Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:2339 alt.privacy:544 alt.censorship:2219
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!maui.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Prodigy charged with invading users' privacy
Keywords: Prodigy, STAGE.DAT, testing
Message-ID: <1991May6.045004.24145@qualcomm.com>
Date: 6 May 91 04:50:04 GMT
References: <1991May1.051734.24594@pcserver2.naitc.com> <1991May1.215612.2978@ruacad.ac.runet.edu> <1991May2.160352.8928@craycos.com>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: maui.qualcomm.com

In article <1991May2.160352.8928@craycos.com> jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies) writes:
>Prodigy is in a position to lose quite a bit if they were found to be
>illegally spying on their users (can you say "deep pockets"? -- IBM is
>the Grand Canyon of deep pockets...)  It's inconceivable to me that they would
>be pursuing such a risky policy.

Yeah, you'd think that it would be really stupid for a service like Prodigy to
engage in information theft, wouldn't you?

Infoworld Magazine reports that Soap Opera Now, a weekly newsletter 
covering TV soaps, has sued Prodigy Services Company. Apparently, 
Prodigy started an online soap opera service last August and a 
number of stories from Soap Opera Now began appearing online 
verbatim. Michael Kape, editor of the 6500 subscriber weekly 
arranged for publication of a totally fictitious story with the 
consent of the story's subject. According to Kape, it appeared on 
the Prodigy service with virtually the same wording. The lawsuit 
seeks damages of $38 for each of Prodigy's 700,000 subscribers. 
Prodigy refused to comment on the story.


GEnie and CompuServe both have software that does approximately the same thing.
The difference being that GEnie and CompuServe haven't pursued a policy of
arrogance and apparent unconcern towards the concerns of their users as
Prodigy has.  It's trust, and Prodigy doesn't have it.
-- 
Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.     |     Ron Dippold