Privacy on Boards

Sangre

copacetic wrote:

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.

Well no, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the comment was untrue.

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

So the charter is not written in stone then.

I don't see any part of it being deleted.

A perfectly valid opinion.

On the initial thread, not this one.

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

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

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.

So you attempting to out someone in a politics thread-Quickly followed aprés banning by this thread where you try to do the same and in between a pm to me saying you are glad to have the ban because you outed the poster...
So those 3 things don't add up to your motive for this thread being to continue the "outing"....

Yeah right.

There is a difference when someone is getting paid.

Thats an accusation you can prove right?

copacetic

Sangre wrote:

Well no, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the comment was untrue.

really? I don't believe that

"Only a false statement is actionable. But defamation differs from other torts in that a statement will be presumed to be defamatory until proved otherwise. If a defendant wishes to plead justification as a defence, he has to prove the truth of the statement. It is not up to the complainant to prove that the original statement was false."

hullaballoo

That's about right, as far as I'm aware. Generally speaking, the plaintiff shoulders the burden of proof. Here, the standard is lowered to establishing a case from first principles (i.e., that the statement was defamatory).

Then, if using the defence of justification, the defendant has to prove it was correct.

P.S. It's been a while since I've looked at this, but that's my general understanding.

DeVore

IANAL.... but thats my understanding of it too.

The libel/slander laws of this country do not run as most people think they "must". If I hear another person start a sentence on the topic with "Surely..." I will scream.


DeV.

Boston

Sorry their is too much crap being posted in this thread by ballooba having a go. This seems like a fairly serious policy issue here and I'm finding it difficult to extract the salient facts and arguments from all the background noise of ballooba being a prissy little ...


DeVore, from my reading of what you've outlined there, I and others, would have to out who we are and who we work for to post on a lot of the technical forums. For instance, I've recently how some secondary experience of a different side of Comreg, and have taken to expressing the view that they aren't the useless shower of fuks we know and love, on certain forums. I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable going into the details of the circumstances surrounding this change in heart.

copacetic

DeVore wrote:

IANAL.... but thats my understanding of it too.

The libel/slander laws of this country do not run as most people think they "must". If I hear another person start a sentence on the topic with "Surely..." I will scream.


DeV.

but Shirley I have to disagree. The burden isn't on the plantiff unless claiming that they have undergone damage as the result of the statement in a slander action. In a defamation action as I said above a statement will be presumed to be defamatory until proved otherwise by the defendant.

Now IANAL either, but have been involved remotely with some such cases and that was my pretty clear understanding.

As Boston said, if boards now has a position where it is ok to out who people are and who they work for then I (and I assume a lot of other posters) could be in a difficult position.

DeVore

I dont believe that Boards being used by someone to "out" a poster truthfully and correctly could put us in a difficult position. We cannot publish DPA protected information (and we dont) but no one should be concerned about telling the truth or publishing it.

DeV.

gandalf

Tom I appreciate where you are coming from but in this case because Mr X (oh god I have been dying to call him that) works for Minister Y shouldn't mean he has to declare that on the forum.

As Tristrame has stated he has not come to our attention as a shill and you know me I have a good nose for sniffing out troublemakers (VOTE Gandy for S-Mod for a secure boards!).

RuggieBear

Does it also mean that Ballaboo has done nothing wrong then?

hullaballoo

copacetic wrote:

but Shirley I have to disagree. The burden isn't on the plantiff unless claiming that they have undergone damage as the result of the statement in a slander action. In a defamation action as I said above a statement will be presumed to be defamatory until proved otherwise by the defendant.

Now IANAL either, but have been involved remotely with some such cases and that was my pretty clear understanding.

As Boston said, if boards now has a position where it is ok to out who people are and who they work for then I (and I assume a lot of other posters) could be in a difficult position.

You do realise I was agreeing with you, right?

Your analysis isn't perfect, however. The plaintiff will always have to establish his case. So there's no presumption that the statement is defamatory. If it casts the plaintiff in a negative light, then a presumption might arise, but not otherwise. E.g., I could say, "copacetic doesn't know anything" - and that's probably defamatory.

If it subsequently turns out that the context was "copacetic doesn't know anything about the intricacies of Historical Jurisprudence", then that isn't so obviously defamatory.

Yet again, if it turns out that you're an esteemed jurist, it might be.

You'll have to establish these things before you have a case, as plaintiff.

Edit: apologies for the off-topicness. I know there's a forum for this kind of thing (funnily enough).

copacetic

hullaball&#250 wrote:

You do realise I was agreeing with you, right?

Your analysis isn't perfect, however. The plaintiff will always have to establish his case. So there's no presumption that the statement is defamatory. If it casts the plaintiff in a negative light, then a presumption might arise, but not otherwise. E.g., I could say, "copacetic doesn't know anything" - and that's probably defamatory.

If it subsequently turns out that the context was "copacetic doesn't know anything about the intricacies of Historical Jurisprudence", then that isn't so obviously defamatory.

Yet again, if it turns out that you're an esteemed jurist, it might be.

You'll have to establish these things before you have a case, as plaintiff.

Edit: apologies for the off-topicness. I know there's a forum for this kind of thing (funnily enough).

actually I didn't realise you were agreeing with me, people seldom do so I was caught out! I thought you were agreeing with Sangre.

Agree with your analysis though, that 'right thinking people' have to believe the statements to be defamatory, but if you get though that hurdle the statements are presumed to be untrue unless the defendant proves otherwise. In theory I might have trouble making my case on either of the above statements!

However if someone were to state on boards, copacetic knows nothing about electronics and works for ESB and his name is Tom Thumb. I'd prob have a case imo.

I'm not at all sure about this policy direction tbh. As noted above if thats the policy the OP should have his ban cancelled and the thread should be put back up.

Boston

DeVore wrote:

I dont believe that Boards being used by someone to "out" a poster truthfully and correctly could put us in a difficult position. We cannot publish DPA protected information (and we dont) but no one should be concerned about telling the truth or publishing it.

DeV.

Sorry but before this thread is derailed completely into the realms of legalise and what if's and counter what if's, what is the general policy on declaring vested interests? I'm sorry if you've already outlined it and I missed it.

Time Magazine

DeVore wrote:

We cannot publish DPA protected information (and we dont) but no one should be concerned about telling the truth or publishing it.

IMO outing someone's position is good; outing their name is bad.

ballooba

Boston wrote:

Sorry their is too much crap being posted in this thread by ballooba having a go. This seems like a fairly serious policy issue here and I'm finding it difficult to extract the salient facts and arguments from all the background noise of ballooba being a prissy little ...

Can you see why I might find the above offensive? I have been a member of this community for a long time. I get a lot out of it and I put a lot in. I didn't come on here with righteous indignation and start shouting the place down. I have made a case which you and others have obviously seen merit in given that you wrote the text which I have underlined. the only reason you might have made the above remarks is because I challenged what I saw as Tristrame being conceited.

WRT to the whole purpose of this thread allegedly being for me to out this particular person. I'm not going to answer any more remarks on this. I have mentioned vested interests on the politics board before because it has come up there before. There was a bit of a discussion about it. Today's example had particularly strong elements to it, hence why matters came to a head.

Boston wrote:

little

That's actually pretty funny, because little is the last word anyone would use to describe me. In any sense of the word.

mr_angry

copacetic wrote:

However if someone were to state on boards, copacetic knows nothing about electronics and works for ESB and his name is Tom Thumb. I'd prob have a case imo.

Lets remove part of this sentence though, and get to the heart of the issue. If someone instead says "copacetic works for ESB and his name is Tom Thumb", where does that leave things? The statement is essentially truthful, and Boards as an entity has not breached any of the DPA. Quite simply, there is no case to answer from Boards perspective, and other posters reading the topic are free to draw their own conclusions on whether the outed poster has a vested interest. Again, while this may be a morally dubious road for the investigative person to take, its perfectly legitimate. Welcome to the Internet.

Ibid wrote:

IMO outing someone's position is good; outing their name is bad.

Again, morally that is correct, but legally, I can't see any obstacle to doing so.

Time Magazine

mr_angry wrote:

Again, morally that is correct, but legally, I can't see any obstacle to doing so.

I speaking in ethical terms.

It's also probably safer from a legal POV.

ballooba

Ibid wrote:

IMO outing someone's position is good; outing their name is bad.

In my particular case, I can't see how the two could have been seperated. I would have had to be incredibly cryptic.

DeVore

gandalf wrote:

Tom I appreciate where you are coming from but in this case because Mr X (oh god I have been dying to call him that) works for Minister Y shouldn't mean he has to declare that on the forum.

As Tristrame has stated he has not come to our attention as a shill and you know me I have a good nose for sniffing out troublemakers (VOTE Gandy for S-Mod for a secure boards!).

If he is trying to sway public opinion in favour of Minister Y and pretending to be a "member of the public" then I take a very dim view of it.

If he says "hey, I work for the currently government, just so you know" then anything after that is said in full light of disclosure (he doesnt always have to say it, just so long as he says it at the start).

Boston I'd rather people didnt go outing others, bring it to the mods attention and let us deal with it and decide a reasonable resolution.

DeV.

ps: Boston, another outburst like that and you will find yourself out of feedback for 3 months.

homah_7ft

DeVore wrote:

If he is trying to sway public opinion in favour of Minister Y and pretending to be a "member of the public" then I take a very dim view of it.

If he says "hey, I work for the currently government, just so you know" then anything after that is said in full light of disclosure (he doesnt always have to say it, just so long as he says it at the start).

Boston I'd rather people didnt go outing others, bring it to the mods attention and let us deal with it and decide a reasonable resolution.

That seems to be a reasonable way to deal with it.

ballooba

What happened the vested interests thread in UCD forum?

I presume the idea there was that if you had a vested interest in the SU that you would post in the vested interest thread. There would be then no barrier to reminding people of vested interests outlined in that thread. Also, if vested interests were not disclosed it would be open to scrutiny why they weren't.

copacetic

mr_angry wrote:

Lets remove part of this sentence though, and get to the heart of the issue. If someone instead says "copacetic works for ESB and his name is Tom Thumb", where does that leave things? The statement is essentially truthful, and Boards as an entity has not breached any of the DPA. Quite simply, there is no case to answer from Boards perspective, and other posters reading the topic are free to draw their own conclusions on whether the outed poster has a vested interest. Again, while this may be a morally dubious road for the investigative person to take, its perfectly legitimate. Welcome to the Internet.

I get where you are coming from, but say one person says the above in one thread. You are bound to be able to find one in another thread that says 'copacetic knows nothing about electronics/is ghey/is a nutter/is a paranoid idiot/can't spell/ shagged my ma etc etc'. So once outed as Tom Thumb working for ESB there is a case that these other accusations are directly at you as a person that people could identify rather than an internet persona so you would have a case then?

i.e the naming of an individual on one thread, puts greater focus on what has been written about them on boards on other threads.

Now it may be a bit obtuse and off topic but isn't that where this thinking leads us? I'm a quiet enough chap and have still had plenty of disagreements on boards. Others seem to have one every thread, Boston for instance!

randylonghorn

copacetic wrote:

i.e the naming of an individual on one thread, puts greater focus on what has been written about them on boards on other threads.

Aye, or by them.

I do agree that there are fora where those who have a vested interest should have the integrity to admit to it, and that in more serious cases it may be appropriate to challenge them on it if they don't. And shills are low life, and deserve what they get.

But, leaving aside the more serious stuff for a sec, what about the ordinary user? I always presumed that boards policy was that each person had a right to reveal their identity publicly on the internet or not as they chose themselves. (I am assuming here that our "ordinary user" is breaking neither the laws of the land nor the major "laws" of the Boards community).

There are a lot of people like teachers, guards, etc. (I'm neither btw ) who use Boards who would not necessarily appreciate having their RL name associated publicly with every jokey / mischievous / hungover post they have ever made ... for those who are long-term users, in some cases probably dating back to their student days. I wouldn't myself, tbh. I know some people on here personally, and there are more I wouldn't mind getting to know at some stage, might even make it to a beers one of these days! But that's different from having my identity recorded on boards for everyone (including non-boardsies) to read.

Personally, I don't think it's acceptable for an ordinary user to be able to say on Boards "oh, that's X, you know" without that person's permission, and get away with it, no matter how good their motives, and I've been following this thread with interest for that reason.

I think that decision should always be left to the mods and / or admins as appropriate, as DeV. said above. If that were the rule, then it's very easy for the ordinary user to know what to do, and, more importantly, what not to do.

Boston

DeVore wrote:

Boston I'd rather people didnt go outing others, bring it to the mods attention and let us deal with it and decide a reasonable resolution.

DeV.

Still avoiding the question. Is their a policy that people should declare their vested interest on a forum. This is separate from the point about whether or not a user has a right to out another user.

ps: Boston, another outburst like that and you will find yourself out of feedback for 3 months.

I quiet nicely asked you to explain the policy to me, and oultined a scenario to you, you're response was that boards should be grand from a legal point of view. That wasn't want I asked. Between all the arguements about legalities and copacetic rages against Tristames conceits you've somehow managed not to address the actual point raised. It is quiet obvious their is now confusion surrounding this, and abit of leadership wouldn't go a miss.

Mosts Admins, and a fair fews moderators have vested interests in boards.ie and the forums they contribute in. Now you've been fairly open about the work you've done in the past for the likes of paddypowers (unless I'm mis-remembering) would you feel that in other to post on the poker forum you should declare you're previous history (persuming thye didn't know) to the moderators or members of that forum? If not why not, if so why so?

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

My username was actually my company name when I started posting here. Other than that, I don't feel it's particularly relevant.

I don't see a "previous nick" in your profile.
Did you change your username?
If so when? and what was your previous user name?

If not what is this other account that you refer to? Can you confirm that you are not using it to breach an existing politics ban?

This is all in the interests of transparency of course.

I may ask Vincent Browne to drop in later if you fudge this issue.

ballooba

Tristrame wrote:

I don't see a "previous nick" in your profile.
Did you change your username?
If so when? and what was your previous user name?

No, I have always used this username. The company name was Ballooba.net and some DIT students may remember it. Most won't.

Tristrame wrote:

If not what is this other account that you refer to? Can you confirm that you are not using it to breach an existing politics ban?

Believe it or not, the politics ban has probably helped me avoid failing my exams. I didn't try and circumvent it.

Tristrame wrote:

This is all in the interests of transparency of course.

I may ask Vincent Browne to drop in later if you fudge this issue.

A bit of humour. I like it.

ballooba

BTW, has the person I referred to been using other usernames?

hullaballoo

ballooba wrote:

What happened the vested interests thread in UCD forum?

I presume the idea there was that if you had a vested interest in the SU that you would post in the vested interest thread. There would be then no barrier to reminding people of vested interests outlined in that thread. Also, if vested interests were not disclosed it would be open to scrutiny why they weren't.

The idea was that people were coming into the forum and saying things like "John Smith is doing an excellent job as entz officer dis yr, lol, imo." and things like that. I'd check things out to find that they either were John Smith, or someone working closely with Mr Smith.

So, I made up a rule that you had to post in the SU affiliation thread before you posted in an SU thread, as a reference point for other users. It went for everyone, including people all the regular users knew weren't involved. It was so that if there was a conflict of interest, people would be clear on who was who.

There was a problem with some people going into the thread and saying, "Unaffiliated", only for me to find out that they were actively involved in the SU. The result was an instant perm ban. For people who posted in SU threads without having first posted in the affiliation thread, I would send them a PM to remind them to post. I actually had an excel sheet to do all the checking for me, so it wasn't too hard.

I hope that answers your question.

ballooba

Would it be cheeky to ask if I've been vindicated?

nesf

ballooba wrote:

Would it be cheeky to ask if I've been vindicated?

Honestly, I don't think it's any of your business and you shouldn't be asking and that you should just leave this go.

That or we can discuss how members of Ógra and Young Fine Gael et al are essentially shills and need to be perma-banned.