Bug Me Not
July 7, 2004
I’m not sure how it could have taken me so long to run across this. Bug Me Not allows you to bypass mandatory registrations at sites by keeping a database of generic log-ins. Hundreds of log-ins here–New York Times, Washington Post, and more. This is a great resource for us privacy-minded folks.
July 7th, 2004 at 11:04 pm
Sarah, did you perhaps mean “piracy-minded folks”?
July 8th, 2004 at 8:50 am
*peer* Don’t do much Web research, Jack? I don’t “pirate” material, I just read it, and I resent having to provide all my details to a site to read one news article. I don’t have a problem registering with sites that I use regularly, but I like to keep my privacy a bit intact, thank you.
I’m curious, though, why you seem to think that everyone who objects to handing over personal details must be illicitly copying and forwarding the material.
July 8th, 2004 at 11:59 am
How is this piracy Jack? Piracy is the unauthorized copying of content. What exactly is being copied?
Many of the sites that require registration sell your registration information (including e-mail address) or euphemize it as “sharing your information with partner companies.”
In addition, many people just enter fake information anyway, so how is this any different? It actually saves the company’s resources–since they’re not storing hundreds of fake profiles–just the one fake profile.
It’s annoying, unnecessary, and the better sites are ceasing to require registration because they know their users won’t stand for it anymore. And for those that still do require it, I have no ethical qualms about using a generic log-in.
July 8th, 2004 at 3:32 pm
How is this piracy Jack? Piracy is the unauthorized copying of content. What exactly is being copied?
Okay, correct me if I’m wrong, here. I believe the New York Times site is subscription-only access. If you use a generic password to access content without paying, that’s stealing. Once digital content is displayed on your screen, you can produce and distribute perfect copies to your heart’s content, as you will be well aware.
Even for what is only a free-registration site, such as WaPo, you are accessing content while denying the content owners whatever expected benefit led them to set up that log-in screen.
Your rhetoric about “privacy” is just a flimsy excuse for the anti-corporate thrill of ripping of a media company. You said that your privacy was worth too much to suffer a Gmail account, and now you’re trading them like baseball cards….
July 8th, 2004 at 7:14 pm
The New York Times is a registration-required site. Not subscription. I do believe there’s a difference, as no money is changing hands in any form. If you had to pay for access, I’d side with you, Jack.
Second, displaying digital content on your screen is not enough to call it piracy unless you actually copy that information. If you read one article but make no copies, there’s no piracy there. Ability to pirate does not make one a pirate, or anyone with a VCR, TV access, and blank VHS tape would be one by definition. (This is my issue with DRM equipment.)
So if people are using generic logins for non-pay services to simply read, not copy, the information, then there’s no piracy and no loss of income. Frankly with the amount of fake registrations I fill out with throw-away e-mail addresses, I would think companies would prefer this method, as Sarah stated.
If your argument is that this could be used for piracy, then that is true, but what I’ve found from friends, family, and library patrons is mostly that they want to read one article and not go through the hassle of a free registration. If they want to read multiple articles or print or e-mail copies, they usually register. That’s in my experience, but maybe I just know a really classy set of individuals?
July 8th, 2004 at 9:16 pm
Actually, one quick note: The NY Times allows you to share user accounts and passwords so long as you are responsible for what happens with that account. So according to the Subscriber Agreement, such sharing is fine.
July 8th, 2004 at 10:58 pm
The NY Times allows you to share user accounts and passwords so long as you are responsible for what happens with that account. So according to the Subscriber Agreement, such sharing is fine.
I assume you’re referring to this section of the subscriber agreement. So you’re saying that the New York Times user agreement grants approval to people’s circumventing the sign-up form? I’m sorry, but do you really believe this?
I stand corrected that the site is not paid, however, I did notice that the “Tell Us About Yourself” section of the sign-up sheet includes the following pieces of information:
Gender
Year of Birth
“Click here if you are under 13″
Zip Code
Country of Residence
Household Income Range
Industry in which you work
Job Title
Job Function
At no time are you asked to give your name. What of this is “private” information, Sarah?
July 9th, 2004 at 10:23 am
I have no interest in giving the NYT, or any informational site, the information you mentioned. I want to read one of their articles—why on earth should I be required to tell them my gender? My age? My income? There is no good reason why they need that information, other than to have demographic information on their users so they can better target advertising. And I have absolutely no qualms about not helping them with that.
You said, “Your rhetoric about “privacy” is just a flimsy excuse for the anti-corporate thrill of ripping of a media company.” Please Jack. I’m not getting a thrill from reading a NYT article. And I’m not ripping anyone off. They offer their resources for free. They are losing no money.
And re: the Gmail account thing—I’m not using it as a real e-mail account Jack. I’m using it as a test account to experiment with Gmail so that I can actually be informed about the service and how it works. It’s my responsibility to know about it as a techie, as a librarian, and as a public servant. So I am learning what I can from it. And I’m not “trading” Gmail accounts on this site…I’m giving them away to anyone who wants them. You’d know that if you actually read this site for any reason other than to pick fights with me.
A lot of the stuff you’re throwing around in this exchange is just plain untrue. Please, check your facts before you start arguing. And, just for a change of pace, I think it would be really nice if you could say something positive for once.
July 9th, 2004 at 11:02 am
I have no interest in giving the NYT, or any informational site, the information you mentioned.
Exactly. While you claimed that your objections concerned “privacy, it turns out that you are simply hostile towards the free market necessity of advertising. The log-in screen is part of the deal set up by the content owner for use of the articles. However, you feel yourself entitled to thumb your nose at the deal, while still using the resource.
As I’ve said, it seems that you enjoy the gadgets (i.e., the freedom) that capitalism makes available, while at the same time nursing a pronounced Naomi Klein-esque animus towards the free market system itself.
I say positive things about opinions I agree with, as I believe you probably do as well…
Have a nice weekend.
July 9th, 2004 at 11:48 am
Jack, sometimes your singular-mindedness surprises even me. You are so closed off to hearing what others are saying, and so determined to hold onto your view of the world, that you don’t listen.
I am an objectivist, I’ve said that on this site before. And guess what? Objectivists really like capitalism! And free markets! Wow! What a surprise, huh?
My objections for this particular service–the NYT–are indeed privacy related. They do require an e-mail address. And I don’t want to give that to them (or any of the other information I listed). If I don’t have to, by using a generic log-in, then why should I? Would you rather I just create a fake account? And the other thousand people that use this Bug Me Not for the NYT? create fake accounts? Because that’s the other option for those of us who don’t wish to share our information.
Most sites DO require your e-mail address…there are tons of them out there that do. For example, the Washington Post, which is an example you yourself mentioned earlier.
I am not “hostile” toward advertising. I just would rather not feed it, see it, or deal with it if I don’t have to. And, clearly, I don’t have to if I use Bug Me Not’s service.
Yes, I enjoy gadgets. But I completely disagree that I am “nursing a pronounced Naomi Klein-esque animus towards the free market system itself.” That is an incredibly stupid thing for you to say Jack. Just plain stupid. If you read this site on a regular basis (not just the posts you disagree with), or took the time to get to know people before blasting them and making public statements about their belief systems, you would know that. But, you choose to make assumptions, false statements, and all you’re really doing is painting a picture of yourself as someone who likes to do a lot of talking but not a lot of research or listening. And shame on you for that.
July 9th, 2004 at 12:18 pm
My objections for this particular service–the NYT–are indeed privacy related. They do require an e-mail address.
And, what, your email address is private? Is that why you link it from the main page of your site?
No need to get personal, Sarah. Have a nice day.
July 9th, 2004 at 12:54 pm
And so, yes, I suppose I could use my sarahfaery@hotmail.com address to register for all these information-hungry sites, since it is all over the web. It’s not my “real personal” address. You’re right. I could. But, it’s one more avenue through which I will invariably receive SPAM messages I would rather not get. It is, at that point, a personal choice. I don’t like SPAM. And I don’t think I’m the only one.
No need to get personal, you say? You’re the one who got personal. Read your recent posts, as you seem to have forgotten what you’ve written in the last day or so. So, stop throwing stones yourself.
September 22nd, 2004 at 6:59 am
“Generic Log-ins from Bug Me Not”
Bug Me Not is an interesting service which keeps a database of generic log-ins for many Web publications that are