Fine, then – make it a question of ethical conduct. What standards of ethical conduct should the SDMB staff adopt?
I don’t even know if this would “protect” us regarding this incident. The only piece of non-public information that Tuba divulged was not, IIRC, sent to her by the banned poster. It was sent by a third party specifically making accusations about the banned poster.
Do I have a right to privacy with respect to third party communications rather than the information I have given to the company? I’ve always assumed that privacy was with respect to information I’ve provided.
The donkeyporn company I buy from can’t send out my address, or order history, because that’s the information I sent them. However, if a friend of mine emails them with my name and address, asking if I bought a bunch of kiddie porn from them (along with proof I bought some), I don’t see why donkeyporn Inc. shouldn’t forward that info to the authorities or anyone else they feel like. That communication is between them and my friend, not me.
Absent specific agreements to the contrary, emails created by employees in the course of their duties belong to the employer. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that an employer has the absolute right of access to any document created by its employees in the course of their duties. Employers are reasonably entitled to believe that emails created by employees using the employer’s resources are “documents created in the course of duty” and thus examinable without notice or consent. That aside, the owner of property can search it whenever he or she wishes (unless constrained from doing so by a contractual agreement such as a lease). So anything on a company-owned server can be searched by agents of the company unless the company has previously agreed to refrain from doing so. However, being about to search for and discover information does not give the employer the right to disclose the information so discovered. That’s subject to different rules entirely. I’m not permitted to disclose (outside the company) that I found porn in so-and-so’s mailbox. Nor am I permitted to disclose the bank account number of a vendor that we have so we can ACH them invoice payments.
If the emails “belong” to the employer, what limits their “rights” to disclose such information?
While I understand you are not permitted to disclose such information, I would presume that is a matter of policy, and not law (I would expect the ACH vendor is covered by some type of NDA, so they wouldn’t be without a “specific agreement”). But perhaps I’m missing the legal basis that would prevent such action (I can understand the common sense reason why they wouldn’t, btw).
Don’t let me come off sounding like I find the level of protection of personal information by the law to be sufficient, I think we need an agreement which grants protections in excess of that which the law provides. See Post #42 in this thread for a basic framework that I would find sufficient.
I think any reasonable privacy policy has to at least allow a moderator or admin the ability to disclose personal information about a user that has already been publicly posted by that user. If I understand the current policy, they aren’t even allowed to do that!
All this stuff about employers and their rights is just muddying the water about this case, though, isn’t it? It’s about someone in a position of trust abusing that trust.
What TubaDiva posted was an unsubstantiated accusation that a member was guilty of a crime - an accusation that she only knew about through her admin. position. She published it, together with the member’s personal details, which she went out of her way to track down online - and she published it in her capacity as an SDMB admin. By doing that, she must have known that she was possibly putting that member in danger. People are innocent until proven guilty, and I don’t think that any admin. has the right to put a member in danger based on an accusation that may not have been true.
If he is in fact innocent, SD can’t unring that bell - people will remember that accusation, and some will still believe it, because that’s the way of the world - and I still think that no admin. should have that sort of power - to be able to damage a member’s reputation without absolute proof that what they are saying is true.
I haven’t been able to get on the SDMB for a few weeks due to firewall problems.
So, have I missed anything?
Oh a whole bunch.Loads of dramatic stuff.But under the privacy policy I’m not allowed to tell you what you missed 
Loach, if you email me, I’ll give you a rundown. As Iceland said, the Admins have asked that we not discuss publicly, it’s been hashed out and beaten to death already.
And thankyou for overlooking the irony of my statement 
This post isn’t a bump per se, since this thread is a sticky at the top of the forum. But it does have a purpose. It removes a banned sock from the top of the forum page. Now, if anyone still wants to talk privacy policy, please proceed.
Hah! That’s all the evidence needed to prove that AZCowboy is a compulsive neat freak.
I thought about doing that too, but you beat me to it.