Beat 4.45.3 -- Re: Resending [Phishing net and international characters]

[Glenn Steen]

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

On 30/08/05, David Lee <t.d.lee at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Denis Beauchemin wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > PS: I've noticed that the 'Web Bug from ' text is hardcoded into Message.pm;
> > How about giving us the chance to translate it into our own language?  In
> > French, I would translate it to: 'Pixel invisible de '.
> 
> The principle (allowing translation) of this text seems decent enough.
> 
> But is Denis's actual translation of this text the most appropriate?
> Julian's phrase is about "bugs in the web", whereas Denis's is about the
> "invisibility of pixels".  Those operate at different conceptual levels
> (whether these instances map onto each other is a secondary issue).
(snip)
> Let's look at them (staying in English for the moment):

What makes you think that exact terminology/semantics survive the
translation boundary? I'm sure it doesn't.
For all I know (which I don't, BTW), Denis might be using the
"consensus term" for "web bug" (note: no mention of the evil
"translation" word;).
Example:
English: "Computer" is "someone/something performing calculations".
French: "Ordinateur" (pardon my french, it's rarely used, so I
probably misspelled it) is "someone/something ordering/organizing
(something)"
Swedish: "Dator" is "someone/something keeping (a record of) data"
But they all denote the beloved machines we dabble with daily. So ...
should we suddenly decide that one of these terms are wrong? Of course
not.... Names just don't translate well that way;-).

> 
> 1. "Web Bug from":  Personally, I have always found that text somewhat
> strange; not immediately obvious to the recipient of the email.  It raises
> the question: "_What_ is a 'web bug'?"
> 
> 2. But Denis's (English-equivalent) "Invisible Pixel from" also feels
> inadequate.  It raises the question for the recipient: "_Why_ is an
> 'invisible pixel' a problem?"

Both are acronymical descriptions of a phenomenon. The only way to
settle this "correctly" would be to reference a FAQ
(http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Marketing/web_bug.html), which would be
both ugly and not necessarily more easily understood by the users.
Note the "Clear GIF" euphemism mentioned in the FAQ. Sweet isn't it:-).
Looking at the FAQ, one could make a rather strong case for "Invisible
pixel" too. Oh well, read on for another angle...

> And in the future, "web bugs" other than "invisible pixels" may emerge
> and need reporting.

If we really care, we shouldn't be bandying too much tech-lingo about,
but rather warn about the risk that has been handled ("Evil tracker
(Web Bug/Clear GIF/Invisible pixel) <URL> found and destroyed":).
Still a bit techy, but more to the point;-).

> Staying in English, i.e. within one langauge, so that we can get the
> semantics sorted out.  Should this text be something like:
>      "Web Bug (invisible pixel) from".

No. See above.

> Then, after that question is resolved, we can begin to think about actual
> translation into other languages (subject to what I believe linguists
> describe as "to translate is to betray", itself an English (from Latin)
> translation (and betrayal!) of much finer-sounding transliteration "to
> translate is to traduce").

Mapping one language to another is never a 1-to-1/onto relationship,
and the "thoughtscape" each language allows differ. So translation is
indeed "to betray the true meaning", since the "true meaning" might
not even be possible to express in the target language;).

> 
> --
> 
> :  David Lee                                I.T. Service          :
> :  Senior Systems Programmer                Computer Centre       :
> :                                           Durham University     :
> :  http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/            South Road            :
> :                                           Durham DH1 3LE        :
> :  Phone: +44 191 334 2752                  U.K.                  :

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the Wiki (http://wiki.mailscanner.info/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!