# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/41 "2005-02-13T17:06:11Z")
The only problem with enabling private messages is-can the servers handle it? Other than that, sounds good to me. Another plus is that admins can read them, so if anything inappropriate happens, they can take care of it. One thing I would like to add-when I said “trust”, I wasn’t talking about the admins giving out private information, per se. I mean that my trust as to whether or not they can be fair and impartial in ALL situations. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/42 "2005-02-13T17:10:14Z")
> [@Lockz](#): > > 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. > > Is that right? That’s a bit absurd, isn’t it? Under that policy, if a member discloses personal information in a thread (an entirely common occurence), an admin or moderator couldn’t quote the post in a response. > [@KGS](#): > > Heck, my name & address is in the phone book, which makes that public record. Does that make it ok for anyone to post it? Sure. But what admins might not be able to do is to make the association between a poster’s username here and their full name - if that information was obtained under the presumption of privacy. There is a difference between personal information that is private, and personal information that is public. In the “real world” I live in, there is a difference. Here is an excerpt of standard (business) non-disclosure agreement: > [@](#): > > Proprietary Information > “Proprietary Information” includes, but is not limited to, data or other proprietary information relating to products, inventions, […] or any other subject matter pertaining to any business of the parties or any of their respective clients, consultants, or licensees that is disclosed to the other party under the terms of this Agreement. > > Permitted Disclosure > Proprietary Information does not include information which: > > ``` > (i) is already known to the parties at the time of disclosure; > > (ii) has become generally known to the public through no wrongful act by the parties; > > (iii) has been rightfully received by the parties from a third party without restriction on disclosure and without breach of an obligation of confidentiality running either directly or indirectly to the parties; > > (iv) has been approved for release to the general public by written authorization of the parties; > > (v) has been disclosed pursuant to the requirement of a governmental agency or a court of law without similar restrictions or other protections against public disclosure; or, > > (vi) has been independently developed by the parties without use, directly or indirectly, of the disclosing party’s Proprietary Information. > > ``` Please note the exceptions listed in (ii) and (iii). Is email considered private? For example, if you send an email to someone that includes private personal information, and that person forwards your email to a New York Times reporter, is the reporter obligated to treat it as private? If the reporter publishes, who violated your privacy - the reporter or the person you sent the email to? I don’t mean to imply anything with regards to the recent unpleasantness. I don’t know what happened. But those who suggest that this stuff is all “cut and dried” in the “real world” live in a different world than I do. > [@bordelond](#): > > 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. I’m not understanding your point. If private messaging were enabled, that would effectively be having the SDMB acting as the clearinghouse for “email”. As it is, the SDMB offers a voluntary public directory of email addresses of its members as a service to the community. While I understand that enabling private messaging would allow members to exchange private messages without having to publicly disclose a valid email address, I don’t see how such a feature is consistent with mission of the board, and I believe it would much more seriously complicate the issues at hand, and possibly even the liabilities for the Reader (IANAL). Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. My email address is available in my profile. It happens to match my username here (well, very close, at least). I still don’t believe that anyone would be able to associate my username here and my full name. In that light, I have some sense of anonymity here. But I also understand that it would be trivial for law enforcement (with a court order), for example, to make the association. From the OP, it doesn’t even sound like the admins or moderators here could make the association (unless I disclose such information to them). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/43 "2005-02-13T17:21:34Z")
Thank you very much, Ed & Dex. These have been trying times, I know, and I appreciate what you are doing & saying. PM’s are a very good idea. Nearly every other MB I post on have activated that feature, and it works. They (assuming you only allow a small number to be stored) do not seem to slow or impair the running of the Boards. Search seems to be the big problem, incidentally. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/44 "2005-02-13T17:24:17Z")
Oh, and I went ahead and renewed early. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/45 "2005-02-13T17:24:47Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > 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. I don’t think it was a matter of ‘having proof’ so much as a show-offy sort of thing ‘aren’t I smart, I have information that can out this person’. It’s rather like the way that nosy neighbours get together to speculate on who’s doing what in the neighbourhood. With the internet, though, the neighbourhood is so big that there’s a much greater chance of getting things wrong. > [@](#): > > God only knows if there’s a child molester in Kansas with my last name. I’d hate to be the next one accused. Well, if there is, and you are the next one accused, you can console yourself as bricks fly through your window and a lynch mob gathers, with the knowledge that the person responsible will be suspended for 30 whole days from SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/46 "2005-02-13T17:46:05Z")
Huh. Well I have done my best not to get involved with this tempest in a teapot. I still will not comment much, other than to say that I will be renewing. I see no reason to punish myself, my friends on the boards, **TubaDiva** , and anyone else who takes the least interest in anything I post by staying away, and I’m not sure what exactly will staying away even accomplish. **Eats\_Crayons** , I am going to be really sorry to see you go, though. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/47 "2005-02-13T17:49:38Z")
> [@Lockz](#): > > 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. > > Is that right? That’s the Reader’s privacy policy as it currently stands. I have told Reader management I think the policy is too broad and needs to be refined, since it doesn’t distinguish between personal information and confidential information. For example, if a user posts on the SDMB that he is a convicted felon, that’s certainly personal information, but it seems silly to require SDMB staff to treat it as a state secret if he’s gone public with it. However, for now the policy is what it is, and that’s what we’re abiding by. As for the “confidentiality and conduct” agreement, we’ve just begun working on it, and in any case it’ll be between the Reader and staff. However, it’s likely we’ll post something stating in a general way what’s in it. I can tell you two things that will definitely be in it: (a) staff is not to discuss SDMB-related business in online venues other than the SDMB, and (b) staff is not to conduct themselves in a way suggesting they have an animus against a particular user. A final important point: Your SDMB-related conduct does not in itself constitute “personal information.” For example, if we receive a complaint that you have made sexual advances toward an underage SDMB user, and we ban you as a result (it’s likely we’ll soon post a clarification to the registration agreement to this effect), we’ll feel free to post this information on the SDMB. What we will NOT do is say (a) you were banned for making unwanted sexual advances, and (b) YOUR REAL NAME IS \. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/48 "2005-02-13T17:50:40Z")
In the US, sex offenders lose every vestige of privacy upon conviction. Wherever they live, they must notify local police. All the neighbors are notified that there a sex offender down the street. Some even have to post a sign warning children off. It’s a lifetime punishment. So, the situation we are discussing involved a person who had no privacy rights to begin with. Keep that in mind when you make your broad-brush statements about the privacy policy. ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/49 "2005-02-13T17:50:59Z")
> [@Enderw24](#): > > 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. I just looked in the Illinois Sexual Offenders registry. There’s an individual registered there who has the same last name and first and middle initials as myself (although the first name is different). So someone who was going by my email address (which has my first initial and last name) and state of residence could reasonable conclude that that individual is me. I would hope that this would not happen, but stranger things have happened before. ---
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/50 "2005-02-13T18:14:32Z")
> [@AZCowboy](#): > > I’m not understanding your point. If private messaging were enabled, that would effectively be having the SDMB acting as the clearinghouse for “email”. As it is, the SDMB offers a voluntary public directory of email addresses of its members as a service to the community. My proposal is two-fold – and you are missing one of the folds: 1. Make the SDMB default that e-mail addresses ARE NOT displayed in profiles. Only members who can demonstrate that they are 18+ can have their e-mail addresses displayed in their profile. 2. Hand-in-glove to the above is the enabling of private messaging on the SDMB. The idea is to give a buffer to the SDMB – presumably, the _Reader_ would be no more responsible for private message content than AOL would be for IM content. Incidentally, the load that private messaging has on the server can be customized. Many boards have a limit of 50 messages stored (both Inbox and Sent Items combined). Well, the SDMB could, say, limit it to 10 PMs stored. Additionally, PMs more than one week old could automatically be deleted. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/51 "2005-02-13T18:25:36Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > 1. Make the SDMB default that e-mail addresses ARE NOT displayed in profiles. Only members who can demonstrate that they are 18+ can have their e-mail addresses displayed in their profile. > > 2. Hand-in-glove to the above is the enabling of private messaging on the SDMB. The idea is to give a buffer to the SDMB – presumably, the Reader would be no more responsible for private message content than AOL would be for IM content. Thanks for the clarification. I can appreciate the intent of number 1, but nothing would prevent a minor from posting their email address in a post to the board, right? I’m not sure exactly what it would accomplish. And I’m not sure I understand the intent of number 2. If the admins and moderators have access to the private messaging, they would be more liable than AOL is on IM (since IM is peer-to-peer, and not monitored by AOL). And if it is not monitored, and minors could receive private messages, it seems like it would enable folks like scam artists and sexual predators a very useful feature. I still don’t get why this would be a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Jayn\_Newell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Jayn\_Newell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jayn_Newell)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/52 "2005-02-13T18:36:35Z")
**bordelond** , I’m not really sure what your proposal would accomplish that allowing members to have their e-mail addresses avaliable would. If anything, it might make the admins more responsible for contact between members, and I’m sure that is not what they want. If they don’t want to be held responsible, the easiest solution is to just allow members to freely e-mail each other. And your proposal doesn’t keep underaged members from giving out their addresses anyways. Not to mention some of use would rather not have to (or can’t) prove that we are over 18, even if we are. The whole idea just seems pointless to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ink\_a\_dink\_a\_dink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ec9cab/32.png) [@Ink\_a\_dink\_a\_dink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ink_a_dink_a_dink)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/53 "2005-02-13T18:46:15Z")
I can’t code for a damn, but **NotWithoutRage** made this comment: “Marley, in the “real world” you don’t get a second shot.” Totally off topic, since I have NO idea what the heck the rest of you are talking about and I am just confused and don’t know who to like and who not to and …you get the idea. It’s an 11-year old girl’s worst slumber-party experience ever. But my response to [NWR] is quite serious, and I hope he/she takes it in the vein in which it is intended: Yes. Often, in life, you do get a second chance. I am living proof of it. Several times over. More than my fair share, probably more than your fair share, and I think I’ve used up several people in Lichtenstein’s shares as well, but they stopped writing, so I can’t tell. I’ve gotten second chances: For my own stupidity, for my health, from the generosity of others, and on. So, not that I am picking on you, and _pleease_ don’t view it as such, because my intention is NOT this; it was merely to disprove what to me seemed a blanket statement that I have been incredibly fortunate to prove false in my life. And I thank the universe for the generosity it’s shown me. Back to your regularly scheduled…arguing? Discussion? TD bashing? I still have no idea. No, I am not stupid, I just show up way too late most of the time. Be well. Inky ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/54 "2005-02-13T18:57:36Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > I just looked in the Illinois Sexual Offenders registry. There’s an individual registered there who has the same last name and first and middle initials as myself (although the first name is different). So someone who was going by my email address (which has my first initial and last name) and state of residence could reasonable conclude that that individual is me. > > I would hope that this would not happen, but stranger things have happened before. Which is exactly what makes me nervous. I mean, in the end, I don’t care much about the rights of people who’ve actually committed crimes - but it seems like the information divulged wasn’t something that can be easily confirmed. I just checked and it doesn’t appear that my real name resembles anyone on the SOR in my state, but I’d hate to think I might end up being tarred with that brush if my email address happens to resemble the name of a Eustace Xavier Calibre who has done something, somewhere, sometime. Or if a Doper who doesn’t like me decides to email the Powers That Be with false accusations. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/55 "2005-02-13T18:59:19Z")
Do you honestly think the staff hasn’t, in the past, allowed people to e-mail them and explain? There was a girl around here not too long ago, can’t remember her name. Someone else posted a long nasty thread under her name. She was banned. She came back as a sock, calling herself a sock, explaining what happened. The staff reconsidered, let her back onto the boards, and let her explain herself. I really think a bunch of people are overreacting here. ---
**Author:** ![Duderdude2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/cdc98d/32.png) [@Duderdude2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duderdude2)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/56 "2005-02-13T19:28:26Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Do you honestly think the staff hasn’t, in the past, allowed people to e-mail them and explain? There was a girl around here not too long ago, can’t remember her name. Someone else posted a long nasty thread under her name. She was banned. She came back as a sock, calling herself a sock, explaining what happened. The staff reconsidered, let her back onto the boards, and let her explain herself. How is that relevant to a “bunch of people overreacting”? ---
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/57 "2005-02-13T19:50:58Z")
> [@Ed Zotti](#): > > We do **NOT** have access to your credit card number, name, address, or any other information you provided when you subscribed. In a way, this makes what Tuba did more stupid, because she didn’t have independant confirmation of the information she posted, thereby opening the Reader up to a huge libel suit if the information she posted wasn’t correct. I hope she doesn’t come looking to me for tech support when I change my email address to [bill\_gates32@hotmail.com](mailto:bill_gates32@hotmail.com). > [@Ed Zotti](#): > > 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. This is part of the bit that should be written down, in case you didn’t realize that. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/58 "2005-02-13T19:57:43Z")
> [@Duderdude2](#): > > How is that relevant to a “bunch of people overreacting”? Since you can’t read between the lines, people are freaking out that someone on the boards may think they are a registered sex offender because their name is close to another’s, and they may get reported/banned. I wanted to point out that the staff is not unreasonable and will listen to explanations. I posted the example to show that such things have, indeed, happened before. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/59 "2005-02-13T20:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. > > Is that right? I’ve seen this sentiment expressed many times here and in other related threads, and frankly, I can’t understand it. Such a policy would make it impossible for an administrator to do her job. In order to administrate, an administrator needs to have at least some degree of information about posters, and if any action is taken based on that information, the public at large will be able to make at least some inferences. I could construct an example based on the present situation, but both because I don’t fully understand the present situation, and because emotions are high over it, let’s use a different example. Suppose that it came to the attention of **Ed Zotti** (by whatever means) that a particular poster was twelve years old. The SDMB has a minimum age of 13, so Ed removes that poster’s priveliges. Now, Ed could post a thread saying that that poster was banned for being underage, but that would, of course, reveal personal information about the poster. He could post that the poster was banned for reasons which cannot be disclosed, but even that is a revelation of information. Not much information, certainly, but enough to tell the world that that poster has some personal datum inconsistent with posting on the SDMB. Suppose that he simply bans the poster without any explanation whatsoever: Then the public might conclude that the reason for the lack of explanation is the privacy policy, and we’re back in the previous situation. How could an administrator conceivably resolve this situation without revealing ANY personal information AT ALL about the poster in question? ---
**Author:** ![Lockz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Lockz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lockz)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/60 "2005-02-13T20:16:38Z")
OK, my first couple posts were unfair, need to allow people latitude, etc. But what is the line? What does the privacy policy cover? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795.md?page=4)