Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Dave who wrote (28146)	2/3/2005 4:03:15 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 90947

lol

To: SI Dave who wrote (28146)	2/3/2005 7:30:44 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I owe you an apology. I extrapolated from "Don't do that any more" to "termination". Let me explain my view of this problem a little further. You find a post by someone and link it in a post you make. That post contains what they regard as private information. It doesn't have to be their name; it can be the town they live in, their employer, their mother's maiden name, whatever. It may not even occur to you that it's "private information"; they posted it on a public bulletin board, how private can it be? But they see it and complain to you. You issue a warning to the person. Then it happens again with another post written by another person with different information. This time you get suspended. And a third time you link a post and blow it. The boot. The situation created is impossible. You must decide to never again include an SI link or put yourself at risk. That's exactly what one person has said they will do. While the danger is greater with advanced search, it is hardly limited to that. Someone can just have changed their handle, going from their real name which they signed their posts with to an alias and you don't know it. You find and post one of the old ones with the real name. You just blew it without using search and without knowing it. I asked if their was a time limit past which posts were radioactive and got no answer. One suggestion I received was to replace the name with "X" or "XXXXXX XXXXXXX". You are now subject to the "You edited the post!" and "You made the whole thing up!" charges or the person can say "I never said that!" (true, because it's been edited) and you have to produce the link to defend yourself. And you are wide open again! Now again, the only ways out I see are the Momma Jill approach or "Once you post it, it's public domain and available forever". Otherwise, from my POV, the rules are arbitrary, capricious, and subject to Admin's whim and dependent on who you offended. (In this case X, probably with coug's involvement. OTOH, those people claim to be so offended by this thread that they pay it no attention. How, then, did they know that post was there?) This is like having a highway where the speed limit changes randomly and only the cops know what it is at any time. I'm not seeking perfection. I'm just seeking clear rules that I can apply and use myself. One of the hallmarks of good law is it is clear enough that an average person can know which side they are on at any given time. We don't have that.

To: SI Dave who wrote (28146)	3/1/2005 3:55:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Did the post have the data that was considered a TOU violation or was it just a link to the data? If it was just a link and the personal data was posted by a third party than the original post should be deleted as it was a TOU violation. If it was a link and the post was by the user who's data was revealed than it is a problem of the user who revealed their data. I'm not sure how even a quote with the link would really be a TOU violation. Its not "invasive of another's privacy" if the user posts publicly revealing their own information in a still available post, but I suppose a really strict interpretation of the TOU would disallow quoting the private info. But a link to the user's own post should be allowed. If it is done for no other reason than to reveal the private info it would be obnoxious but apparently that was not the case here. Tim