# 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:** 5
**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 14, 2005, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/81 "2005-02-14T06:24:50Z")
I didn’t mean that as a reductio ad absurdem, since I’m not the one doing the reducing. There are many other folks arguing the position that all data is sacred, and that it is a serious breach to reveal even “harmless” information. By that standard, then, **catsix** ’s post is a serious breach of privacy. ---
**Author:** ![Duderdude2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/cdc98d/32.png) [@Duderdude2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duderdude2)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/82 "2005-02-14T06:53:26Z")
> [@TheLoadedDog](#): > > yet the same people quite happily tell thousans of people all about their favourite masturbation techniques involving watermelons That’s quite a generalization, combined with a serious assumption. How do you know they are the “same people”? ---
**Author:** ![Etherman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@Etherman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Etherman)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/83 "2005-02-14T06:59:24Z")
> [@Noelq](#): > > I’m really, really very shocked by this whole situation. Me too > [@Noelq](#): > > Not by what happened, but more by how so many posters that I’ve come to respect and admire over the years just totally, totally lose it on this issue. Myself, by people who don’t understand what a huge issue trust is. > [@Noelq](#): > > I’m a lurker. {snip} and I’m in constant awe at the brainpower and depth of intelligence shown here, and I’m regularly enlightened on so many, many topics. {snip} Me too. > [@Noelq](#): > > Yet I’ve seen dozens of you completely freak out about a one-off, completely unique situation – and in doing so, turn about and savage a devoted member and moderator of this board I have never called for anyones head , and I agree **TD** does a great job. I am more concered about what happens going forward, and what The Readers response is going to be, and so far all I am getting from them is “calm down you whiners” and thats not good. > [@Noelq](#): > > something that could never happen to them, because most posters who value their privacy don’t do dumb-ass things that can make them LOSE their privacy. Are you sure? So revealing personal info is OK because in this case, the guy is crap? Who makes that descision? is there a panel that votes? Is there some minimum threshold that needs to be met for me to qualify for privacy? That info was not **TubaDiva** ’s information to spread. She had no authority over it. As I said earlier, it is very slippery slope from “It’s justified cause the person involved is an ass, and should have no rights” to “meh, it’s only data.” As a Systems Admin, in a hospital, I _must_ treat all information with the same policy. It is _all_ to be guarded with all of my vigilence, weather it’s the DNA info collected from a rape victim, the drug test of bob the plumber, or the chest pneumonia rule-out X-ray of the little old lady down the street. All I am calling for is a clearly stated, strong privacy policy, that is enforced regardless of who the person who violated it is. The fact that there has not been one to this point is an oversight, and I think we are lucky that something worse has not occured. I want to be clear here. I think all of our mods, admins, and tech people here do a wonderful job, and are good people, and I thank them all very much for the work they do, and I am not making accusations, or trying to cast aspersions on them or the job they do. But, all it takes is one bad descision and it’s all crap. And right now I have little faith that my info is secure. Not because of the people, but because the system in place did not place enough emphisis on privacy. A while back, **Jerry** posted about a computer position at The Reader. Whats to stop The Reader from hiring Bob the new tech, who likes to steal CC numbers? A proper set of checks would prevent that. A proper sense of organisational respect for privacy would prevent that. Those would appear to be lacking right now. And no, I have nothing to hide. The issue is that it is **MY** information to release, when I choose, where I choose, not someone elses. > [@Noelq](#): > > I think this board is a lesser place without Tubadiva I agree, this is not at issue. > [@Noelq](#): > > And I think that some of the posters in this thread need to look at what some of the other posters have said - that this was a very, very unique situation, it can’t happen again, and if you want to protect your privacy, DON’T detail your life on the internet! How do you know it is unique? Part of the reason I want to kick up as much dust I can about this is to make damn sure that, from now on, the Reader understands, and is responsive to, privacy concerns. But the way I see it, the Readers privacy policy was so toothless that it allowed this to happen with little repercussion. I think that needs to change, especially the toothless part. I agree that under the old policy, 30 days is a lot. In the future it needs to be much more. But in reality, a privacy policy needs to be preventative, not punative. The Reader should focus on repecting and protecting privacy, not punishing breaches of it. > [@Noelq](#): > > And it scares me very, very much that so many posters were so quick to turn on their own. We are not turning on our own, we are covering our backs. BTW **Noelq** I just read on preview and I seem harsh, and I want to say I am not attacking you or anything. Your comments have merely served as a springboard to get me going. Some of the comments I have written don’t really address your comments so much as comments from others. But, it’s late and I am tired, so I will post this anyway. But this is not an attack on you. And you should lurk less, and get involved more. I am trying, join me. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/84 "2005-02-14T07:42:37Z")
> [@Noelq](#): > > Yet I’ve seen dozens of you completely freak out about a one-off, completely unique situation – and in doing so, turn about and savage a devoted member and moderator of this board, who has been fair and impartial in situations where I KNOW I’d explode on people, and do their best to rant, scream and yell about something that could never happen to them, because most posters who value their privacy don’t do dumb-ass things that can make them LOSE their privacy. Oh, keep your shirt on. Nobody’s being savaged. Nobody is calling for her permanent banning, or her public flogging, or for her to wear a scarlet letter on her chest forever and always or get thrown in a pit full of lions. The most I’ve seen anyone suggest is knocking her down to a regular poster. If that’s savage in your book, you must live an awfully sheltered life. To a certain extent, you’re right. This exact particular scenario isn’t likely to come up again. But the root issues of this scenario remain, namely her willingness to abuse her admin status to pursue her own ill will toward someone. The question for a lot of us isn’t how good a job has she done in the past, or how valuable a poster is she. The question is whether or not we want someone who’s demonstrated she can’t/won’t keep the personal and professional matter strictly seperated to have the power to issue official warnings, be involved in banning decisions, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/85 "2005-02-14T07:50:35Z")
Yet again, I find myself thinking “if you don’t like the place, vote with your shoes and leave.” Every time we get an exodus of whiners, the place improves a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Berkut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Berkut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Berkut)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/86 "2005-02-14T08:10:51Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > “if you don’t like the place, vote with your shoes and leave.” Would you have considered that an appropriate response to [this post?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5039902&postcount=1) ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/87 "2005-02-14T08:13:36Z")
impressive memory, grasshopper. Now, back to the subject at hand ---
**Author:** ![Berkut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Berkut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Berkut)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/88 "2005-02-14T08:25:50Z")
I’ll take that as a no. Seriously, this issue is as important to some people as the board’s performance was to you then. No one suggested that you should quit whining and vote with your shoes. The privacy issue is not a huge concern of mine, but I do recognize that it is to some people. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/89 "2005-02-14T08:38:24Z")
I guess the thing is: I don’t care. I have no idea why the management here puts up with people who complain about their performance. There are some people here who just live to pit a Mod over some stupid shit. And every time it’s the same people, and not coincidentally, it’s always the same people I have no respect for in other matters. Some people just exist to whine. My mother sucked. My Teacher sucked. My boss sucks. The Mod sucks. No. You suck. Go away. ---
**Author:** ![Berkut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a88e57/32.png) [@Berkut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Berkut)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/90 "2005-02-14T08:42:08Z")
Understood. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/91 "2005-02-14T11:59:35Z")
> [@](#): > > **Chronos** said: > By that standard, then, catsix’s post is a serious breach of privacy. I avoid saying a lot of things that people on my network have made available because I don’t want there to be the appearance of impropriety, but I don’t think that would be one of them. I do believe I wouldn’t make available elsewhere that which I specifically said was covered by privacy policy on my network. > [@](#): > > **Noelq** said: > Yet I’ve seen dozens of you completely freak out about a one-off, completely unique situation - After the way we’ve chewed out doctors we only read about in the newspaper for reporting a patient to the state and considering the fact that many of us are in the systems administration business and live on the principle of keeping confidential data confidential? You think we’re just ‘freaking out’? It’s a trust issue. Trust is something that’s hard to gain and easy to lose. > [@](#): > > **TheLoadedDog** said: > People are calling for the administrators to lock up their personal details in Fort Knox, I’d expect that my full name and address would not ever be revealed pubilcly without my consent. As it is right now, I’m just glad I didn’t give it to the Reader or the SD. > [@](#): > > **CrazyCatLady** said: > The most I’ve seen anyone suggest is knocking her down to a regular poster. If that’s savage in your book, you must live an awfully sheltered life. I really think that’s what should happen. > [@](#): > > **Bill H.** said: > Yet again, I find myself thinking “if you don’t like the place, vote with your shoes and leave.” Every time we get an exodus of whiners, the place improves a bit. The same kind of comment that the smug make about leaving the United States if you don’t like it. Some people would rather improve the situation than abandon it entirely. > [@](#): > > I have no idea why the management here puts up with people who complain about their performance. That’s what you do when you have customers. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were treated as what we are, customers, rather than just annoying pains in the ass? That’d be better customer service right there. ---
**Author:** ![Iceland\_Blue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4bbf92/32.png) [@Iceland\_Blue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iceland_Blue)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/92 "2005-02-14T12:29:53Z")
> [@TheLoadedDog](#): > > the same people quite happily tell thousans of people all about their favourite masturbation techniques involving watermelons, ). Mental note…if ever I eat with TheLoadedDog,avoid the watermelon.In fact,avoid any items of fruit at all 😃 ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/93 "2005-02-14T13:33:19Z")
Well what this and other threads prove to me is that no matter what the short term outcome, **tubadiva** is fatally compromised. Her position will be always questioned by a lot of members and her decisions queried and sniped at for the rest of her Admin carrier here. This will never go away no matter what warnings are in place. For her good and the good of the board I feel she must step down. Rightly or wrongly she’s screwed IMO. I’m happy that there will be tighter conditions put on the staff. I just am disappointed that the mindset wasn’t in place from the beginning as it would have stopped all this nastiness. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/94 "2005-02-14T13:53:37Z")
Do the Mods keep notes on members? For instance, I have posted details about my personal life here in the past. I’m sure there are some clever persons here that could determine my indentity fairly easily. I, myself, only take mental notes regarding the personal status of other posters, usually because I like to know if the guy giving advice in a ‘law’ thread is a real lawyer, or if the guy giving advice in a ‘medical’ thread is a doctor or nurse. So, I generally know who the doctors and lawyers are in this community. Do Mods take this a step or two further and actually keep notes on certain posters? Any information given in the course of public posting I’m referring to. If I kept a list of personal info on other posters that I came across on these boards I’m sure I could scare a few of you with the amount of personal information I could have gathered. So, again, is it common practice for the Mods to keep such detailed lilsts? ---
**Author:** ![35340](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/8baadc/32.png) [@35340](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/35340)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/95 "2005-02-14T13:56:36Z")
> [@yojimbo](#): > > Well what this and other threads prove to me is that no matter what the short term outcome, **tubadiva** is fatally compromised. {and other good stuff, LOOK UP!} I had a lot to say, but yojimbo certainly succinctly captured most of it. > [@Etherman](#): > > 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. I _run_ a message board. I’m the Jerry, I’m the Ed, and I have a team of mods and a couple of co-Administrators. If one of my mods or admins did this, I would kick them from their rights and maybe even ban them if necessary - though it’s a casual board and not a business. And if I didn’t, I expect what of our membership were left would leave over it - because it is a very serious violation. That was a big 2% that was splashed around. It involved a private (as private as email or other can be) communication between a user and the moderation/administration team, and that information was shared outside of moderation/administration team in a spectacularly inappropriate fashion that did violate the SDMB rules as far as I could tell, as well as LJ’s rules of posting personal information without their permission (bannable offense) and may even be in violation of state laws and subject to prosecution (or termination of their internet access with that ISP). > [@bordelond](#): > > 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. Interesting, but from my point of view, if I were to inflict this upon my members, it would be in my best interest to take no chances and not display them at all, or simply exclude members under the age of 18 (who could just go borrow a credit card and get around it anyway). > [@bordelond](#): > > 1. 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. Having admin’d a board, I’d probably almost never use private messaging (and I know those who wouldn’t care). It’s not as if it is private. I can go in and read the database and information any time I want. But I don’t (see that whole matter of trust thing again). My admins also have access to the database (not related to the MB software; they have the server account credential information) and it’s a matter of trust. The boards are slow enough as it is - adding PMs would not do a significant service and if someone did ‘go after’ or ‘solicit’ someone, Reader might be liable. We’ve got this on another board I read - one of the members is there only to prey on others, using the internal systems. But none of the victims have reported it, so that person stays on. For now. That all said: Has a decision been made about what our **Charter Member** status will be should TubDiva be re-instated at the end of the term of punishment as a full Administrator and we don’t renew? Just going to auto-ban us all, revert us to Former Charter Member, or will we be Guests? Or since a lot of us are asking tough questions about the illogical and emotional decisions made by the team, will you just make us complete un-persons? ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/96 "2005-02-14T14:30:52Z")
> [@Bill H.](#): > > Yet again, I find myself thinking “if you don’t like the place, vote with your shoes and leave.” Every time we get an exodus of whiners, the place improves a bit. Remind me never, EVER, to get involved with your computer “security” company.\* Because only “whiners” are capable of being concerned about data protection policy, right? You’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear, right? I’m sure your customers would agree. I’ve worked with data protection issues for several years. I’ve written about data protection law and policy here several times. I’ve tried to explain how policy works, what the distinction between “private,” “public,” and “protected” information is, and why there is a difference between disclosure of information by a third party and disclosure of information by an employee/designate of an organization. But, apparently, my interest in this subject is severely misplaced. Nobody should worry about breaches of privacy at all! After all, if you’re not a (nature of previous crime deleted…I _do_ care about what **Ed Zotti** asked us not to say, unlike several posters here) (or you have happened not to anger someone in authority, as did **Aldebaran** a while back), you’ve got nothing to fear! Your data is safe. Trust us. Never mind that we have no real chain of command, or that our policies apparently can be flouted at will. If one of our administrators happens breach the policy, they will be given a short vacation, and be welcomed back by posters throwing flowers at their feet and calling those who were concerned about said breach “whiners” and “haters.” That’s how you know that it won’t happen to you! Here I had a whole post ready in my head to write about data protection, and the policies I use at work every day. I was going to write about how I’ve formulated policies at institutions in Oxford, California, and New York, using the relevant national laws in the UK, and sanctions of the professional organization to which I belong in the US. I was also going to write about how an institution where a colleague of mine got in serious trouble for disclosing what could easiliy have been considered “public,” non-threatening information about one of its donors. But, apparently, nobody does care about that. People who worry about it have something to hide, apparently. And people who don’t like that can vote with their feet. Well, **Bill** , I am voting with my feet. Consider this post the dust. \*And, before anyone makes snarky comments, there is a world of difference between me, a third party, and a representative of the SDMB or _Reader_ making comments about a poster’s personal life. ---
**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 14, 2005, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/97 "2005-02-14T15:17:41Z")
> [@AZCowboy](#): > > 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. The idea is to make the _Reader_ less legally liable for activity stemming from unsolicited e-mail sent from one member to another. > [@AZCowboy](#): > > 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). As I understand it on other boards, PMs are unmoderated. Regular moderators absolutely can’t see them. Not sure if site admins can see them or not. ---
**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 14, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/98 "2005-02-14T15:24:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I didn’t mean that as a reductio ad absurdem, since I’m not the one doing the reducing. There are many other folks arguing the position that all data is sacred, and that it is a serious breach to reveal even “harmless” information. By that standard, then, **catsix** ’s post is a serious breach of privacy. **Catsix’s** post is unconfirmed hearsay. It would still be unconfirmed hearsay even if **Guin** posted it herself. “Personal” information that cannot positively ID someone is not a problem, IMHO. It’s demographic information that breaks the “wall” between anonymous online personna and real-life person that needs to be kept jealously guarded. ---
**Author:** ![35340](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/8baadc/32.png) [@35340](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/35340)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/99 "2005-02-14T15:33:19Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > As I understand it on other boards, PMs are unmoderated. Regular moderators absolutely can’t see them. Not sure if site admins can see them or not. Yes. I looked at the software package SDMB uses before going with the one I chose - the only reason Admins on my board would be able to read PMs is because I’ve given them the server/database credentials. Though I have changed the info recently, so I don’t think they have it any more. ---
**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 14, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/100 "2005-02-14T15:43:55Z")
> [@Mynn](#): > > Interesting, but from my point of view, if I were to inflict this upon my members, it would be in my best interest to take no chances and not display them at all, or simply exclude members under the age of 18 (who could just go borrow a credit card and get around it anyway). I’d go for having them not displayed at all on the SDMB. Alternatively, how about this: still make the message board default not to display e-mails. Just allow anyone to enable their e-mail addy to be shown in their profile. That way, it is a concious decision to give a little information to the gallery. And if one doesn’t think about it – you’ve got a little added security for oneself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795.md?page=6)