Disclosure of posters' personal information

by charvaka Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:46 pm

As you all know, this forum has always been run on the principle of no moderation. One of the questions that has come up is how to tackle the disclosure of personal information of posters. I would like to have a discussion about this topic to understand the views of the community. I will state my own views, but at this point I am stating those as a user (rather than as the administrator.) Once we have a good discussion, I will make up my mind as admin, and state the policy that I would like to follow. At some point along this process, if there is sufficient divergence of opinion along specific alternatives, we can take a vote to see where opinion stands. Once we have a policy in place, I will make this a sticky in the Support forum.

For starters, I am uncomfortable with any disclosure of personal information that person in question is not comfortable with others knowing. I can think of the following situations. For each situation, I have included my preferred approach in italics.

1. User discloses their own personal information, but does not want a record of that to be preserved on the site. Forumotion rules require that admin delete that information upon user request. If you disclose something about yourself, and want it deleted, you should send a PM to charvaka (not admin, because I don't login regularly there) requesting that the information be deleted.

2. User A mentions personal information about user B, which user B has herself / himself shared in the past, either on old CH or here. User B does not want user A's post to remain here. I am not sure how to handle this. My inclination is that user B first needs to request that their own original disclosure be deleted (if it was on this forum, not old CH), and admin has to comply with that request. As for user A's post where (s)he repeats that information, it should be settled in the same way situation 3 is handled (see below.) If user B's original self-disclosure was on old CH and that post still stands, I don't know what the basis would be for that information to be deleted here.

3. User A claims to disclose personal information about user B (by referring to them by a name other than handle B, or by referring to their occupation, place they live, or whatever else B has not openly shared before.) User B does not want user A to continue to do that. I am even less sure about this one; the approach I will describe militates against my preference for no moderation. Also, I have serious concerns about my ability to implement this, given the amount of time it will take to perform the moderation consistently. Now the approach: User B can ask admin to delete the information, without having to say whether A's claims about B are true or false. Admin will then delete all posts of A where (s)he purports to disclose B's personal information.

Are there any other situations I am missing? How do you think each of these situations should be handled?

The origins of this discussion here: https://such.forumotion.com/t2707-follow-the-constitution-diggy-raja-urges-hazare#23343. There was also a brief mention on this in chat. Max, if you don't mind, would you please state your views here as well? Thanks.

by Silhouette Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:49 am

OK, here are my views.

If you/SUCH participants disapprove the use of personal information then all posts with personal info. should be deleted irrespective of the source - whether through user A, user B, old CH, or blah. Of course i'm assuming the person whose info was leaked objects and complains to the admin.

I don't really see any merit to the layers 1, 2, 3 etc. but since you asked:

On # 1, you haven't qualified personal information but if it's name, employer info., address, names of spouse/children, etc., I agree that it should be deleted.

On #2, one option is to simply delete it. The other option is to keep it only if that info is still available on old Ch. The first option would be less work and consistent with #1. Also, SUCH is a separate forum from Old Ch and should remain so. On Old Ch, people manufactured a lot of stories that weren't necessarily true.

# 3 is unclear. Did user B disclose the info herself, had it deleted by admin but in the meantime someone latched onto the info and is repeating it? That is similar to #1 so should be deleted.

" There was also a brief mention on this in chat."
hahaha, this is just what happened on old Ch that made it so interesting i.e. the comingling on info on chat and forum. I so look forward to SUCH now.

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:30 am

I wish that instead of an "admin" having to delete posts, the posters show some maturity in this matter. It is okay to have differences, make fun of each other, even abuse each other but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and it should be obvious to any educated, cultured adult.

by charvaka Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:36 am

blabberwock wrote:I wish that instead of an "admin" having to delete posts, the posters show some maturity in this matter. It is okay to have differences, make fun of each other, even abuse each other but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and it should be obvious to any educated, cultured adult.

I completely agree. That would be the best way of avoiding problems.

by charvaka Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:38 am

Silhouette wrote:OK, here are my views.

If you/SUCH participants disapprove the use of personal information then all posts with personal info. should be deleted irrespective of the source - whether through user A, user B, old CH, or blah. Of course i'm assuming the person whose info was leaked objects and complains to the admin.

I don't really see any merit to the layers 1, 2, 3 etc. but since you asked:

On # 1, you haven't qualified personal information but if it's name, employer info., address, names of spouse/children, etc., I agree that it should be deleted.

On #2, one option is to simply delete it. The other option is to keep it only if that info is still available on old Ch. The first option would be less work and consistent with #1. Also, SUCH is a separate forum from Old Ch and should remain so. On Old Ch, people manufactured a lot of stories that weren't necessarily true.

# 3 is unclear. Did user B disclose the info herself, had it deleted by admin but in the meantime someone latched onto the info and is repeating it? That is similar to #1 so should be deleted.

" There was also a brief mention on this in chat."
hahaha, this is just what happened on old Ch that made it so interesting i.e. the comingling on info on chat and forum. I so look forward to SUCH now.

Thanks for your views. I see your point that I may be overcomplicating this. Perhaps the rule can be "if your information is disclosed (or claimed to be disclosed) regardless of who did it, you can choose to complain to admin. Admin will delete the information."

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:47 am

my 2 cents based on the events here and in old ch.

(i) rashmun disclosed his name long ago, voluntarily, in old ch, but when i brought up his name again recently, he confessed that he had disclosed it in a moment of indiscretion. i stopped using his name after that. HA picked it up. when a member has remarked that he is uncomfortable with his name being repeatedly brought up (which rashmun has), then your behaviour borders on obnoxious. we do not have rules for obnoxious conduct here, yet.

(ii) i found luke's name through a glitch in old ch. it was apparent to me that luke did not like my disclosing his name. i do not refer to his name repeatedly. i try not to be obnoxious though nothing prevents me from being obnoxious, yet.

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:51 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:my 2 cents based on the events here and in old ch.

(i) rashmun disclosed his name long ago, voluntarily, but when i brought up his name again recently, he confessed that he had disclosed it in a moment of indiscretion. i stopped using his name after that. HA picked it up. when a member has remarked that he is uncomfortable with his name being repeatedly brought up (which rashmun has), then your behaviour borders on obnoxious. we do not have rules for obnoxious conduct here, yet.

(ii) i found luke's name through a glitch in old ch. it was apparent to me that luke did not like my disclosing his name. i do not refer to his name repeatedly. i try not to be obnoxious though nothing prevents me from being obnoxious, yet.

--> it was not a moment of indiscretion. i had explained that those were days before google was around. you yourself had used your real name on CH in the past at the time i had posted under my real name. you do not use your real name now.

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:53 am

yes, you are right. in those days using one's real name was the sort of protocol then. i don't use my real name now for the same reasons that you don't -- yes.

by artood2 Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:58 am

No personal information please. Delete it when someone complains and ban id on persistent disregard of no personal information rule (banning is always unwanted). BW's honor code is most welcome though expecting it to be unbreached is a stretch.

And get rid of chat archives and if you have to keep them for legal reasons please make it clear.

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:58 am

yes, get rid of chat archives please.

by artood2 Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:04 am

blabberwock wrote:yes, get rid of chat archives please.

I see chat archives as forum killer.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:29 am

i agree with the position that persisting with using someone's
real name after they have objected to it is clearly
beyond the pale. there's just no justification for it.

by Hellsangel Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:36 am

Il Professore, please point to the exact text of the objection.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:47 am

i don't know if rashmun has ever expressly objected to it,
but the exchange between rashmun and kapasi above is sufficient to
convince me that he doesn't like it.

by Another Brick Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:54 am

what's with people and their obsession with others' real names and other personal info? who cares if my real name is vinod gupte, kedar deshpande or sachin kulkarni? who cares if sara bojiji's real name is venkatraman venkataraghavan, venkateshan venkatramani, venkataeswara venkatachalam or venkatkrishnan venkatraj?

by Impedimenta Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:16 am

err? do we need a discussion for this? really? it is basic decency to not talk about personal lives or bring up real names of posters in an online forum. that is all i want to say. gossip, gossip and more gossip...yuck!

this place is starting to not be fun anymore. just saying.

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:31 am

I would say, do what makes sense. If someone requests you to delete some post and it is indeed revealing personal info then delete it.

Regarding chat archiving. Hmm. While archiving is nice to see what you missed. Not archiving will make people reveal MORE info about themselves. And every Cher has a solid memory. Oh boy! I can see what it would lead to, if ff and sulekha is any example.

I am adaptive in nature so I'll go with either option.

But please no anon logging.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:37 am

what abt ppl calling other ppl by weird names that may or maynot be theirs? are the decent people of ch also objecting to that? because that can be beyond decency too.

by Hellsangel Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:38 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:what abt ppl calling other ppl by weird names that may or maynot be theirs? are the decent people of ch also objecting to that? because that can be beyond decency too.

Well said. Agreed 100%.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:44 am

well no, they wont protest behavior by their respective idols.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:46 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:yes, you are right. in those days using one's real name was the sort of protocol then. i don't use my real name now for the same reasons that you don't -- yes.

Oh really?.... I have been on the net since 1990 or so... and I have always been 280# and a high school dropout, and not to mention use only my real name....Saamiyaar.

I learnt the lesson very early when some Person A in my office used misfired emails from Person B to cause some minor chaos. Net was/is/will be a dangerous world, and all it takes is to upset some lunatic who will not hesitate to drag one's family, female members, profession, qualifications and hurt the person behind the keyboard - bcz after a while all handles become pseudo real and their words do hurt.

Prevention is better than cure.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:49 am

blabberwock wrote:yes, get rid of chat archives please.

Trust me.... our secrets are safe - my primero Disciplee..... Wink

by charvaka Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:16 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:what abt ppl calling other ppl by weird names that may or maynot be theirs? are the decent people of ch also objecting to that? because that can be beyond decency too.

This is a good point. Whatever we come up with would apply as much to HA calling Luke (name removed) or whatever, as it does to Luke calling Prop Sandeep Seetharamayya.

by CroMagnon Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:38 pm

I would prefer a moderated forum with clear guidelines as to what is acceptable behavior. Moderated forums are more civilized.

Like.on certain Orkut forums we had strict guidelines against personal attacks, spam and use of any name other than the chosen handle. Offending posts were deleted and posters warned. Repeat offenders were banned.

This kind of active moderation will require multiple moderators, but is something I prefer. In the absence of complete moderation, i would prefer no moderation at all except when a poster requests his own post to be deleted.

by artood2 Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:16 pm

charvaka wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:what abt ppl calling other ppl by weird names that may or maynot be theirs? are the decent people of ch also objecting to that? because that can be beyond decency too.
This is a good point. Whatever we come up with would apply as much to HA calling Luke (name removed) or whatever, as it does to Luke calling Prop Sandeep Seetharamayya.

Real names can have implications in life beyond feeling bad at being receiving end of abuse. While weird names are not civilized their impact is far less damaging.

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:20 pm

artood2 wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:what abt ppl calling other ppl by weird names that may or maynot be theirs? are the decent people of ch also objecting to that? because that can be beyond decency too.
This is a good point. Whatever we come up with would apply as much to HA calling Luke (name removed) or whatever, as it does to Luke calling Prop Sandeep Seetharamayya.

Real names can have implications in life beyond feeling bad at being receiving end of abuse. While weird names are not civilized their impact is far less damaging.

--> agree completely.

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:09 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
blabberwock wrote:yes, get rid of chat archives please.

Trust me.... our secrets are safe - my primero Disciplee.....

Eh? What are you smoking, MS?

by Silhouette Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:22 pm

charvaka wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:what abt ppl calling other ppl by weird names that may or maynot be theirs? are the decent people of ch also objecting to that? because that can be beyond decency too.
This is a good point. Whatever we come up with would apply as much to HA calling Luke (name removed) or whatever, as it does to Luke calling Prop Sandeep Seetharamayya.

but wouldn't that be a bit hard for you to monitor? you'd have to make value judgment on what qualifies as offensive. for instance, what about maxipad, rashmuni, queer bee etc?

by confuzzled dude Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:33 pm

blabberwock wrote:I wish that instead of an "admin" having to delete posts, the posters show some maturity in this matter. It is okay to have differences, make fun of each other, even abuse each other but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and it should be obvious to any educated, cultured adult.

Hmmm! It's impossible on a forum where 40 years old(s) routinely act like 4 year old kids, and specially on a forum where many active posters feel, acting decently diminishes forum's entertainment value.

by charvaka Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:01 pm

Silhouette wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:what abt ppl calling other ppl by weird names that may or maynot be theirs? are the decent people of ch also objecting to that? because that can be beyond decency too.
This is a good point. Whatever we come up with would apply as much to HA calling Luke (name removed) or whatever, as it does to Luke calling Prop Sandeep Seetharamayya.

but wouldn't that be a bit hard for you to monitor? you'd have to make value judgment on what qualifies as offensive. for instance, what about maxipad, rashmuni, queer bee etc?

It is, and I certainly want to leave my value judgements as a user out of the admin process. That is what makes this so hard.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:08 pm

i think you are treading on thin ice making such value judgments.
name calling especially if it is based on interactions that occur on this
board cannot cause any real harm outside this board, but
disclosing personal details certainly can. it's the only thing you
can and IMO should realistically police.

edited to add: also you shouldn't be so afraid to step in and use
your judgment as an admin to do something. you took the initiative,
and we trust you to do the right thing. not everything needs to be
subject to a vote and a survey. like they say, it is sometimes hard
to define what pornography is, but you'll know it when you see it.
we (or rather i) trust you to do the right thing without having to
subject every little thing to a vote.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:25 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
blabberwock wrote:I wish that instead of an "admin" having to delete posts, the posters show some maturity in this matter. It is okay to have differences, make fun of each other, even abuse each other but there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed and it should be obvious to any educated, cultured adult.

Hmmm! It's impossible on a forum where 40 years old(s) routinely act like 4 year old kids, and specially on a forum where many active posters feel, acting decently diminishes forum's entertainment value.

I think Carvaka should define "behavioral guidelines" for each group, so that no one crosses the guidelines and invite the wrath.

He should start discussion by starting a new thread....

P.S. I did not know that 4 yr olds indulged in forum discussions....hm.... this will be a tougher task for carvaka...er... Admin.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:37 pm

blabberwock wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
blabberwock wrote:yes, get rid of chat archives please.

Trust me.... our secrets are safe - my primero Disciplee.....

Eh? What are you smoking, MS?

Aaandava....ok... what I meant was what is the big deal about deleting the Chat archive ? There is no pvt rooms here. Even if there are...perhaps a couple of male (in a female handle) and a female (in a male handle)might have discussed something interesting for them..... how is it going to be any different from posts that reveal personal details and names/addresses.

P.S. I vaguely remember fighting with someone on sticking in a 4-yr old type comment in the middle of a 80-yr old type thread.... make it 2 people (one I remembered), and the other was it you ? who remembers? All I remember is the list of 3-strikers.

by Silhouette Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:39 pm

charvaka wrote:
Silhouette wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:what abt ppl calling other ppl by weird names that may or maynot be theirs? are the decent people of ch also objecting to that? because that can be beyond decency too.
This is a good point. Whatever we come up with would apply as much to HA calling Luke (name removed) or whatever, as it does to Luke calling Prop Sandeep Seetharamayya.

but wouldn't that be a bit hard for you to monitor? you'd have to make value judgment on what qualifies as offensive. for instance, what about maxipad, rashmuni, queer bee etc?
It is, and I certainly want to leave my value judgements as a user out of the admin process. That is what makes this so hard.

I dont see why. In the past you've always advocated for least restrictive moderation so just stick to that and adopt only the necessary measures.

by Guest Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:47 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
blabberwock wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
blabberwock wrote:yes, get rid of chat archives please.

Trust me.... our secrets are safe - my primero Disciplee.....

Eh? What are you smoking, MS?

Aaandava....ok... what I meant was what is the big deal about deleting the Chat archive ? There is no pvt rooms here. Even if there are...perhaps a couple of male (in a female handle) and a female (in a male handle)might have discussed something interesting for them..... how is it going to be any different from posts that reveal personal details and names/addresses.

P.S. I vaguely remember fighting with someone on sticking in a 4-yr old type comment in the middle of a 80-yr old type thread.... make it 2 people (one I remembered), and the other was it you ? who remembers? All I remember is the list of 3-strikers.

Not a big deal - it was just a suggestion.

No, I don't recall "fighting" with you. I have questioned the veracity of some of your tales involving women from your work place.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:30 am

blabberwock wrote:

Not a big deal - it was just a suggestion.

No, I don't recall "fighting" with you. I have questioned the veracity of some of your tales involving women from your work place.

Only some ????

Thank you....for you confidence in my honesty and truthfulness.

by Guest Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:35 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
blabberwock wrote:

Not a big deal - it was just a suggestion.

No, I don't recall "fighting" with you. I have questioned the veracity of some of your tales involving women from your work place.

Only some ????

Thank you....for you confidence in my honesty and truthfulness.

Maramandai Saamiyaar, meditate on some logic, will ya?

I have actively questioned only some - that does not necessarily mean that I believed the ones I did not question.

by charvaka Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:41 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think you are treading on thin ice making such value judgments.
name calling especially if it is based on interactions that occur on this
board cannot cause any real harm outside this board, but
disclosing personal details certainly can. it's the only thing you
can and IMO should realistically police.

My problem is, how do I distinguish whether what HA calls FF is namecalling or FF's true identity? I certainly should not expect the victim in this case to confess to me that the "outing" is factual -- because then I would know the real identity of the person in question, something which (s)he may not be comfortable with.

Also, if the policy is that I delete posts only when the victim tells me that it is indeed the true identity, then my very act of deletion confirms to the whole community that the name was in fact the real identity of the person in question. In order to avoid that, the policy can be that I delete posts if someone merely requests that a post calling them a specific, likely real name be deleted (not something like Crowaka or Priyamvadai Murugadosai, but names like Mrs. Shrivastav-Khare or Sandeep Seetharamayya.)

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:02 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think you are treading on thin ice making such value judgments.
name calling especially if it is based on interactions that occur on this
board cannot cause any real harm outside this board, but
disclosing personal details certainly can. it's the only thing you
can and IMO should realistically police.

edited to add: also you shouldn't be so afraid to step in and use
your judgment as an admin to do something. you took the initiative,
and we trust you to do the right thing. not everything needs to be
subject to a vote and a survey. like they say, it is sometimes hard
to define what pornography is, but you'll know it when you see it.
we (or rather i) trust you to do the right thing without having to
subject every little thing to a vote.

Max: You are talking about an ideal situation inhabited by people who strictly follow a honor system and self-control. But, this place is far from it. Even a few who follow a "variable" honor system poison the atmosphere. It is almost impossible to define a strict code of conduct and not to mention enforcement - without infringing on the freedom and colorfulness of the posters.

Net is like a dark alley, no matter how safe the alley is and how confident and armed a person is, extreme caution is a must.

by Sponsored content