You don’t think that revealing an accusation of possibly illegal action of a banned user is an “egregious violation?”
Jesus.
I think we already had clarified that an administrator of the board would not have access to those details 
So your view is, pretty much, that there is no error of judgement that an admin could possibly make that would constitute a resigning or sacking offence?
Uh, you guys did notice that Cheesesteak conceded the point, right?
Yes, and I think his argument is perfectly reasonable (she fucked up, but not enough to justify her banning). I disagree, or at least think that more is required of her to justify her remaining an admin.
But that’s not for any of us to decide. Oh well. Like I said before, we gotta accept it, but we don’t gotta respect it.
I don’t know, and I don’t really care: the ethics of the situation are what I’m concerned about, not necessarily the policies of the board. I figure Ed Zotti can handle the policy end of things just fine.
I accept that what she did was a serious violation of policy, because the folks that make the policy say that. I accept that it wasn’t a serious enough violation of policy to justify removing her as an admin, because the folks that make the policy say that.
I just don’t think it’s an ethical breach. And I certainly don’t think it’s a legal breach.
Daniel
That’s right. I don’t.
Daniel
I can’t comprehend how revealing a privately made accusation of criminal activity – one that was made to her solely due to her role as an admin – is not an ethical breech.
(Yes, the accuser allegedly also shared the same accusation with someone else, Scotti. But that still doesn’t change the Tubadiva issue.)
Need I really remind anyone here that a mere accusation is not proof of guilt? It should have been kept secret until the investigation was completed. This wasn’t just an ehtical breech, but a breech of good sense and responsibility. And Tubadiva did it knowing it was against SDMB policy, and while still signing her post as “for the SDMB.”
It was a bad mistake that was poorly followed-up on by the administration and moderators here. People are understandably upset about it. And I’m glad they’re letting us air our feelings about it, even though it may not come to anything. That’s what the Pit is for.
Sorry about the repetitive bad spelling of “breach.” Duh. Way to make a point, choie. :rolleyes: :smack:
Guin, I think you need to understand that I’m separating a persons personal info into two groups. One group is covered by the specific terms of the privacy policy, the other is not. The “not” group isn’t necessarily any less important or personal, it just does not happen to be specified in the text of the policy. What might be a breach of personal privacy might not breach a particular agreement, if the information wasn’t covered by the agreement.
Most people (including Zotti) are saying that this information/situation WAS covered by the privacy agreement. I don’t see it, but my opinion on that means bupkus.
Avenger, just because Tuba didn’t have access to the information I considered covered by the policy, doesn’t mean the policy doesn’t have teeth. There are, I’m sure, other people employed by the Reader who DO have access to that info, I don’t know their names, but they are bound by policy.
Let’s go into detail. Despite this being the Pit, surely we can discuss this reasonably.
I will make two nuance-free arguments against my own position, and let me know if you agree, disagree, or mixed feelings about either one or both:
I’m not sure how the actions taken advanced the protection of anyone. That’s one of the main points. If anything the action that was taken may have been counterproductive in that way.
From the same school of argument as the ‘oh but Saddam Hussein used to torture way more Iraqis than we have’ one.
It may make sense to you that there should be such a separation, but we see that the SDMB policy allows no such separation. I realize you’ve conceded the point, but I still thought it was worth making again for emphasis.
You don’t use your own mind to decide what’s serious and what isn’t?
Not me. I don’t think I’ve ever read the particular statute (state law, presumably) it was that created the sex offender registry in question, or any other such statute. I do believe I opined earlier that revealing publicly available information off such a registry is not a violation of any legally cognizable privacy right, but that’s due to the obvious fact that it ain’t private if it’s already public. But it seems an unwarranted leap from mere disclosure to actual harassment. Actual harassment, of course, would most likely be illegal in any event, independent of any inspiration for the harassment found in a sex offender registry.
You do understand what the word “policy” means, right?
Apparently around here, some people only question policy when it’s made by the government.
You know, this thread is one of the main reasons I think I’ll resubscribe next month. No matter how I feel about an administrator issue, I’m free to say what I want about it, and someone else is free to disagree. No one gets banned just because they don’t like what the administration does.
A major messageboard recently shut down, and the consensus seems to be that it was because of the way administration handled the moderation of the board. You not only couldn’t disagree with the admins/mods, you couldn’t even email them to question one of their many highly-questionable rulings or else you would be banned.
We have rules here, of course, some I agree with, some I don’t. But we are allowed to disagree. And that means a lot to me.
Welcome back Tuba.
You have been missed.
Count me in the “she did nothing wrong” category.
In fact, I believe she was trying to perform a public service by informing people about a potential threat to them and their loved ones.
You all realize of course, that carrying privacy to an extreme means that there would be no witnesses to criminal acts? Can’t go and testify against someone because that would be “violating their privacy”.
Even if using the Megan’s law info for harrassment is illegal, how does what TD did constitute “harrassment”? It’s just revealing the info – she never advocating conducting any sort of harassment campaign against him.
Its ridiculous to believe that its okay for the government to collect and publish this info, but not okay for people to share it with one another.
I strongly believe that “it takes a village” and this is what TubaDiva was attempting to do. She saw a threat to the community and was sharing what she knew about this threat with others.
People do this kind of shit every day.
Honestly, I wouldn’t do what she did, because it wouldn’t pass the “what’s in it for me test”, but I believe she did it with the best of “busy body” intentions.