Sure it’s possible. Try to follow me, here.
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.
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?
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?)
That would have been perfectly acceptable, as the information would have come directly from the poster himself.
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.
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.
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.
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
And there, I found this:
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
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.
Now you’re splitting straws.
Ohhh a snide comment about reading comprehension in answer to a legitimate question. Very nice!
Bold is my emphasis. Maybe it’s a reading comprehension issue on my part but Ed, in his post, said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“May include” is clear?
Understood.
Heh, three simulposts.
Three? That’s nothing, you should see the thread from 9/11.