Since the topic has come up a lot lately, let me clarify that the staff of the Straight Dope Message Board, including me, has access to very little private information about SDMB users. This information is limited to:
[ul]
[li]IP address of the location from which a particular message was posted. The IP address is a number; in most cases it tells you who someone’s Internet service provider is and that’s about it.[/li][li]E-mail address. If the user has opted to make this public, you know what we know.[/li][li]Any info we happen to pick up from e-mail and such in the course of doing our work. This info is generally quite limited - to be honest, we know little about most of our users other than what we pick up from reading the boards just like everybody else.[/li][/ul]
We do NOT have access to your credit card number, name, address, or any other information you provided when you subscribed. This information is kept on a secure server at the Reader office in downtown Chicago. No one on the SDMB staff, including me, works at the Reader office and none of us has access to financial data. If a subscription issue arises, we tell Jerry the IT manager and either he takes care of it or he tells us what little we need to know to handle things on our end. He has never told us anyone’s credit card number or address. Occasionally we learn a subscriber’s real name but this is almost always because they told it to us when inquiring about a subscription problem.
I don’t want to minimize anyone’s privacy concerns; I merely point out that for better or worse we don’t know much about our users and so can’t disclose much.
Thank you for posting this Ed. Will there be another post coming up outling any new privacy things that mods & admins must sign? Or a more strict version of the privacy code outlining that information gained cannot be shared at all, not just on the SDMB?
Does this mean that an administrator could not have looked up a poster’s name or address? Does it mean an administrator would have to rely on the same things any other poster could have relied on to determine a posters status?
Read again the section in EdZotti’s post where he says “the information is limited to…” Name and address are not mentioned in those three bullet points.
One main issue seems to be that an Administrator or Moderator cannot divulge ANY personal information about ANY member of the SDMB ANYWHERE, and it doesn’t matter where they got that information, either a public or private source, unless it’s okayed by the member.
Ditto. Though I’m not sure how comfortable I am with renewing anyhow. The one thread that was opened by Ed to discuss the situation was locked (because someone apparently “broke the rules of the thread”. Not sure why he couldn’t have just deleted the offending posts.
Correct. This hysteria over information is very bizarre to me. TubaDiva’s indiscretion involved information that was (say, 98%) a matter of public record.
Because that was not practical, given the content of the posts, the subsequent posts, etc. To go through and delete this post and this post but not that post would have left an incoherent thread.
But that applies to everyone, by law and proper netiquette. If I, as a lowly member, had inside information that Fenris was a rabbit abuser*, and I disclosed that information from the National Rabbit Abuser Registry (is there one?) on SDMB or LJ or anywhere else, I’d be in serious trouble. And that includes my membership here, since this is where I found out about his NRAR status.
The issue, as I see it, isn’t whether this was a breach of SDMB policy, but whether TD’s integrity as an administrator is suspect. Call it a “morals violation”, if you will.
It’s bizarre to me too, because there’s a nearly identical situation happening in my neighborhood, which also has to do with a violation of…umm, not clear if it’s ok to mention in this thread but it rhymes with Vegan Slaw…
But how did TD come by that information? As Zotti said, admins don’t have access to names & addresses. Heck, my name & address is in the phone book, which makes that public record. Does that make it ok for anyone to post it?
[Sub]* This reference is made for allegorical purposes only. I hereby state forthwith that I have no actual knowledge of Fenris abusing rabbits.
Ferrets, on the other hand…[/Sub]
From public statements and easily tracked information, available on the internet to anyone who goes looking for it.
Look, on the one hand, we’ve got people asking for a step-by-step account of exactly where TubaDiva found personal information. OTOH, we’ve got people screaming for privacy and not revealing such information. We can’t possibly satisfy both requests, can we?
Please note, there is a difference between legitimate worries about privacy and the kind of fantasy/hysteria that I’ve seen in many posts. Sorry if I let some humor show through by selecting a word like “bizarre” (say it with a French accent.)
Wrong. She released it in conjuction with revealing that there was a new allegation. An allegation that came from a SDMB member’s contacting an admin via private e-mail. That information was NOT available to anyone who went looking for it.
But thank you.
Now that I know the tact that administrators are taking on this I will not be renewing my membership.
Actually, your answer here was fiar enough to me. I personally wasn’t looking for all the details. I think we were just pointing out what seemed to be an inherent contradiction between the statement “mods and admins don’t have personal info” and the fact that TD, in fact, did have a poster’s personal information. If the poster in question divulged his own personal info on the board, then that’s his fault. I’ll just have to take your word for it that this was the case, because I don’t care enough to bother the hamsters that much. (And if he divulged his personal information in a private email to a moderator, then I’d say that information should be kept private.)
If TD felt there was a crime being committed, she should have notified law enforcement. Declaring it in a public forum amounts to (1) harassment and slander, if it turns out to be FALSE, and/or (2) obstruction of justice, if it turns out to be TRUE. It’s a baaaaad situation.
Besides, I can only search the Vegan Slaw website by name, address, city, zip code, park, and school. Was SD in fact so stupid that he publicly revealed some of this information?? That’s very specific stuff you need to claim that such information was “available to anyone who went looking for it.” Especially when it’s associated with such an explosive topic – we’re not talking about downloading illegal mp3s here.