail with the "network password" question it went to everyone. And then people started replying to that reply saying "what is this". Although several times net-savvy people intervened to say "it's you that's doing this, stop hitting Reply All", several people did just that. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Hamish and Kerri were busy getting the site going and dealing with a completely different (and complex to fix) problem, so weren't checking their own e-mails to see this one developing. Once they did, it got stopped.

I got a whole heap of e-mails as well, including the one Bill refers to, "So many new friends". I felt is was all a real hoot. I found this sight through the Crikey site.

Having said that I actually took a look at the Tim Blair blogg for the first time and found them discussing Margo's new site etc. They all seem really intelligent over there.

I did come across a couple of posts from Stuart Lord there as well. Something about intellectual property and those e-mails etc. Stuart said "I’m not overly worried about ownership, really. Nothing I contributed was that original to be considered vital or anything." - Yep.

But I will say this Stuart old boy, you appear to a far more decent human being than anyone over there will ever be, no irony intended.

Margo,

There still seems to be an unaddressed issue: namely the information was collected for one purpose ie validation of contributions and used for another. This is in specific violation of the Privacy Act. You did not tell users you were collecting their details to create a new list.

You then spammed all of those email addresses which is against yet another law.

If you got legal advice, please publish it. Otherwise it seems that your explanations are rather self serving and convenient.

Margo: John, I'm no expert on the ins and outs of the privacy laws and another law Fairfax remains determined to accuse me of breaking. My lawyers are. They say this:

Even if I had known I was exempt from privacy laws I would have acted as if the Act DID apply to me. As I've said before, I am a strong advocate of the right to privacy.

Judging from your response to Stuart's post, you're admitting that you obtained those names and addresses while you we working for Fairfax and then took them with you when you left. What's the difference between what you did and say a salesman/lawyer who leaves a company and then brings a list of clients across to her new job? This smacks of being ethically dodgy.

Phoebe Caulfield

Margo:

Hi Phoebe. There is a long story behind my decision to end my employee relationship with Fairfax, and all its benefits, to go out on my own and sign a three year contract to write for, edit and publish Webdiary for FF at smh.com.au, with FF agreeing to host and maintain the new Webdiary. FF chose to meet its obligations to me under the contract by outsourcing hosting and maintenance to a third party rather than keeping Webdiary hosting and maintenance in-house at Fairfax Digital. I don't know all the ins and outs of readers registering at Fairfax Digital and what they agree to do and what responsibilities they agree to meet by doing so. FF was responsible for hosting and maintenance under our contract, not me. I am not a party to the contract between FF and its publishing system provider. I'm just saying that the outsourced Webdiary was not within Fairfax Digital.

Believe me, I considered my ethical position carefully on this matter - I am a strong advocate of privacy rights, after all - and took legal advice. I believe I did not breach the privacy rights of the people who contributed to my Webdiary since FF outsourced its hosting and maintenance by advising them of Webdiary's change of address.

BTW, since this issue blew up last week in the online media, I sought further legal advice, and was informed that The Privacy Act does not apply to me because small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $3 million are exempt from it.

That's intereresting info to know, don't you think?

I didn't know that citizens had no rights to privacy of personal info they give to the great bulk of businesses with whom they deal, did you? You're relying on trust there, aren't you. Big word, Trust.

Can you trust me? Take your time to make up your mind, Phoebe, and dip into Webdiary's 5 year archive.

Over to you.

My feeling is that 'reply all' was used by some to create trouble. None of the regulars of course.

Hi Margo, like most of the posts, getting notified that you'd taken control of your destiny was great news.

Now, about the the email thread. Like others, I got caught up in the mail storm. That's not a problem; I've seen worse. But the idea that anyone can send to this email address and distribute it to all is a worry. That's how junk mail gets a hold.

I'm sure your techos can work through this, but the usual process to do mailouts is to have a 'send' email address that is not the group mail. This can catch return emails. Then have the group email address as a Blind CC (BCC) - so that no one can reply to it.

Just a teething issue I think, and a good bit of viral marketing as well!

Keep up the great work!

Wow, that was confusing. The comments direction has reversed again.

I couldn't give a rats about email privacy frankly. It's a myth, a daydream, a red herring. Once you send a free email or open a free email account it becomes the property of the entire cyber world, so bad luck.

If you want message privacy, write it on a piece of paper, stick it in an envelope and chuck a stamp on it. ie - pay for it.

Margo,

Glad to have you back on line.

Why aren't we standing up screaming "NOT IN MY NAME!"

The real Australia needs to wake up.

Regards,

George Ivanow
Port Moresby PNG

I assume "amortiser" is the nom de plume of J. Howard.

I went to the smh site as I am in the habit of doing first thing in the morning to find the posting on Webdiary about the unsolicited email complaints, and that the site had had been moved on without a forwarding address. Then I opened my emails and found a bigger than usual stack of spam, much of it connecting to Webdiary. (Subject - RE: [Webdiary Update] webdiary virus). No dramas there. I found the new site by doing a Google search on "Margo Kingston's Webdiary".

Though I have no lines of communication to the inside of the Fairfax organisation, I wonder if they realise what an asset they had in Webdiary. The blogs listed on the smh site are very small beer by comparison, and it would be a mammoth task for them to create something new in its likeness.

Margo: Hi Ian. I've now got the 'Beyond left and right' book. Could you email me your postal address and I'll send it to you asap for review? Great to meet you at that federal government peak oil forum in Canberra recently.

Margo. Please. Tell them all to get knotted! There are people starving, being bombed, sold into slavery, not to mention dodging invitations for lower interest rate home loans, penis extensions, cheap Viagra from India.....

I can assure that this little duck is not going to have a nervous breakdown because a change of address advice has been added to the mix!

Margo, re your legal advice:

When people sent in their details a) you had no pre-existing business relationship with contributors as people were contributing to a site associated with Fairfax. Whether you were a contractor for FF or not, it is drawing a very long bow to suggest that you had a pre-existing relationship. It is like saying that I had a pre-existing relationship with Robert Whitehead because I wrote a letter to the editor. There is no permission granted to you en masse to spam.

Frankly despite your assurances, this seems to be a very convenient rationalisation for the spamming.

b) Secondly, people such as myself were writing to FF even though you were editing the material. You gave assurances that the emails were used ONLY to verify contributions. Irrespective of the 'out' clause of you being a small business, the sentiment of the Act is one that proscribes deceptive data collection. In addition people were contributing to a FF site which is clearly not a small business and you were an agent of FF.

It is more important to me that people who say they are strong Privacy advocates actually act accordingly. I find your rationalisations very disturbing indeed.

Perhaps you could clarify what you are doing with the email addresses you are collecting here.

*

Memo to JS from MLK

John,

I really don’t know why we are having a debate that belongs in the domain of lawyers.

I have only advised contributors to Webdiary at its former address that I have moved to a new Webdiary address.

I have taken advice from my lawyers who advise me that I have not breached the provisions of the Privacy Act nor the Spam Act.

You seem to be trying to suggest that there is something sinister or wrong in merely advising contributors of a change in my address. I have not used the email address of contributors for any other purpose and I certainly have no intention to do so at any time in the future.

Far from “collecting” email addresses as you wrongly suggest, I have deleted them, following notification of my change of website address.

While I respect the expression of your point of view, I accept the advice of my lawyers who do not agree with your point of view.

I cannot enter into any further correspondence with you – but I can put you in touch with my lawyers if you wish to continue your debate with them. Are you are lawyer, by the way? If not, where are you taking your advice from?

Margo

Hi Margo & I suppose good luck. I didn't know what had happened when on Tuesday night I couldn't find the web diary at the smh, and then the same the following night so I sent the Herald a message. A copy is attached with the smh's reply.

I will be telling friends and anyone else who will listen of your website. And yes I wouldn't mind trying to write something coherent for your site. I hope you are successful, as you deserve to be. If you need help with anything let us know.

Regards

con vaitsas

----Original Message-----
From: con vaitsas
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2005 8:31 PM
To: smhonline@access.fairfax.com.au; feedback_smh@f2network.com.au
Subject: SMH Site Feedback

can someone tell me what has happened to the web diary. Is it out of action temporary? If so for how long and if out permanently why was it removed?

thanks

Regards

con vaitsas

*

Hi
Wediary is here: http://webdiary.smh.com.au/
Margo no longer works here.
Regards
Smh online

Margo: Hi Con. Love a piece from you. It's been a long time - your piece on manning a polling booth in Marrickville for the ALP on election day, 2001?

ummm... my email got completely spammed with webdairy stuff. I got just under 100 messages from webdairy when it moved address, with lame messages, I read a few and none contained the new address -_- ...

Margo: All part of the Club Chaos experience, Michael. Explanations and apologies abound here and in comments to my opening statement. I'm deeply sorry that a glitch in our email advisory on Webdiary's change of address caused involuntary and unintended email contact between some Webdiary contributors if people hit the reply button.

Phil Uebergang wrote:

I couldn't give a rats about email privacy frankly. It's a myth, a daydream, a red herring. Once you send a free email or open a free email account it becomes the property of the entire cyber world, so bad luck. If you want message privacy, write it on a piece of paper, stick it in an envelope and chuck a stamp on it. ie - pay for it.

Not at all. You just have to pay attention and make a value-judgement on the credibility of an organisation that wants your details. Reading their privacy policy is a good place to start.

In the case of Fairfax, there is no way in hell I would give them my real address. Fairfax's privacy policy is so vague you could drive a truck through its loop-holes. And this spam-incident has only confirmed my suspicions.

For example, the comments-interface on Fairfax blogs (all of them, not just Webdiary) has an option entitled "Remember Me? -Yes -No". Now I always picked "No" and yet Fairfax still recorded it... There is no other description for that behaviour than misleading and deceptive.

As far as I'm concerned:

1. Fairfax was dishonest in its harvesting of my address.

2. Fairfax had no right to divulge my personal details to anyone outside of Fairfax.

It did both, and I was right not to trust them. Fortunately, as a result of my caution my private information is still private.

And in other comments, Graeme Finn wrote: "My feeling is that 'reply all' was used by some to create trouble. None of the regulars of course."

Graeme, they just had to 'reply' to the list-address, not 'reply all'. The mass-propagation was done by the incorrectly configured list-server, not the individuals themselves, so you shouldn't blame them.

Judging by the comments I read in the spam, most of them were just utterly confused about what was going on and didn't have a clue why they were getting strange emails. Bear in mind, that some (most?) of these people may have posted to this forum once a couple of years ago, and they would not have even recognized the name "Webdiary" when they saw it.

Although you have reminded me of the only amusing part of this whole saga... One of the recipients (who shall remain nameless) on the mailing-list announced to the rest of us along the lines of "I suspect that this spam is a Liberal Party ploy to discredit Webdiary"!

hehe, what a goose! Conspiracy theorists always bring a smile to my face. ;-)

Margo: Are you on debut? If so, welcome. You say:

Before the changeover, I published emails to me from Webdiarists by cutting and pasting them into a word document, then transferring my work to the smh.com.au publishing system then logging into that system to publish my story.

Hi Margo, Great new Webdiary page - got the address from Crikey! Recently, I received a number of emails, not from you, but from others who said they might contain a virus. Needless to say I forwarded an advice email to SMH and to you at the new address.

Where is Antony? Did you leave him behind? Had good correspondence from him during the Not Happy John Campaign - Margo, I'm still not happy! Best of luck with the new venture - is there anywhere else we can read you?

Margo: Hi Sandra. Antony now has his own blog, linked off Webdiary, and has heavy duty work ahead on his debut book out next year. I'm exclusive to Webdiary, Sandra, save for an occasional column in Lismore's Northern Rivers Echo. And a chapter in a book out soon called Barons to bloggers: confronting media power.

E Burrows or whatever name you are hiding behind, 'reply' or 'reply all', it doesn't change the result. You have admitted to giving false information and been caught out telling porkies so you go to the top of my suspects list.

Margo wrote: "Please read this thread before making assertions of fact. I have already made clear that the only Webdiary email addresses I used to advise of Webdiary's change of address were those of contributors to Webdiary's post-September 2004 outsourced publishing system."

That's a fair point, Margo. Consider my original comment corrected from "years ago" to "a year ago" (singular)... ;-) But I stand by the main thrust of my post, directed at Graeme. Namely, that many of the people receiving the spam would simply not have recognized the title "Webdiary" as they may not have visited this site for a long time. These people were under no obligation to know what "Webdiary" is, or know what a mailing-list is, and thus I think it is unfair for Graeme to suggest that the 'victims' were at fault or deliberately "creating trouble".

I'd note your article from a year earlier that you quoted stated: "My email is overrun with spam, and when I get a chance I'll change my email address."

Conveniently, this quite neatly encapsulates while this spam-incident is not a trivial matter. I realize some in this thread don't "give a rat's arse", think it's "a bit of a hoot", and think it's "precious" to complain.

I'd ask them to spare a thought for the engineer, the doctor, the academic, small businessmen, or anybody else, who posted to FF's Webdiary using their work address. These people would have woken up one day with their professional point-of-contact flooded with spam, and with lurid (ill-founded) warnings of a "virus"!

They may have wasted time and/or money calling in Tech Support guys to check their systems were virus-free. Or simply wasted "downtime" unable to use their work-computers out of fear until they had investigated what was behind the spam. Or in a corporate environment, there would be embarrassment in front of their colleagues and annoyance from their employer, as they have to cease work while the in-house IT department confirms there is no danger.

Some, like yourself Margo, may have chosen to "change their address" - not understanding that it was unnecessary in this specific situation. Again, this could cause inconvenience with communicating with clients or colleagues.

None of those experiences is "a hoot".

Personally, I never give out my professional address to anyone except those who definitely need it, or to organizations which have large, secure IT departments (like banks, for example). Any other organization, or forum or blog only gets my 'disposable' throwaway Hotmail address.

PS: No Margo, not my debut. I'm just an irregular sporadic commenter at old Webdiary and the new. ;-)

Margo: Hi E Burrows. I can only reiterate that my sole use of the Webdiary email addresses was to notify Webdiary’s change of address. I do not consider that to be spam of the kind you are referring to. I do not think that advising a change of address is an illegal or sinister purpose or a breach of the privacy laws.

I reckon Webdiarists and others have had ample opportunity to air their grievances or otherwise, and I've answered your questions. I'm gunna close the comments box to this thread.

Loved you on Phillip Adams. Loved the Pauline Hanson book. Heard you on Media Report last night. How about using the public radio model - voluntary subscribers? Anyway Good Luck!

Hi Margo. Just found out about the move to 'independence'. I wish you the very best of luck. I haven't posted for a long time, but been an avid reader. It's been great to see Webdiary develop into something really powerful. Good Luck for the future,

Cheers,

Linda Kerr

Margo: Hi Linda. A commentor turned lurker now out of hiding again. Cool!

To admins: Hmmm, I'd swear I posted this one yesterday too... Anyway, I hope it appears soon. Graeme seems to "suspect" me of something - I'd like to know exactly what!

Graeme wrote: "E Burrows or whatever name you are hiding behind, 'reply' or 'reply all', it doesn't change the result. You have admitted to giving false information and been caught out telling porkies so you go to the top of my suspects list."

Graeme, I'll respond to your ludicrous allegations shortly. But first, I have a question for you: precisely what is it you "suspect" me of?

Margo: Hi E Burrows. I'm editing all comments to this piece personally and am awaiting advice before responding to your follow-up email. There are also a lot of competing demands on my time at the moment so my response time is slower than I'd like it to be.

Hello Margo.

I've been listening to you for a while through Phillip Adams but did not realise the implication of you going out on your own till I heard you on the Media Report today 1 September 2005.

I have never logged into a blog site before but I will now since you are independent.

As you are obviously aware, money is not everything - it is only a means to an end - and I hope much of it comes your way as your "end" is worth achieving.

Best Wishes,

Anne-Marie

Margo: Wow! What a debut, Anne-Marie. Thank you.

Graeme Finn, how long is this list, exactly? Was it the work of Karl Rove? The neo-con alliance? Chimpler W McHalibushton? Santa Claus?

All it was was a misunderstanding. Reading the e-mails should show you that. People didn't have the savvy to realise that asking questions and hitting reply did reply to the entire mailing list. I won't quote the actual e-mails themselves, but people thought it was a virus, other people who actually understood tried to get everyone to understand, spam spammed more spam, and that was the end of it.