# A word about SDMB privacy **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 12, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795 "2005-02-12T22:20:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/21 "2005-02-13T04:14:00Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > Was SD in fact so stupid that he publicly revealed some of this information?? His name was in his public e-mail address. ---
**Author:** ![Good\_Egg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@Good\_Egg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Good_Egg)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/22 "2005-02-13T04:17:37Z")
> [@Eats\_Crayons](#): > > Now that I know the tact that administrators are taking on this I will not be renewing my membership. Darn! I think youre a great poster! Keep in touch! ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/23 "2005-02-13T04:19:48Z")
> [@Ed Zotti](#): > > [ul] > [li]E-mail address. If the user has opted to make this public, you know what we know.[/li][/ul] Suggestion: Make the message-board default to hiding the e-mail address in the profile. Furthermore, only Member who can demonstrate that they are 18 or over would be allowed to reveal their e-mail address or personal website in their profile. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/24 "2005-02-13T04:29:24Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > His name was in his public e-mail address. Wow. That is MONUMENTALLY stupid, on SM’s part… …and it’s still readable in his profile, apparently. Wouldn’t it be prudent to, you know, hide that information for the time being? I just looked him up and found him on two attempts. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/25 "2005-02-13T04:45:07Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > Suggestion: Make the message-board default to hiding the e-mail address in the profile. Furthermore, only Member who can demonstrate that they are 18 or over would be allowed to reveal their e-mail address or personal website in their profile. Thus making everyone who couldn’t (or declined) to give out personal information demonstrating that they are over 18 second class citizens of the SDMB? What if some of the younger dopers wanted to email each other, or arrange a get-together at a mall? There’s been a whole lot of knee-jerk reaction to a tempest in a tea pot, IMHO. And yes, I’ll be renewing my subscription. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/26 "2005-02-13T05:31:52Z")
Am I the only one who thinks that these were unusual circumstances not likely to be repeated? I haven’t seen anything that makes me fear this is something that will happen again, much less happen frequently. **Dex** does appear to be right that most of the information involved here was publicly available, and if not for that I’m not sure any of this would have happened at all. I’m as principled as anyone, I think, but common sense has to be involved here too. ---
**Author:** ![NotWithoutRage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NotWithoutRage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotWithoutRage)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/27 "2005-02-13T05:36:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Am I the only one who thinks that these were unusual circumstances not likely to be repeated? I haven’t seen anything that makes me fear this is something that will happen again, much less happen frequently. **Dex** does appear to be right that most of the information involved here was publicly available, and if not for that I’m not sure any of this would have happened at all. I’m as principled as anyone, I think, but common sense has to be involved here too. **Marley,** in the “real world” you don’t get a second shot. ---
**Author:** ![WolfpackJeep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpackjeep/32/2921_2.png) [@WolfpackJeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WolfpackJeep)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/28 "2005-02-13T05:41:06Z")
I don’t understand why there’s so much concern about the mods/administrators having access to our personal information. In the case of the poster in question, all of the personal information needed (beyond the email address) was out there for the taking by **anyone** who cared to look - no special access to his membership file was needed. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/29 "2005-02-13T05:44:06Z")
> [@Jeep's Phoenix](#): > > I don’t understand why there’s so much concern about the mods/administrators having access to our personal information. In the case of the poster in question, all of the personal information needed (beyond the email address) was out there for the taking by **anyone** who cared to look - no special access to his membership file was needed. T That’s kind of how it seems to me also. I am pretty ignorant about these matters and would welcome some education. ---
**Author:** ![NotWithoutRage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/22d042/32.png) [@NotWithoutRage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotWithoutRage)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/30 "2005-02-13T05:44:41Z")
> [@Jeep's Phoenix](#): > > I don’t understand why there’s so much concern about the mods/administrators having access to our personal information. In the case of the poster in question, all of the personal information needed (beyond the email address) was out there for the taking by **anyone** who cared to look - no special access to his membership file was needed. That’s not the issue at all for me. The issue is that **TubaDiva** violated privacy issues by taking that information and posting it on the SDMB LJ community, and then included the reason for the banning, which NO one other than the admins and mods had access to. ---
**Author:** ![Etherman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Etherman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Etherman)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/31 "2005-02-13T06:12:18Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > Yes, that was the one item that was not available publicly. The rest was all found on the internet. That was my 98% comment, see above. And that is where the issue lies. There was talk of this earlier, and no one from the Reader seems to get this. It is not about what info was publicly availible, it is about trust. Those of us in the information industry understand that **ALL** data is sacred. Hair color, name, dogs name, sexual partners, favorite sandwich, SSN, zip code, favorite color, etc. It is all bits to me, they are all important, and they all get the same treatment. Period. It is too easy a step from “it’s an irrelevant peice of data, who cares” to “well, it’s not that big a deal” to “meh, it’s just data” That’s what happened here, it was just that one peice of data, but… Again, it is not an issue of what information, **it is an issue of trust** If I did someting similar at work, I’d be out on my ass. I understand the issue in question was a very emotional one, but you don’t let your emotions determine policy. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/32 "2005-02-13T06:52:54Z")
> [@NotWithoutRage](#): > > **Marley,** in the “real world” you don’t get a second shot. And we’re on a message board. Where does that leave us? Actually, I’m not sure we’re in the same “real world.” In the real world, **SM** is getting something of a second shot. On the other hand, the thought of a second chance for **Tuba** appears to offend some people here. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/33 "2005-02-13T07:22:50Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Actually, I’m not sure we’re in the same “real world.” In the real world, **SM** is getting something of a second shot. On the other hand, the thought of a second chance for **Tuba** appears to offend some people here. Apples and oranges, dude. SM has a second chance at freedom outside an 8x10 cell, but with grave conditions – he’s limited in where he can live, where he can work, oh and a few rocks through his windows from vigilanties that learn about his sordid past. Not to mention the risk of being “outed” by people in authority who should know better. Worst case scenario for Tuba, she’s relieved of her **voluntary** position at an Internet message board that, while popular among certain cliques, really isn’t that well-known in the outside world. It’s not the sort of thing that would ever come up while applying for a job or an apartment or even moderating another message board. Sure, there’s the spectre of a civil suit, but that’s something the Reader will have to deal with. (First rule in suing someone: Always go after the corporation with deep pockets. Never, ever sue poor people.) In the long run, for Tuba, it’s egg in the face. Not a Scarlet Letter. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/34 "2005-02-13T12:07:13Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > Yes, that was the one item that was not available publicly. The rest was all found on the internet. That was my 98% comment, see above. 2% is enough to constitute a violation. I would like to see the agreement that the mods and admins are expected to sign now, including the stipulated penalties for failing to comply. It seems that **TubaDiva** felt that she was entitled to publicly disclose information she had as a consequence of a private communication with a Board member, something which I feel is inappropriate. I’d also like to see what steps are being taken to remind the admins and mods of their obligation to avoid the appearance of breach of trust. Even if y’all can prove that you didn’t use “sacred data” to get from point A to point B, if it looks like you did you’re still going to raise hackles. A good start would be to avoid saying anything controversial about members of the Board in other fora (such as, say, LiveJournal) in the first place, and especially to avoid signing such statements with “Administrator/Moderator for the Straight Dope”. **Ed** ’s statement that personal identifying information is not accessible to SDMB staff is reassuring, but you still have a long way to go to regain the trust of the Membership. You need to do something about that, something more than not simply berating us for not trusting you. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/35 "2005-02-13T12:58:47Z")
> [@](#): > > 2% is enough to constitute a violation. It’s also 2% above what can possibly be considered acceptable. > [@](#): > > I would like to see the agreement that the mods and admins are expected to sign now, including the stipulated penalties for failing to comply. I’m not sure I agree that that is necessary. The requirements of the privacy agreement are quite straightforward and there is only one logical penalty for infringement. > [@](#): > > A good start would be to avoid saying anything controversial about members of the Board in other fora (such as, say, LiveJournal) in the first place, and especially to avoid signing such statements with “Administrator/Moderator for the Straight Dope”. Sounds like common sense. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/36 "2005-02-13T13:49:18Z")
Right now I’m getting the sense here that privacy policies are enforced and followed just because it’s a legal liability and therefore just one of those silly niggling things the SDMB staff has to tolerate. Not because it’s, you know, a good idea or the right thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/37 "2005-02-13T14:02:00Z")
**LordVor** ’s Pit thread has been closed now, but **C K Dexter Haven** has added a comment on some of the issues that have been raised - [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5834865&postcount=48) - which I personally find a little more reassuring than previous statements. I have also noted other statements and am going to shut up on all of these matters for the time being. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/38 "2005-02-13T14:06:07Z")
> [@John Carter of Mars](#): > > Thus making everyone who couldn’t (or declined) to give out personal information demonstrating that they are over 18 second class citizens of the SDMB? > > What if some of the younger dopers wanted to email each other, or arrange a get-together at a mall? > > There’s been a whole lot of knee-jerk reaction to a tempest in a tea pot, IMHO. Not at all. Private messaging should be enabled (and, yes, the servers/bandwidth can handle it easily.). If e-mails are exchanged, the SDMB shouldn’t be the clearinghouse. Why exactly is not having one’s e-mail available for all to see a mark of a second-class SDMB citizen? Mine’s not available, and I certainly don’t feel that way. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/39 "2005-02-13T14:51:20Z")
_“Why exactly is not having one’s e-mail available for all to see a mark of a second-class SDMB citizen? Mine’s not available, and I certainly don’t feel that way.”_ Mine’s not either, ftr. If being under 18 brought certain restrictions, then the age would be what made secong class citizens. Point is, to email or not, to display info or not, is currently any member’s choice. I think it should stay that way. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/40 "2005-02-13T16:58:33Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > Yes, that was the one item that was not available publicly. The rest was all found on the internet. That was my 98% comment, see above. I don’t know if I believe that. Stage Manager didn’t have a location in his profile. I understand that you can trace an IP address and determine the city he’s posting from, but there’s no proof that his current location is one where any crime had been committed in the past. Nor is there proof that he’s actually registered as a sex offender in the state he currently lives in. I also know that Stage Manager had at one point what appeared to be his last name in his posted e-mail address. Well, one could assume it was his last name but anyone can make an e-mail address that contains anything so there’s no conclusive proof - outside additional information - that it was indeed his name. But if you used just those two pieces of information (location and last name) and searched through the Megan’s Law website of the applicable state, you do indeed come up with a matching person. So I ask what proof Tuba had that the person she found was Stage Manager BEFORE she posted a link on live journal saying “That’s you, you child molester!” I know, if it were me, I’d need a hell of a lot more than those two “98% public pieces of information” before I made an accusation like that. God only knows if there’s a child molester in Kansas with my last name. I’d hate to be the next one accused. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795.md?page=3)