OT - Tired of registering everywhere to read one story?

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/local/8915045.htm

Papers Riding Out Complaints
JOANN LOVIGLIO
Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA - Many online readers must complete registration forms with various kinds of personal data before seeing their virtual newspaper. The requirement has irked some readers and privacy advocates, led to the creation of Web sites to foil the system, and could be failing to provide the solid demographic information the system was intended to capture.

... BugMeNot.com is one Web site created to allow users access sites without registering. The site provides "communal" logins and passwords for sites including registration-required sites like those for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Los Angeles Times and now The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

BugMeNot's home page states that more than 3,000 Web sites have been "liberated" since its inception in November. The site calls compulsory registrations intrusive, irritating, spam-promoting, and counter to the Internet's free spirit.

http://www.bugmenot.com/

[JAG]

Awesome. Thanks for pointing that site out.

[bigdawg2003]

good deal

[Maple Leafs]

Fair warning: I work in the e-marketing field so I'm biased. And I know I'll be alone on this one, but...

These sites are providing content free of charge. In many cases, good content created by professionals. Content that you'd have to pay for in any other form, being given away free on the web. All they ask is that you take a few seconds to register, one time, and use that registration in the future.

Is that really such a terrible thing? I realize that a lot of the content on the web is crap that isn't worth paying for, and I realize that a lot of sites will take your personal information and abuse it with spam. But we're talking about some fairly respectable sites here. Is it really out of the question to either play by their rules or just skip their sites all together? I know we all think we're entitled to get everything online for free, but is a few second of our time--unless you're one of those who need several minutes to remember your address--really too much to ask?

[Coffee Warlord]

Even the respectable places often times sell their lists, or send you their own crap. In fact, I daresay the big ones are MORE apt to do this kind of stuff. I trust small little message boards or the like a helluva lot more than a massive corporation with my personal information.

[kcchief19]

Fair warning: I work in the e-marketing field so I'm biased. And I know I'll be alone on this one, but...You're not alone! My first thought was that these companies are providing content for free in exchange for certain information about you. If I don't feel like providing the information, I don't use the site. If I do, then that's the price you pay. If you use the content without paying the price, then I guess that's up to you.

[Chubby]

How is it any different than going to the library/barnes and noble/starbucks and reading the paper without buying it there?

[JPhillips]

But it's very much like over the air tv. They are charging advertisers who then pay for the site. I don't pay anything to watch CBS, but that doesn't mean I'm required to give them any information they request. They created a business model that allowed them to make profits without that info. I dare say that most of these websites can do the same thing.

[Desnudo]

You're not alone! My first thought was that these companies are providing content for free in exchange for certain information about you. If I don't feel like providing the information, I don't use the site. If I do, then that's the price you pay. If you use the content without paying the price, then I guess that's up to you.

I agree. And reading the entire newspaper, without paying, in a Barnes and Noble is unethical at best Chubby.

[Desnudo]

But it's very much like over the air tv. They are charging advertisers who then pay for the site. I don't pay anything to watch CBS, but that doesn't mean I'm required to give them any information they request. They created a business model that allowed them to make profits without that info. I dare say that most of these websites can do the same thing.

I think it's more like buying basic cable, the Internet, and then stealing HBO, something that requires registration and possibly payment.

[Maple Leafs]

But it's very much like over the air tv. They are charging advertisers who then pay for the site. I don't pay anything to watch CBS, but that doesn't mean I'm required to give them any information they request. They created a business model that allowed them to make profits without that info. I dare say that most of these websites can do the same thing.The comparison to TV ads doesn't work. Online advertising brings in virtually no significant revenue, certainly not enough to pay for a site. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't. (Besides, don't we all complain about popups and flashing banner ads too?)

[GrantDawg]

I agree. And reading the entire newspaper, without paying, in a Barnes and Noble is unethical at best Chubby.
What about the library? Why do they have them, then?

[Chubby]

I agree. And reading the entire newspaper, without paying, in a Barnes and Noble is unethical at best Chubby.

Well as JPhillips said, it is similar to network tv as well. My solution is simple, I don't go to the newspaper sites that require info.

Personally I don't read the whole paper or every article online either. I pick and choose which ones I want to read.

[GrantDawg]

Dola: Not that I see registration as a big evil. I can understand the need for these sites to make income.

[Chubby]

What about the library? Why do they have them, then?

And all those books we are depriving the authors of revenue from.

[yabanci]

nice link, thanks.

[Desnudo]

What about the library? Why do they have them, then?

The library offers the paper for free. Barnes and Noble sells the paper.

[Chubby]

The library offers the paper for free. Barnes and Noble sells the paper.

Well I also mentioned the library which you failed to respond to. So again, how is it any different than going to the library and reading the paper?

[Maple Leafs]

Even the respectable places often times sell their lists, or send you their own crap. In fact, I daresay the big ones are MORE apt to do this kind of stuff. I trust small little message boards or the like a helluva lot more than a massive corporation with my personal information.Let's be clear about what I'm talking about. I believe that a "good" site will do several things:
- be clear about what they intend to do with your information
- make the user "opt in" to the database (no sneaky opt-out plans)
- limit contact to the site the user opted in for -- no selling to third-parties unless the user has also opted in for this
- make it easy for the user to unsubscribe to any mailing list at any time, without restrictions

Now, if you're telling me that the sites above aren't doing that, then I'll join you in ripping them. After all, they're making my job harder by not playing nice. But I'd be willing to bet that most of them do indeed follow the plan I've outlined.

(By the way, the whole idea that companies deviously sell your address to third-parties without your permission is a bit of an online urban myth these days. Yes, it does happen, but not at the rate most people think. The sad truth is that most of the spam you get comes from web crawlers, not from legitimate businesses selling your info on the side.)

[JPhillips]

Maple: But how much does a major newspaper spend on their site alone? I doubt it's much. Now a strictly on-line venture is different, but it's not like most newspapers or magazines have a lot of original content on-line. They simply reproduce what they offer in the print version.

I'll give you the tv analogy isn't perfect, but I still think most of these sites could remain at least revenue neutral without taking personal info.

[Desnudo]

Well I also mentioned the library which you failed to respond to. So again, how is it any different than going to the library and reading the paper?

Well I also happen to be pretty drunk or else I wouldn't even been in this argument right now. You are right, I missed your library reference and I am sorry for that. Especially since it's resulted in me typing way more than I had planned. It's different than going to the library in that the library is a taxpayer funded institution whereas these newspaper companies are private concerns and should have control over access to their content.

[Maple Leafs]

Maple: But how much does a major newspaper spend on their site alone? I doubt it's much. Now a strictly on-line venture is different, but it's not like most newspapers or magazines have a lot of original content on-line. They simply reproduce what they offer in the print version. True they don't spend much on the content, although servers and bandwidth etc. (not to mention the people to run them) aren't free.

I just don't see how they don't have a right to set the price for their own content. If the price is free, but with registration... well, that's not a bad deal for me, and if you think it's too high a price then you move on to the next site. If enough people agree with me then their site is a success. If enough people feel like you then their traffic goes down and their site fails until they make changes. That's the way it should work, shouldn't it?

[Chubby]

Well I also happen to be pretty drunk or else I wouldn't even been in this argument right now. You are right, I missed your library reference and I am sorry for that. Especially since it's resulted in me typing way more than I had planned. It's different than going to the library in that the library is a taxpayer funded institution whereas these newspaper companies are private concerns and should have control over access to their content.
Heh, it's ok.

But they don't have control over access to their content since anyone can get it for free by going to a library :)

[Chubby]

True they don't spend much on the content, although servers and bandwidth etc. (not to mention the people to run them) aren't free.

I just don't see how they don't have a right to set the price for their own content. If the price is free, but with registration... well, that's not a bad deal for me, and if you think it's too high a price then you move on to the next site. If enough people agree with me then their site is a success. If enough people feel like you then their traffic goes down and their site fails until they make changes. That's the way it should work, shouldn't it?

The argument is however, that since it can be gotten for free (at a library) why should we have to give out info that can be sold to other companies so they can send us junk mail? Especially since there isn't new content for the majority of newspaper sites and have advertising as well. It's always been my belief (not based on any fact mind you) that the price you pay for the paper has been for delivery costs. The rest of the paper is paid for by the ads.

[JPhillips]

Maple: I think we generally agree here. I think they have a right, but that it isn't effective. Sites like this one will always pop up. Now this site probably doesn't hurt their traffic much, but I think most people find registering an inconvenience and will take a shortcut when possible. I don't find that immoral at all. They want to make maximize profit and I want to minimize costs.

[Desnudo]

Heh, it's ok.

But they don't have control over access to their content since anyone can get it for free by going to a library :)

They can control it. If, for whatever reason, they didn't want it to be available to your local library, they could have it removed from their reading list. This is actually very similar to the whole Napster argument about music and intellectual property rights. Although on a different, sillier, level.

[Chubby]

They can control it. If, for whatever reason, they didn't want it to be available to your local library, they could have it removed from their reading list. This is actually very similar to the whole Napster argument about music and intellectual property rights. Although on a different, sillier, level.

No they can't the same way I don't think a book company or author could say "You can't carry our book in a library". It's no different than going to your dentist's office and reading all the magazines he has on display. I also don't see how it's any different than going to Barnes and Noble to read the paper. Me, the newspapers I read don't require anything to read their stories.

[Logan]

What about the library? Why do they have them, then?

Tryin to save a quaaaarrrtteeeer!

:)

[Tigercat]

If the papers wanted you to just register(without submitting peron specific information), or even pay money for their sites it would be one thing, but to only allow access to those willing to provide personal information? Thats just messed up.

It is just a birthdate(usually) and a zip code. And God knows I could care less if someone knows that about me, the problem is theres no choice not to give out that personal information. So basically, if you want to keep that piece of information to yourself, you can hardly read an online newspaper these days.

The least they could do is give some sort of back door for people to view articles without submitting the information. Perhaps send them to a page that asks them for the birthdate everytime, but allows them to continue even without submitting the information. It would still probably collect a lot of information that way, but not force(yes i know they aren't really forcing anyone...) people to give the information away to read articles.

Heaven forbid we consider the rights and privacy of consumers when it doesnt directly affect our wallets.

[Tigercat]

True they don't spend much on the content, although servers and bandwidth etc. (not to mention the people to run them) aren't free.

I just don't see how they don't have a right to set the price for their own content. If the price is free, but with registration... well, that's not a bad deal for me, and if you think it's too high a price then you move on to the next site. If enough people agree with me then their site is a success. If enough people feel like you then their traffic goes down and their site fails until they make changes. That's the way it should work, shouldn't it?

This is different than a price though. What if every ___insert the name of any type of store or vendor of any goods or service___ asked you a personal question everytime you bought goods from that type of store, meaning you really couldn't avoid answering the personal question unless you didn't buy any ____. Sure it is likely you can either live without _____s or find something similiar to ______s elsewhere, but is that really fair, just, or something we should just shrug our shoulders too? Is it ok for a certain service to be recieved only by those who don't mind giving up some privacy, and that it is ok for those who want privacy to have no chance at getting a certain service?

[JonInMiddleGA]

If the papers wanted you to just register(without submitting peron specific information), or even pay money for their sites it would be one thing, but to only allow access to those willing to provide personal information? Thats just messed up.
Thanks Tigercat, for giving me a good chance to explain why I posted this link.

If this had been a way to bypass paid content, I wouldn't have said a word about it. And I would likely have cocked a critical eyebrow at the site for good measure.

AFAIK (and as far as I could tell from looking over the linked site), this is strictly about bypassing personal info registrations. If that isn't the case, and someone can show me that, for example, you can get free access to something that's a paid premium like ESPN Insider, I'll delete the link & apologize profusely for not being careful enough before posting.

As I said in the "discount card" thread the other day, I know just what I (as a marketer) can do with personal info, and just how much phone/mail/email I can generate with those sort of lists -- it's a trend that, IMO, ought to be discouraged.

Also, in the case of one of the newspapers cited in the original article, ajc.com, here's a bit from their privacy policy (and the highlighted portion that bothers me)

"Our Affiliates. We may share the information that we collect from you with any wholly or majority-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, Inc. so that we and they can provide you with products and services provided by these entities that we believe may be of interest to you."
If you're familiar with Cox Enterprises, then you know just how many outlets worth of spam/calls/junk mail that exposes you to. If I wanted crappy phone calls from their TV station, I would have signed up for them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dola (probably) -- Also, FWIW, the linked article that happened to be the first time I ever heard of the website appeared in a personal-detail-to-register newspaper website.

[Maple Leafs]

If this had been a way to bypass paid content, I wouldn't have said a word about it. And I would likely have cocked a critical eyebrow at the site for good measure.I guess I just don't see the distinction.

[Cards4ever]

I think I should be allowed to read the online version without registering for anything if I get home delivery. They already have my info, they don't need it again. When I subscribe to the at home version, I should be supplied with a code to bypass it.

[gstelmack]

The comparison to TV ads doesn't work. Online advertising brings in virtually no significant revenue, certainly not enough to pay for a site. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't. (Besides, don't we all complain about popups and flashing banner ads too?)
I keep hearing how online ads bring in almost no revenue. If that's the case, why are they all over the freakin' place?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess I just don't see the distinction.
Fair enough but I hope you don't mind if I try to explain, at least a little, about the distinction that I personally draw.

As it stands, there's generally nothing that prevents someone from providing incorrect info on one of these registrations. Fictitious phone numbers, wrong mailing addresses, etc.

Or, as I have done for several years, provide an email address that I use strictly for spam generating registrations (all I do is mass delete several hundred emails periodically from that account -- other than being able to say they sent out the spam, those who email me there gain absolutely nothing from it).

All I see this particular method of bypassing registration as doing is avoiding someone from entering yet another set of fake info into the system. And that seems quite distinct to me from bypassing a traditional paid content site, especially in light of the reality that the majority of the sites do nothing to require that the personal info be accurate or correct. It's largely nothing more than a token effort to collect the information from those who are willing to provide it.

[Maple Leafs]

I keep hearing how online ads bring in almost no revenue. If that's the case, why are they all over the freakin' place?For exactly that reason. Since people won't pay for content, and increasingly won't even register for it, sites need to squeeze revenue wherever they can. Since online ads offer such poor returns, sites that rely on them have to practically wallpaper their pages with them.

[Chubby]

For exactly that reason. Since people won't pay for content, and increasingly won't even register for it, sites need to squeeze revenue wherever they can. Since online ads offer such poor returns, sites that rely on them have to practically wallpaper their pages with them.

Why should he pay or register for something we can get free legally? :)

[clintl]

For me, it's mostly an annoyance. But I do think that consumers should have the right to have total control over their personal information, and that if registration is required, there ought to be a box that people can check that says the company is only authorized to use the information for internal research purposes, and may not distribute the information to any other party or use it to market other, unrelated products to the consumer. And any company that doesn't agree to that shouldn't be allowed to require registration. I think the paradigm that corporations are allowed to treat customers' personal data as an company asset is anti-consumer, and should be prohibited.

[Maple Leafs]

Why should he pay or register for something we can get free legally?Short answer: because that's what the people providing the content are asking him to do.

Long answer: you're opening a dangerous can of worms if you really believe in that line of thinking. I can get lots of things for free. I can take home a book free (legally) from the library -- doesn't mean I can just walk out of Barnes and Noble with it. I can get free samples of all sorts of things from the grocery store a block from my house -- doesn't mean that every other store is obligated to make it a freebie too. We could all come up with increasingly credibility-straining examples, but the basic rule is that "free here" doesn't always have to equal "free everywhere".

Bottom line: if you can get it for free from the library, then turn off your computer, hop in your car and go to the library. If you don't feel like doing that, then play by the rules that the content providers are asking you to, or leave their site and go surf a better one.

[Chubby]

Short answer: because that's what the people providing the content are asking him to do.

Long answer: you're opening a dangerous can of worms if you really believe in that line of thinking. I can get lots of things for free. I can take home a book free (legally) from the library -- doesn't mean I can just walk out of Barnes and Noble with it. I can get free samples of all sorts of things from the grocery store a block from my house -- doesn't mean that every other store is obligated to make it a freebie too. We could all come up with increasingly credibility-straining examples, but the basic rule is that "free here" doesn't always have to equal "free everywhere".

Bottom line: if you can get it for free from the library, then turn off your computer, hop in your car and go to the library. If you don't feel like doing that, then play by the rules that the content providers are asking you to, or leave their site and go surf a better one.

So if someone asks me for my social security # then I should give that to them because it's what they are asking me to do? I think not.

You're making a leap that isn't there. Going to the library to read the paper does NOT = stealing it from the store.

As I've said, all the newspaper sites I read don't require anything and I avoid the one's that do but I see nothing wrong with using the linked site.

[Maple Leafs]

So if someone asks me for my social security # then I should give that to them because it's what they are asking me to do? I think not.Of course not. You just say no, and take your business elsewhere. You don't have to do anything. It's not like we're talking about you being denied the necessities of life here.

Going to the library to read the paper does NOT = stealing it from the store.Exactly my point. Just like going to the library to read the paper does NOT = reading it for free online.

[Chubby]

Maple - But there isn't consistency between papers which I think leads to the problem. Some papers you can read without giving info away, some you have to.

[Maple Leafs]

Maple - But there isn't consistency between papers which I think leads to the problem. Some papers you can read without giving info away, some you have to.But what's wrong with that? Some newspapers cost 25 cents, some cost $2, some are free. Who says pricing has to be uniform?

[clintl]

Of course not. You just say no, and take your business elsewhere. You don't have to do anything. It's not like we're talking about you being denied the necessities of life here.


Actually, what you do is file a criminal complaint, because it is illegal to ask for Social Security number except for very limited and specific purposes.

[Huckleberry]

clintl -

That only pertains to government agencies.

Maple Leafs -

If they leave holes in their system such as allowing bogus info or one login to function from 1,000 IP addresses, that's their problem. Login pages usually say "Username: " and "Password: ". I have yet to see one that says "Your specific and unique Username that nobody else uses: " and "Your Password that is known only by you: ".

[sterlingice]

Maple Leafs -

If they leave holes in their system such as allowing bogus info or one login to function from 1,000 IP addresses, that's their problem. Login pages usually say "Username: " and "Password: ". I have yet to see one that says "Your specific and unique Username that nobody else uses: " and "Your Password that is known only by you: ".
Might want to read the fine print (i.e. Terms of Services) for most sites. I'd bet you 9 out of 10 times you are required to have one unique account. Don't try to play lawyerly games with a group that employs a bunch of lawyers, because you can't win.

SI