Privacy on Boards

hullaballoo

Ballooba, if you attempt to out that person again, I will have to site-ban you until the admins make a decision on the policy.

ballooba

Well, all I wanted was to hear a few opinions. People obviously feel vested interests don't need to be disclosed. That is all I was looking for.

WRT to the charter being written in stone and mods opinions being above criticism. That is a bit conceited now in all fairness.

I won't even begin to comment on them claiming to have a better insight to what a poster is thinking than that poster themselves. :eek: Boards.ie infiltrates your brain (Don't worry, i'm not going to go conspiracy theorist like usual Feedback forum posters ).

Hagar wrote:

@ ballooba Are you prepared to publish your real name and the company you work for?

I have no problem declaring any vested interests I have. In fact, I always do. My username was actually my company name when I started posting here. Other than that, I don't feel it's particularly relevant.

RuggieBear

mr_angry wrote:

TBH, I disagree entirely here Ruggie. I think that when you start publishing opinion on the Internet, you have to accept that people are entitled to investigate that opinion, including who you are and what you do. As far as I am aware (and this is purely from a lay-person's point of view), there is no legal obstacle to you investigating the identity of someone who has published such information. I would say that its fair game, and that previous Boards incidents (e.g. Glenstal) show a distinct precendence in favour of that.

Feel free to correct / challenge me on that.

oh i'd absolutely agree with you that you open yourself up to being identified on boards simply by posting and there is no such thing as real anonymity on the net . But i don't think that gives others the right to publish your name and/or address should they be able to find it. I would argue that it is not fair game at all.

My understanding of the glenstal incident was that the owners of the site went after the troublemaker but never published his actual name (I could be very wrong):)

perhaps my opinion is a little half thought out.

copacetic

ballooba wrote:

Imagine we had representatives from every interest group on here posting as uninterested.

INO, HSE, INTO, SIPTU, TGWU, ESB etc.

Incidentally, I have no doubt that senior trade union officials do post here.

I see your point on some of the possibilities but don't see how you could possibly police it. Only people who want to follow the rules would be affected and not the shills you are worried about?

It also causes me an issue personally, I (like many boardsies I'm sure) work for a public sector company. One that would be discussed a lot on boards. In general the opinions expressed on boards on this body would be entirely negative and terribly ill informed. Usually I'll try not to get sucked in to threads but the odd time I will. I don't feel the need to outline who I work for before I post, my opinions would obviously outline me as sympathetic to this organisation which is enough in my opinion.

It could cause me difficulties with my employer if I was 'outed' as posting on boards on the subject of my employer especially if someone implied I was somehow speaking for them.

In my case do you feel I need to declare who I work for before I can post in a thread relating to them?

Also what about the case where people claim to work for a company when it appears very unlikely that they do? The reverse shill if you will?

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

WRT to the charter being written in stone

I said that bit

and mods opinions being above criticism.

I didn't say that bit.

That is a bit conceited now in all fairness.

It would be if thats what I said,I didn't.


Let me make it as clear as I can possibly make it.
The guidelines for posting sticky in politics is the charter.

It specefically prohibits personal attacks on posters there which is clearly what you were doing and is defacto what you attempted to re do here having been banned from politics after you tried to do so there.

As regards your question about outing,I'd agree with hullabalú that a call on that is ultimately with the admins.
However as it stands your episode today is reason enough for the mods of politics to take the action there that they did.

mr_angry

RuggieBear wrote:

oh i'd absolutely agree with you that you open yourself up to being identified on boards simply by posting and there is no such thing as real anonymity on the net . But i don't think that gives others the right to publish your name and/or address should they be able to find it. I would argue that it is not fair game at all.

My understanding of the glenstal incident was that the owners of the site went after the troublemaker but never published his actual name (I could be very wrong):)

perhaps my opinion is a little half thought out.

Well, its been a while since I read the original Glenstal thread, but IIRC, the person's real name, and the contact details for the istitution he was posting from were 'outed' on the thread by DeVore.

I realise from Seamus' post above that the Data Protection Act prevents Boards as an entity from giving out information originally supplied in confidence by the user, but I don't believe there is any obstacle to another user doing their own detective work and posting the results on-site. Then again, it may just be considered 'undesirable' by the moderators. Thats a different story though.

I think site-wide bans justified by the lack of a policy on the topic are going a bit far.

mr_angry

copacetic wrote:

It could cause me difficulties with my employer if I was 'outed' as posting on boards on the subject of my employer especially if someone implied I was somehow speaking for them.

If your employer doesn't already have a written policy on employee blogging / company posting, then you should probably encourage them to write one, or at the very least, you should talk to your manager about potential dangers in commenting on the organisation before doing so. If you choose to go ahead without doing so, you knowingly do it at your own risk.

gandalf

mr_angry tbh I think DeVore has the right to out someone if he wants, he is the owner of the site and would be legally responsible for any action taken.

As regarding a site ban I wouldn't want that myself as I believe ballooba's intentions are geniune but misguided.

I await an admins opinion on this with baited breathe though

ballooba

Tristrame wrote:

I said that bit I didn't say that bit. It would be if thats what I said,I didn't.

I never said you did say it. The charter is written by the mods based on their judgement/'esteemed' opinion. It follows then that if the charter is written in stone, that the opinions of the mods are above criticism. It is highly conceited view to have of one's abilities or views.

Tristrame wrote:

Let me make it as clear as I can possibly make it.
The guidelines for posting sticky in politics is the charter.

I know it is. I am arguing that it should be changed. I thought I made that clear.

Tristrame wrote:

However as it stands your episode today is reason enough for the mods of politics to take the action there that they did.

I never argued that I shouldn't be banned.

Tristrame wrote:

It specefically prohibits personal attacks on posters there which is clearly what you were doing and is defacto what you attempted to re do here having been banned from politics after you tried to do so there.

Again, that would be an opinion. One which you are entitled to have. As long as you do not try and express it as fact.

Tristrame wrote:

As regards your question about outing,I'd agree with hullabalú that a call on that is ultimately with the admins.

I'd like to hear what the admins think. The above sounds fair enough. The next time I feel like outing someone I might be a little less trigger happy. It would be nice if there were a protocol.

Edited:Spelling.

copacetic

mr_angry wrote:

If your employer doesn't already have a written policy on employee blogging / company posting, then you should probably encourage them to write one, or at the very least, you should talk to your manager about potential dangers in commenting on the organisation before doing so. If you choose to go ahead without doing so, you knowingly do it at your own risk.

So you are saying if you know who I work for you are perfectly entitled to 'out' me?

ballooba

gandalf wrote:

As regarding a site ban I wouldn't want that myself as I believe ballooba's intentions are geniune but misguided.

It would a bit disappointing to be denied the potential to reach Bubbles type cult status. Not that I aspire to that or anything.

copacetic wrote:

So you are saying if you know who I work for you are perfectly entitled to 'out' me?

I think he's more so saying that you should protect yourself from any potential upsets. You don't get insurance on a car because you intend to crash it.

gandalf

Compared to bubbles you are just an amature :P

ballooba

gandalf wrote:

Compared to bubbles you are just an amature :P

To compare myself to such greatness* would indeed be conceited.

*joke!

copacetic

ballooba wrote:

I think he's more so saying that you should protect yourself from any potential upsets. You don't get insurance on a car because you intend to crash it.

There is very little you can do to protect or insure yourself in these cases except never posting on boards! I feel that I post on boards as an individual but there is always a case to be made you represent the organisation you work for. Policies etc on this stuff aren't worth the paper they are written on as many of you would know I'm sure.

If someone attempted to 'out' me as an employee of a certain company I would be more than a bit upset about it. Whether the likes of Mr. Angry thought I had taken the risk and deserved what I got doesn't mean much to me. Am I nuts on this?

RuggieBear

mr_angry wrote:

Well, its been a while since I read the original Glenstal thread, but IIRC, the person's real name, and the contact details for the istitution he was posting from were 'outed' on the thread by DeVore.

is this it?

ballooba

copacetic wrote:

Policies etc on this stuff aren't worth the paper they are written on as many of you would know I'm sure.

It is perfectly reasonable for companies to have policies on when an employee is representing the company and when they are not. If only for practicalities like contract law, when does a person have agency to make a contract.

Can they make contracts from a private email address? Can the company be held liable for offensive material coming from a company email address? Things like that need to be made clear to protect employer and employee.

mr_angry

RuggieBear wrote:

is this it?

Ah, apparently its not quite as "out" as I thought it was (although it does little to protect the identity of the poster in question, and bears quite a bit of similarity to the topic at hand).

copacetic wrote:

So you are saying if you know who I work for you are perfectly entitled to 'out' me?

Pretty much, yes. While I reckon it might be morally reprehensible, I don't think there's any legal obstacle to me doing so, and depending on the context, as you've pointed out, there could be implications for you.

ballooba

mr_angry wrote:

Ah, apparently its not quite as "out" as I thought it was (although it does little to protect the identity of the poster in question, and bears quite a bit of similarity to the topic at hand).

It gives the person's surname, initial and what school they attend. I'm assuming this was the only information available.

homah_7ft

It's up to everyone posting on the web to decide what information they want to disclose. No one outed anyone as such. They just read what was posted elsewhere. People have been fired over blogs and the like. The question posed to the admins is not really a legal one but more of a site management one. It could have a chilling effect if people were to feel their position and name were attached to their posts on this board. That said, in my opinion the original poster (Ballooba) doesn't deserve a site ban because I feel what they did was done with the best of intentions and without contravening existing site rules.

Sangre

the glenstal incident was a blatent breach of the data protection act.

RuggieBear

Sangre wrote:

the glenstal incident was a blatent breach of the data protection act.

i was thinking that but then again was the DP act (in its current form) around back then?

aidan_walsh

RuggieBear wrote:

i was thinking that but then again was the DP act (in its current form) around back then?

First DPA was 1988, only revision was 2003 as suggested by dataprotection.ie.

copacetic

mr_angry wrote:

Pretty much, yes. While I reckon it might be morally reprehensible, I don't think there's any legal obstacle to me doing so, and depending on the context, as you've pointed out, there could be implications for you.

Possibly not for you, but surely there could be legal implications for boards? Hypothetically, you trace who I am and post it on boards for all to see, my employer takes action against me and I lose my job. It wouldn't be a stretch to see legal action as an option. Even if there was no case for boards to answer there would certainly seem to be enough basis at least for the case to get to court?

Now I realise that the above is an unlikely set of circumstances but do you understand where I am coming from?

ballooba

I'm guessing this one is complicated.

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

I never said you did say it. The charter is written by the mods based on their judgement/'esteemed' opinion. It follows then that if the charter is written in stone, that the opinions of the mods are above criticism. It is highly conceited view to have of one's abilities or views.

Well it was scribed by bonkey probably with the input of the mods at that time which was before my time.Our opinion is based on experience but is most definitely not above criticism.The value of the criticism will stand or fall on it's own worth and the case if any that there is as always.

I know it is. I am arguing that it should be changed. I thought I made that clear.

You didn't.
But I'll give my opinion.I'm not in favour of your argument on this issue.

Again, that would be an opinion. One which you are entitled to have. As long as you do not try and express it as fact.

It is a fact that you tried to "out" the user here is it not.
Secondly it is a fact that you pm'ed me that you didn't care about being banned as long as your primary purpose was achieved ie the "outing" of this user.
My opinion as to the purpose of this thread is based on fact.

I'd like to hear what the admins think. The above sounds fair enough. The next time I feel like outing someone I might be a little less trigger happy. It would be nice if there were a protocol.

There is already.You report the post and the mod of the forum takes a view as to whether you have a legitimate complaint or not.

If the admins want all party hacks to declare first and foremost that they are party hacks,I'll go along with them.
I see no need for it though.Posters on the politics board as it stands have the cop on to identify posts blindly following a particular position and are well able to tackle the posts.
Thats all part of the crack to be honest.

ballooba

copacetic wrote:

It wouldn't be a stretch to see legal action as an option.

As far as I am aware there is no privacy leglislation in this country. McD has talked about it, but never implemented it. WRT defamation, if the statement is true, then there is no problem.

Sangre

copacetic wrote:

Possibly not for you, but surely there could be legal implications for boards? Hypothetically, you trace who I am and post it on boards for all to see, my employer takes action against me and I lose my job. It wouldn't be a stretch to see legal action as an option. Even if there was no case for boards to answer there would certainly seem to be enough basis at least for the case to get to court?

Now I realise that the above is an unlikely set of circumstances but do you understand where I am coming from?

Anything can get to court. Unlikely it would get past a preliminary hearing. There is no basis for an action.

There's a privacy bill going through the houses atm, don't think it has any relevance hear. Its more to do with spying, taking photos etc afaik. There is no legal right to privacy though.

DeVore

I have no problem in having a "chilling effect" on outright shills. They are, unfortunately, unconcerned for the most part because their employers have PAID them to shill on their behalf. If anything the boss would see it as a commendation that the shill has been doing his job.

There are three kinds of "shills" and we should be aware of their individual needs and nature.

1. The Univershill: That is a professional shill who gets no sympathy for it whatsoever. My greatest regret of recent years is that my life is too busy to beat each one of them to a pulp in real life.

Action: beat them with sticks until they plead for mercy. Then beat them more.

2. The Accidental Shillist: The person who happens to work for a company related to the topic and hasnt realised that they need to not shill by accident.

Action: Mod should PM the user, ask them if they work for an interested company. Explain the rules to them. Tell them not to post in favour of their company or products and explain that severe repercussions will occur if they attempt to deceive our users.

3. The Opportunishill: This is a person who works for a company and "comes up with" the cracking idea of pretending to be a poor lost customer who only wants to "share" their brilliant find with everyone.

Action: This depends on the level of deception. I think such companies deserve to be outed. The specific person (or any detailed DPA info) should *not* be given but certainly the public and our users need to be alerted to the fact that they are essentially being conned by a company who doesnt have enough belief in itself to allow its products stand on their own.

They are deceitful and fraudulent people/companies and we need to fly them into the nearest sun.

I may have stronger views on this then other admins but this is how I see things.

DeV.

copacetic

Sangre wrote:

Anything can get to court. Unlikely it would get past a preliminary hearing. There is no basis for an action.

well possibly, possibly not. Surely you would at least get to the stage of boards having to prove whatever was stated on the site was true?

Either way, my main point was that in such a situation boards could easily end up under legal action. Which seems a big risk to take just so members can publish private details of posters. Especially since there are little or no benefits to any discussion anyway.

ballooba

Tristrame wrote:

The value of the criticism will stand or fall on it's own worth and the case if any that there is as always.

So the charter is not written in stone then.

Tristrame wrote:

But I'll give my opinion.I'm not in favour of your argument on this issue.

A perfectly valid opinion.

Tristrame wrote:

It is a fact that you tried to "out" the user here is it not.

On the initial thread, not this one.

Tristrame wrote:

Secondly it is a fact that you pm'ed me that you didn't care about being banned as long as your primary purpose was achieved ie the "outing" of this user.

That is correct. I didn't expect to be banned, but if that is the outcome then come what may.

Tristrame wrote:

My opinion as to the purpose of this thread is based on fact.

AKA Conjecture, based on limited information. Generalisation if you may.

Tristrame wrote:

There is already.You report the post and the mod of the forum takes a view as to whether you have a legitimate complaint or not.

Ah come on now. Your interpretation of the rules first of all is a bit of a stretch (yes, I am choosing to argue that item now). Now you are saying that the report post button should be used to report a questionable user, even though there is no single questionable post as such.

Tristrame wrote:

I see no need for it though.Posters on the politics board as it stands have the cop on to identify posts blindly following a particular position and are well able to tackle the posts.
Thats all part of the crack to be honest.

There is a difference when someone is getting paid.