Duck Duck Goose. TubaDiva evangelism.

[1010011010]

Since the thread was locked, and DDG has come to annoy me temporarily…

First. Attribute quotes.
Second. If you’re responding to two quotes from a single poster, from a single post… respond in a single post.
Third. Hello Opalcat.

@1010011010

Since we already know TubaDiva can and will rationalize around rules to do whatever she wants…

@Duck Duck Goose

No, we don’t know this. At least, I don’t know this. Care to provide a cite?

Well, there was the recent occurance where she posted some personal info about a member over on LJ. I assume you’re aware of this, as the thread you posted in was discussing the very event I’m citing. Just to be on the safe side, I’ll spell it out. She said posting the information would probably violate the SDMB privacy policy, and then remarked that LJ is not the SDMB. She stated that she knew what she was doing was against the rules… and then rationalized around it to do what she wanted anyway.

That last bit makes it completely irrelevant if we could get legalistic about it and show that technically she wasn’t actually violating the letter of the privacy policy. She thought she was, and did it anyway. The intent is there, and that is what is important.

@1010011010

No assurance can be made that this cannot happen again.

@Duck Duck Goose

You’re absolutely right. Nobody anywhere can “guarantee” that a human moderator of a message board isn’t going to cut loose and start acting like a “human” at any moment.

Since, as you’ve stated, moderators are human… the actions of a moderator are the actions of a human. Thus, it is nonsensical to state “but moderators are only human” to try to excuse abuse and misbehaviour of a moderator… all the other moderators out there that have not fell prey to abuse and misbehaviour are also “only human.” Conclusion: there is something deficient in THIS human that makes them unfit for moderation or administration.

We didn’t know about it until now. Up until now, we thought they were a great mod/admin. Now we know they don’t have what it takes. It doesn’t matter that they have performed their job faithfully and well up to this point. One mistake of this category and magnitude is sufficient for disqualification.

---

While I’ve stated that the specific issues that led to this event should be irrelevant to the response to TubaDiva’s actions… given the recent spate of attacks on folks listed in sex offender registries, it might extend further than simply violating the privacy of a fellow boarder and on into attempting to endanger their life.

Yeah, yeah, it only endangers his life because he’s a piece of shit to begin with, but if we can ignore that factor for a moment, it rather steps up the seriousness of TD’s actions.

---

And given DDG’s style of argument, I should probably point out that I am not a registered sex offender or a child rapist, and can’t think of anything I have to hide. I do deal with classified information on a daily basis, and so far have demonstrated “flawless handling” of that information. However, If I post a bunch of plant parameters I’d fully expect to be de-nuked, thrown in the brig, and possibly shot. Even if I only did it once.

[AncientHumanoid]

Looks like it’s time for a fish slap duel!

[Skywatcher]

1010011010, exactly what sort of private information do you think the Admins have access to?

A word about SDMB privacy

[Guinastasia]

Oh for fuck’s sake! While I strongly disagree with Duck Duck Goose, there’s no need to go through the whole sordid details of what happened yet AGAIN.

If you want to bitch about the policies and admin actions, can we at least leave out the whole “ildchay apistray?” Bringing THAT up is what started the whole blow up in the first place.

[Berkut]

@Lute Skywatcher

exactly what sort of private information do you think the Admins have access to?

Information e-mailed in confidence?

[Skywatcher]

Information e-mailed in confidence?

From the link:

@Ed Zotti

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.

[AncientHumanoid]

@Berkut

Information e-mailed in confidence?

Which is the 2% Dex spoke of.

I think way too many people are over reacting on both sides of this issue. Was TD wrong in how she went about this episode? Yes. Are any of us in danger of being unjustly imprisoned because of any of this? I doubt it.

Saying nothing wrong happened is credulity of the highest order (DDG), but claiming that the sky is falling down is just as bad. Let’s all wait and see what happens. If anyone doesn’t want to rejoin, or wishes to no longer be a member, that’s their choice.

Mostly, I fear we’re all going to talk this to death, and then when the Alpha Centaurians come and start replacing us with pods, no one will notice.

[AZCowboy]

Berkut, if the information was emailed by a third party, does the first party still have the presumption of confidence?

If you and I agree to hold each other’s emails in confidence, and I send an email to Guinastasia calling you a poopy head (and have no such confidentiality agreement with her), she forwards you my email - is that email covered by our confidentiality agreement? Should I presume that my email to her be held in confidence?

Even more extreme, if I send you an email calling you a poopy head, and then take out a full page ad in USA Today calling you a poopy head, and you later post a message saying that I called you a poopy head, did you violate our confidentiality agreement?

[Berkut]

Lute, I’ve already read the link. What point are you trying to make? You asked “exactly what sort of private information do you think the Admins have access to?” and I answered you. They may aquire private information that’s been emailed to them.

Are you saying that staff members, in the course of their duties, never receive email that contains information that should be kept private?

On preview:
AZCowboy, I think your hypothetical situations don’t really cover the problem. The question is: If I find it necessary to send private information to a staff member, is it reasonable to expect that it will not be shared with the other users?

I personally think that, for the most part, privacy issues are addressed adequately. But the notion that staff member’s access to private information is limited solely by their database access is silly.

[andros]

I hate soccer and SUVs. Oh, and anyone who circumcizes their child is an abuser. I’d bet a thousand dollars that I’m really Clark Kent.
There ain’t enough rolleyes in the world.

[Polycarp]

@andros

I’d bet a thousand dollars that I’m really Clark Kent.

Yeah, but you’re obviously also an Administrator’s sock!

For those who might care, this is an allusion to one of the classic Phaedrus stories, in which he offered to “prove” that Gaudere, Andros, and a poster named Clark K. were the same person.

[Liberal]

@Polycarp

For those who might care, this is an allusion to one of the classic Phaedrus stories, in which he offered to “prove” that Gaudere, Andros, and a poster named Clark K. were the same person.

For the record, Poly, Gaudere wasn’t an administrator then. I don’t even think she was yet a mud.

[Liberal]

Aw, hell.

[AZCowboy]

@Berkut

AZCowboy, I think your hypothetical situations don’t really cover the problem. The question is: If I find it necessary to send private information to a staff member, is it reasonable to expect that it will not be shared with the other users?

I personally think that, for the most part, privacy issues are addressed adequately. But the notion that staff member’s access to private information is limited solely by their database access is silly.

Yes, I think it reasonable to expect that information shared with staff members in private not be shared with others. And I agree with your follow up point.

[Good_Egg]

@Liberal

For the record, Poly, Gaudere wasn’t an administrator then. I don’t even think she was yet a mud.

Ah, so thats how mods evolve!

[JimOfAllTrades]

@1010011010

Now we know they don’t have what it takes. It doesn’t matter that they have performed their job faithfully and well up to this point. One mistake of this category and magnitude is sufficient for disqualification.
(snip)
I do deal with classified information on a daily basis, and so far have demonstrated “flawless handling” of that information. However, If I post a bunch of plant parameters I’d fully expect to be de-nuked, thrown in the brig, and possibly shot. Even if I only did it once.

And your bosses are not her bosses, your job is not her job, and your information is not her information.

The only people qualified to make a ruling here are Ed and the management of the Reader. They have ruled. IMHO, their ruling seems appropriate.

On what basis do you think your vision of what should happen is more valid then theirs? Do you have more information? Do you know more about the people involved?

I’m going to repeat something here I posted yesterday in a different venue:

…I do understand the privacy issue. I am the system administrator for several systems, across several customers, and regularly have personal, payroll, customer, and internal financial information at my fingertips to the tune of many thousands of people. I am the trusted off-site storage for backup tapes that have huge amounts of all that information. And I think all the “strum und drang” is way overblown.

On a personal note, I trust TubaDiva. If the situation came up, I’d send her my credit card and bank account numbers and not worry a whit. My belief is that she has always acted in good faith, and with this community’s best interest in mind. At times we may disagree with her actions (no surprise there, since when have two or people in any situation agreed on everything, all the time?), but the notion of abuse of power and betrayal of trust are foolishness.

[Reeder]

I would trust Tubadiiva with my first born.

Does the fact that she’s 20 matter?

Not a bit.

[Skywatcher]

@Berkut

What point are you trying to make?

That you’re being redundant.

You asked “exactly what sort of private information do you think the Admins have access to?” and I answered you. They may aquire private information that’s been emailed to them.

Yes, of coruse they acquire private information via email. Ed said so in the link.

I personally think that, for the most part, privacy issues are addressed adequately. But the notion that staff member’s access to private information is limited solely by their database access is silly.

Who said anything about them being limited to their database?

[Skywatcher]

In other words, Berkut, you answered a rhetorical question.

[catsix]

RJKUgly said:
IMHO, their ruling seems appropriate.

Well that’s your opinion. Others of us who are in the business obviously disagree.

I am the trusted off-site storage for backup tapes that have huge amounts of all that information. And I think all the “strum und drang” is way overblown.

I wouldn’t trust you with my network if your attitude towards privacy policies is as you’ve stated.

On a personal note, I trust TubaDiva.

I don’t. Not anymore.

If the situation came up, I’d send her my credit card and bank account numbers and not worry a whit. My belief is that she has always acted in good faith, and with this community’s best interest in mind.

Doesn’t matter. She proved she’ll release confidential information bound by privacy policy if the issue pisses her off enough.

Not to be cliche or anything, but there is a road said to be paved with good intentions.