Today, The Unofficial Apple Weblog (or TUAW) posted an article urging readers to download a new productivity application called "Procrastinatr." Don't do it.
Procrastinatr is a script that will do only one thing: attack every appointment in your iCal calendar -- birthdays, doctor's appointments, meeting reminders, everything -- and shift the due dates forward by one week. To recover from the attack, you'll have to manually reset every single appointment on your calendar. (Alternatively, you may also select "Undo" or press Command-Z over and over again until each of your appointments and to-do items have been restored.)
UPDATE: A fix (of sorts) was quickly posted on TUAW -- a script that will shift due dates backward by one week. While this is a nice gesture, it won't work for those of you who began manually correcting your appointments and to-do items. After running the "fix," manually corrected items will have due dates and appointment times one week earlier.
[Editor's Note: I've removed the post I originally made, replacing it with the following text. -- MM]
The whole Procrastinatr fiasco -- and the variety of responses to it -- raises interesting questions about ethics, morality, and trust. For example:
1) Does attaching a "warning label" to Procrastinatr absolve its author, Brian Sutorius, from any responsibility for the damage the software causes?
Brian Sutorius, the 20-year-old college junior who created Procrastinatr, did include a READ ME file with the program. In addition to paragraphs of bold text hawking the benefits of the software, there is one final paragraph, in a tiny gray font, describing the program's effects, and concluding, "Just don't run it."
Many people leaving comments on the TUAW weblog -- and, based on recent revisions to the Procrastinatr website, Mr. Sutorius himself -- feel that, having attached this kind of warning to Procrastinatr, Mr. Sutorius has done all he is obligated to do.
By this logic, Mr. Sutorius could also bake poisoned brownies, conceal a "POISON" label on the bottom of the platter, leave them out for public consumption -- and be absolved of all blame because "stupid people" failed to investigate fully. Or a car maker could produce a car deliberately designed to explode -- but protect itself from lawsuits by noting, in the fine print in the back of the owner's manual, "This car will explode six weeks from purchase. Our recommendation: just don't buy it."
It's true that Mr. Sutorius' program does not endanger life or limb. That said: even if, as he claims, Mr. Sutorius designed Procrastinatr as "a prank" to play on friends, the fact remains that Mr. Sutorius designed and distributed software he knew would attack the user's most personal, most precious data.
While foisting all responsibility for the damage on the users who installed his software has a certain facile appeal, I think doing so avoids the more important question: does warning others that a program is malicious absolve the creator of all responsibility for having written it?
2) Is Mr. Sutorius, in fact, a hero?
Many commenters on TUAW suggested that Mr. Sutorius has "done us all a favor" by reminding us how "vulnerable" we all are. A similar sentiment holds that, by creating Procrastinatr, Mr. Sutorius has made a point about the "value of regular backups." In essence, these comments position Mr. Sutorius as a hero.
It's true that fewer viruses and Trojan horses have been written for Apple computers. It's true that many Apple computer users are, as a result, less careful about virus protection than they should be. It's also true that many people do not back up their data as religiously as they should.
It's pretty clear, however, that even Mr. Sutorius did not design Procrastinatr as an object lesson in precautionary computing. Mr. Sutorius himself claims again and again that Procrastinatr was "a prank," "a joke" intended for his friends, that got out of hand. (Whether we believe such statements are honest is, in fact, another issue entirely.)
Diligence, wariness, and caution can be good traits. One has to marvel, though, at the mindset that transforms someone who designed deliberately destructive software (and who continues to offer it for download, despite the fact it could be sent to others stripped of any "warnings") as a community hero.
3) Shouldn't we give Mr. Sutorius credit for apologizing?
It's true that Mr. Sutorius has posted an apology of sorts. He's "sorry about [our] calendars," and he's "sorry this practical joke got blown out of proportion." In other words, Mr. Sutorius regrets that your calendar has been scrambled, and he claims to regret that a post of TUAW made his program so widely available. This is a classic example of the "Republican apology" -- an expression of regret that assumes no personal responsibility.
Is he sorry he created the software and made it available? If so, he hasn't said so -- and the fact that Procrastinatr is still available for download would seem to indicate that, if anything, he stands by both the creation of Procrastinatr and his decision to make it available (with warnings attached).
4) Shouldn't we give Mr. Sutorius credit for posting a fix?
Many people feel Mr. Sutorius deserves credit for quickly providing TUAW with a fix (edited by another TUAW reader) in the TUAW comments, his personal website, and the current version of the Procrastinatr website.
It was good of Mr. Sutorius to make an attempt to undo what his program had done. (As noted before, it's a fix that only works if one has not made any effort to correct Procrastinatr's damage entry-by-entry.)
One has to marvel, though, at the mindset that wants to give Mr. Sutorius credit for reversing damage he inflicted. Would we give a bomber credit for sticking around to bandage the wounds of those injured by his bomb? Oh, yeah ... he's a great guy!
5) Shouldn't we forgive David Chartier, who recommended Procrastinatr to readers? After all, everyone makes mistakes!
Mr. Chartier is the paid employee of TUAW who posted a glowing recommendation of Procrastinatr, telling readers, "this handy little app can help you make molehills out of mountains." In retrospect, this certainly was a mistake -- something Mr. Chartier has said again and again.
While it's true that "everyone makes mistakes," it's also true that some mistakes are more egregious than others. Spilling coffee on a friend's term paper is a mistake. Forgetting a spouse's birthday is a mistake. Hey -- we all make 'em!
But it's also true that not all mistakes are created equal ... and the severity of a mistake is generally determined by the degree of its impact. If I spill coffee on a friend's term paper, for example, I can clean up, offer to type the paper over, and, if I must, explain any delays to his professor.
Unfortunately, though, Mr. Chartier's mistake -- failing to scrutinize the program adequately, recommending it without having done so, pointing thousands of readers to it, and harming the reputation of TUAW in the process -- has a scope beyond the sort of shenanigans that can be rectified by saying, "Ooops!"
(We should note Mr. Chartier claims his use of Google Calendar's synching technology convinced him Procrastinatr had no effect other than opening the user's calendar. He now claims he passed along Procrastinatr as a wry joke: "Want to stop procrastinating? Open your calendar!" Given that TUAW has a practice of tagging humorous posts with a HUMOR tag, neglecting to add the HUMOR tag to his entry was yet another mistake on his part.)
Mr. Chartier made a mistake with the potential to impact thousands of readers. His mistake was rooted in a failure to do his job with "due diligence" and a minimum standard of journalistic integrity.
TUAW editors seem to feel posting an apology and a fix should put an end to the entire affair. One wonders, though: if abandoning standards and endangering the data of thousands of readers was not a dismissal offense ... what would be?
6) In expressing my own displeasure over Mr. Sutorius and Mr. Chartier's actions, did I go too far?
When I noticed that Procrastinatr was dangerous, I quickly began trying to find out everything I could about its origin. In less than ten minutes, Google led me to Mr. Sutorius' identity, photographs, weblog, and email address. I then posted his email address to the public forums on TUAW.
Some -- including Mr. Sutorius himself, in an email he sent minutes after I posted that comment -- claim that, in posting this information to TUAW, I went too far. Commenters here on MadeByMark labeled me as "mean" and "a stalker."
I do not regret finding and posting Mr. Sutorius' weblog URL and email link to the comments on TUAW. First: before allowing me to download Procrastinatr, Mr. Sutorius' web forms required me to submit my own name and email address. (He claims all the addresses he received, along with the account they have been sent to, have been deleted. I have not, however, scoured his claim for disclaimers ... so who knows whether he's being straightforward or not?) Surely someone asking for this information from others should be inclined to respond in kind?
More to the point, however: Mr. Sutorius created Procrastinatr. He owns it. It's his baby. Shouldn't people with complaints about a product should be able to express those complaints to the provider?
Finally: the information I posted was neither private nor secret. Anyone with access to Google has access to that information. I find it ironic that the people praising Mr. Surtorius for "reminding us all of the dangers of the Internet" are not similarly inclined to praise me for reminding us all of the potential danger an index like Google poses to personal privacy.
As for Mr. Chartier: I have very harshly criticized him for his "mistake," and have gone so far as to say in public forums that I feel he should be fired. I stand by these sentiments, and do not apologize for them.
That said: I do wish to apologize for the tone I took in my posts. I characterized Mr. Sutorius' photoblog as "a tired little photoblog" -- a comment that was unnecessarily personal and that failed to uphold my own personal standards.
I also apologize to Mr. Sutorius for sending him an email that called him a jerk. At the time, while staring down at the wreck his program had made of my carefully-researched calendar of more than 250 friends', business associates', and relatives' birthdays and anniversaries, I was, shall we say, overwrought.
Perhaps I need to post a disclaimer in fine print at the bottom of this site: If you create software designed to screw with my personal information, even if you warn me about it, I will do my best to discover a means of contacting you and, before I cool down, I will likely share that information with others and do all I can to hold you accountable for your actions.
Hmmm. I wonder: would my posting such a warning absolve me from any responsibility for my actions and convert Mr. Sutorius and Mr. Chartier into "stupid people" who "got what they deserved?"
I love my Garmin c340 GPS unit. I've bragged about it. I've sold them to friends and MadeByMark.com readers. I'm what marketing theorists call an Enthusiastic Customer Evangelist -- someone who is passionate enough about a product to yammer on and on about it in public without being paid to do so.
Step Two: Creating Context Lists
The first step in setting up a StickyGTD system is to create a Projects folder.
