# Privacy rules don't count for moderators **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 25, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817 "2004-07-25T16:44:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/61 "2004-07-27T15:33:45Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > That’s impossible Jeff. Sure it’s possible. Try to follow me, here. **Aldebaran** ’s antagonistic nature, referenced by [hajario](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5106720&postcount=25), had people [wondering if he really is where he’s been saying he is](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5062981&postcount=49). **Lynn** ’s posting about Belgium was in direct response to the exchange between [Aldebaran](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5063060&postcount=54) and **Mehitabel**. Who broke the rules where is irrelevant. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/62 "2004-07-27T15:52:15Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Never? In the thread that spawned this one, **Ilsa\_Lund** pointed out that **Aldebaran** [once claimed to be posting from Belgium](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3597073&highlight=Belgium#post3597073) last year. I’m confused about the OP. I thought it was widely known that **Aldeberan** lived in Belgium. I knew that about him already, as he has posted about it in the past. Although **Aldeberan** has a legit _general_ point in this OP, he is nevertheless being disingenuous in this _specific_ thread, IMHO. How can he have a beef with **Lynn** for revealing information that he already had revealed (unless his beef is _specifically_ with posting the results of an IP trace for all to see)? Would it have been more acceptable for **Lynn** to have posted a link to the thread above to establish **Aldeberan’s** location? ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/63 "2004-07-27T17:05:22Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Sure it’s possible. Try to follow me, here. > > **Aldebaran** ’s antagonistic nature, referenced by [hajario](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5106720&postcount=25), had people [wondering if he really is where he’s been saying he is](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5062981&postcount=49). **Lynn** ’s posting about Belgium was in direct response to the exchange between [Aldebaran](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5063060&postcount=54) and **Mehitabel**. Who broke the rules where is irrelevant. We’re splitting hairs here. I’m willing to concede if you’re willing to show me where antagonistic natures and causing people to wonder where you’re from are rule breakers. They may border on Jerkiness but that would be a judgement call, not a broken rule per say. Maybe the guy moves around alot…How is that anyones business 'cept the poster himself? And if he did lead anyone on about where he lives why is that a crime, and how can it be proven? The one thing that was proven was that Lynn slipped up, --the book is still open on whether or not Aldebaran lied to us. (Am I all wet here?) > [@bordelond](#): > > Would it have been more acceptable for Lynn to have posted a link to the thread above to establish Aldeberan’s location? That would have been perfectly acceptable, as the information would have come directly from the poster himself. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/64 "2004-07-27T17:23:23Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > I personally think all the Location whoo-haa is no big deal. Why people don’t want others to know what city they post from is beyond me. I can think of quite a few good reasons! Say someone has been harassing you, or stalking you online, for one. Wouldn’t you want your actual physical location kept hidden from this individual? Now I personally don’t care if people know where I’m from. That being said, I should be the one to disclose my location, not anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Bean\_Counter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bean\_Counter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bean_Counter)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/65 "2004-07-27T17:25:58Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > **QED** , your claim that country of residence does not constitute “personal information” isn’t even borne out by your own cite. According to the Children’s Online Privacy Act, “personal information” includes Just because “a home or other physical address” **includes** street name and city or town does not mean it **excludes** country of residence. Indeed, any reasonable interpretation of the Act would determine that country of residence is indeed part of “a home or other physical address,” and therefore constitutes “personal information.” So if I address a snail-mail letter to: Duke, U.S.A., do you think it’s going to get to you? But if it’s addressed to: Duke, 123 Duke Lane, Dukeville, Duke State, Duke-Zip, that will do the job. The difference is the former is “personal” information for 250+ million, whereas the later can identify you and the other residents of your humble abode. > [@Daisy Mae](#): > > What part of the word ANY in "“Chicago Reader, Inc. respects your privacy and will never release any personal information about you without your consent.” is unclear to you? My position is that it was not personal information for the above reason. ---
**Author:** ![Daisy\_Mae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@Daisy\_Mae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daisy_Mae)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/66 "2004-07-27T18:03:30Z")
> [@Bean Counter](#): > > So if I address a snail-mail letter to: Duke, U.S.A., do you think it’s going to get to you? But if it’s addressed to: Duke, 123 Duke Lane, Dukeville, Duke State, Duke-Zip, that will do the job. The difference is the former is “personal” information for 250+ million, whereas the later can identify you and the other residents of your humble abode. > > My position is that it was not personal information for the above reason. Give me a break. Seriously. That is beyond ridiculous. Just because it doesn’t give you an address, a map, and a taxi ride to his front door doesn’t mean it isn’t personal information. Lynn used a tool given to her by the website we pay to use to find out where he is located so she could be a big shot in a thread and bust him out. Not only is it wrong and unethical, it’s childish and stupid. And here you sit defending it to gain brownie points of some sort. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/67 "2004-07-27T18:03:43Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > I can think of quite a few good reasons! Say someone has been harassing you, or stalking you online, for one. Wouldn’t you want your actual physical location kept hidden from this individual? Sure, but how does ‘city’ or ‘state’ really get anyone that much closer to finding you? I’m not talking about divulging your IP address or your home address. At least put the country down in the location, no? I suppose if you divulged enough info over the years such as your type of job, what kind of car you drove, your wifes name, etc., someone could track you down eventually. I’m quite certain some people here could locate me based on certain things I have disclosed over the years, but I also haven’t made any enemies that I would be worried about. I hope. I can see why someone would want to remain anonymous and I agree with you that such a person has that right and should be the only person responsible for giving out such info. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/68 "2004-07-27T18:08:12Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > [And they didn’t](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&oi=defmore&q=define:Personal+Information). The term “personal information” as used in online privacy policies has a specific definition and scope… Although this fact was pointed out elsewhere, I followed that link, **Q.E.D.**. It lead me here: [www.microsoft.com/security/glossary/glossary\_P.asp](http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary/glossary_P.asp) And there, I found [this](http://www.microsoft.com/security/glossary.mspx#personally_identifiable_information): > [@](#): > > **personally identifiable information (PII)** > Any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual. Such information may include name, country, street address, e-mail address, credit card number, Social Security number, government ID number, IP address, or any unique identifier that is associated with PII in another system. Also known as personal information or personal data. I underlined the relevant part (and it’s interesting to note that IP address is listed as well). It seems one of your own cites is contrary to what you’re trying to say. Granted, it says “_may_ include” and **Ed** has already made the SDMB’s policy clear, but there’s obviously a perfectly valid and accepted argument against your POV. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/69 "2004-07-27T18:18:06Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > We’re splitting hairs here. I’m willing to concede if you’re willing to show me where antagonistic natures and causing people to wonder where you’re from are rule breakers. Never said they were. What I have been saying is that his behavior directly led to this mess, therefore he shares some responsiblity for it. > [@](#): > > _Maybe the guy moves around alot…How is that anyones business 'cept the poster himself? And if he did lead anyone on about where he lives why is that a crime, and how can it be proven? The one thing that was proven was that Lynn slipped up, --the book is still open on whether or not Aldebaran lied to us. (Am I all wet here?)_ Now you’re splitting straws. ---
**Author:** ![Daisy\_Mae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@Daisy\_Mae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daisy_Mae)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/70 "2004-07-27T18:23:48Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > Often, we make the assumption that members of the board have some minimal ability in reading comprehension. We are often proved wrong. Ohhh a snide comment about reading comprehension in answer to a legitimate question. Very nice! > [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > I don’t understand where some of you people are coming from. We have our rules, and a violation/error was committed. We have apologized for that. I don’t quite understand what more you’re asking for. **A “list of steps taken” to ensure that there is no future violation?** The moderators are all very aware of this regrettable lapse. The moderators are now all very aware of the privacy rules of the SDMB. Isn’t that obvious and clear from what Ed said up front? Bold is my emphasis. Maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue on my part but Ed, in his post, said: > [@Ed Zotti](#): > > Couple things: > > 1. It was a mistake for SDMB staff to post personal information about **Aldebaran** derived from his IP number. Our message board software routinely logs IP numbers, which we sometimes review to identify sock puppets and perform other administrative tasks. However, the numbers and any information derived from them are for internal use only and are not to be posted or otherwise revealed to anyone other than SDMB staff, Chicago Reader management, or law enforcement upon receipt of a bona fide inquiry. We apologize to Aldebaran for this breach of privacy **and have taken steps to ensure that such lapses do not recur.** Because Ed clearly stated this, it confused me that your post seemed to question where we would get such a crazy idea. I don’t think it is that unreasonable for customers (I paid so I think of myself as a customer) to ask what these steps are. Apparently, that’s not the case. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/71 "2004-07-27T18:48:04Z")
> [@Coldfire](#): > > Meh. > > In the thread you linked to, we had one poster claiming you were from Israel, and another saying you were from Europe. I checked your IP, and told the posters that you were from neither of those. I _could_ have told them what country you reside in, as it is quite obvious from the IP address, but I left that to you to decide. I was merely telling the posters at hand they were both wrong. > > I’m fully behind **Ed Zotti** here: the staff should not divulge information such as IP addresses and subsequent locations on the boards. But I don’t reckon that what I did qualifies as such. However, if you feel you were slighted as a result of my remark, I do apologise. That was never my intention. I have to disagree with you \*\* Coldfire \*\*. Many people on this board are going to call bullshit on some statement or another made by a paster. In essentially all cases we won’t ever know whether the statement was truthful or not. We can live with that. We know we can’t rely on what is said on a message board. You happen to have access to some informations about posters, which, in some rare cases can settle the argument. But there’s no need to settle it anymore than any other one, except perhaps in some exceptionnal circumstances which anyway, shouldn’t be settled on the board but outside it, with the proper authorities, for instance. You could, and I believe _should_ have ignored the argument, and kept you knowlege to yourself, and let the poster make their mind by themselves, like we do in most other instances. The lack of objective need to disclose an information you had access to out of necessity should be a good enough reason not to disclose it, regardless of how unimportant it could appear to be in your opinion. Acting otherwise is an abuse of your priviledges as a moderator, since it doesn’t serve any moderating purpose. Except if you can make your case that it does serve some important purpose, which isn’t true is this example. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/72 "2004-07-27T18:52:13Z")
> [@Daisy Mae](#): > > I don’t think it is that unreasonable for customers (I paid so I think of myself as a customer) to ask what these steps are. People have also been asking them to clairfy their “don’t be a jerk” rule, their replay has always been “we know it when we see it.” That’s the best answer they can give. You’ve already received the best answer they can give in regards to the personal information question. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/73 "2004-07-27T18:54:09Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > What I have been saying is that his behavior directly led to this mess, therefore he shares some responsiblity for it. I still disagree. Just because he walked a fine line does not give the enforcer the good reason to break any of the rules governing this board. As has been pointed out, there are a plethora of ways to deal with the situation that don’t include circumventing the rules. This may be a difference of opinion that we both share that extends to daily living and such but just because someone acts up doesn’t mean that the offended party is justified in their response. Yeah, I understand that he induced SOME reaction (whatever that may be), but the reaction that occurred was not appropriate. Therefore, he is not responsible for it. If a cop kicks my ass because I was speeding, did I deserve that? No, I deserved a ticket and am only responsible for such a reaction by the officer, not the ass-kicking. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/74 "2004-07-27T19:11:39Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > I still disagree. Just because he walked a fine line does not give the enforcer the good reason to break any of the rules governing this board. As has been pointed out, there are a plethora of ways to deal with the situation that don’t include circumventing the rules. > This may be a difference of opinion that we both share that extends to daily living and such but just because someone acts up doesn’t mean that the offended party is justified in their response. Never said it was justified. > [@](#): > > - > > Yeah, I understand that he induced SOME reaction (whatever that may be), but the reaction that occurred was not appropriate. Therefore, he is not responsible for it.\* You’re missing the point. I’m not saying that he’s responsible for the _reaction_ but rather the circumstances which led up to it. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/75 "2004-07-27T19:24:26Z")
> [@Bean Counter](#): > > So if I address a snail-mail letter to: Duke, U.S.A., do you think it’s going to get to you? But if it’s addressed to: Duke, 123 Duke Lane, Dukeville, Duke State, Duke-Zip, that will do the job. The difference is the former is “personal” information for 250+ million, whereas the later can identify you and the other residents of your humble abode. > [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Aldebaran’s antagonistic nature, referenced by hajario, had people wondering if he really is where he’s been saying he is. Lynn’s posting about Belgium was in direct response to the exchange between Aldebaran and Mehitabel. Who broke the rules where is irrelevant. These arguments are related, so I’ll discuss them both here. Firstly, there is no criterion for “personal information” that states that it involves information that might identify, locate, or embarrass the person involved. “Any personal information” means, well, any personal information, and any part of a person’s address qualifies, whether or not it allows somebody else to figure out the rest of the address. The Microsoft Security site linked to by **Esprix** quite clearly states that country of residence is “personal information,” as does the EU Data Protection Act. If it’s good enough for the European Union _and_ Bill Gates, it’s good enough for me. Secondly, the Chicago Reader board contract doesn’t state that “Chicago Reader, Inc. respects your privacy and will never release any personal information about you without your consent, _unless you act like a jerk_.” If the Reader can’t release personal information about one member, it can’t release it for another, no matter how doltish said member has acted around here. I realize that **Jeff** has agreed that the breach was unjustified, but **hajario** strongly suggested that above. Neither the “quality” of the personal information released nor the “quality” of the poster involved should matter in data protection issues. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/76 "2004-07-27T19:38:40Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > I realize that **Jeff** has agreed that the breach was unjustified, but **hajario** strongly suggested that above. > > Neither the “quality” of the personal information released nor the “quality” of the poster involved should matter in data protection issues. You’re absolutely right that the rule is the rule. It’s clear that the rule was broken and there is no excuse for that. Given that the rule is in place, **Lynn** shouldn’t have done what she did. **Zotti** has apologized for that as well he should have. Where I think we disagree is that I think the outing would have been justified if the rule wasn’t in place. I can see why **Lynn** did what she did. Haj ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/77 "2004-07-27T19:38:40Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > The Microsoft Security site linked to by **Esprix** quite clearly states that country of residence is “personal information” “May include” is clear? ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/78 "2004-07-27T19:38:54Z")
> [@Jeff Olsen](#): > > Never said it was justified.You’re missing the point. I’m not saying that he’s responsible for the _reaction_ but rather the circumstances which led up to it. Understood. ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/79 "2004-07-27T19:40:27Z")
Heh, three simulposts. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817/80 "2004-07-27T19:55:30Z")
Three? That’s nothing, you should see the thread from 9/11. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/privacy-rules-dont-count-for-moderators/256817.md?page=5)