TubaDiva is back as an admin after less than 30 days - how do YOU feel?

[1010011010]

@Legolamb

No, and this is where so many of the defenders, and some of the attackers, are going wrong. The Meagan’s Law information was publicly available, so, whilst posting it in the SDMB LJ and his personal LJ could possibly constitute harassment and therefore an illegal use of it, it was not a privacy violation, even though I’m sure it is the issue that StageManager may or may not take up with the authorities.

Chances are, your real name, home address, and phone number all appear in a publically accessible resource. It’s called a phone book.

However, that record, though publically available, has no definite link with Legolamb the SDMB user… that information, though publically available, is effectively private information. If I post your real name, home address, and phone number, it is a violation of your privacy… even if I get it from a publically available resource. Because while your user name is public and your address is public… the information about which address is Legolamb’s is private.

That the publically available resource in this case was an online registry for sex offenders doesn’t change the fact that providing the link between a specific record in that database with the the user StageManager is a privacy violation… no different than if she has just posted his name and address without any apparent source.

[LordVor]

@minty green

Not quite the section-subsection cite I asked for, but close enough. One may presume that harassment is indeed a crime of some sort in California. But do you contend that posting a registered sex offender’s publicly-available information from the sex offender registry is, by itself, harassment?

A big ol’ “it depends”. I said before that I am not a lawyer. Tuba is not a lawyer. Seems like the intent of the law is to provide that information to people who are “at risk”, so I would feel a bit shakey sharing the information to everybody reading two different journals who obviously aren’t at risk. So I would refer myself to the relevant portion of the FAQ:

“Misuse of the information may make the user liable for money damages or an injunction against the misuse. Before using the information disclosed on this Web site, you may want to consult with an attorney”

I trust your assessment of the likely outcome of any civil action, since you are a lawyer. If the Reader’s lawyers (or any other lawyers) oked her actions before she did it, then fine. But I haven’t heard anybody claim that, and I doubt they did, since the internal investigation did conclude that the privacy policy was breached, and no lawyer would recommend breaching the privacy policy.

That sort of irresponsibility, taking that sort of a step on your own authority without consulting anybody as to the legality of your actions and the legal implications for yourself and your organization, is unbecoming in an administrator.

[leander]

@meanoldman

I joined -partially- because of perceived comraderie. It’s false, I know, but it’s as real as any to be found IRL.

No, it’s not. The sooner you learn this the better.

Oh, and welcome to the SDMB!

[Maendosa]

@quixotic78

Well, I didn’t even know about this situation until I read this thread, so you can count my opinion as pretty much unbiased. It seems to me that TubaDiva has Tenure, if I may borrow the term from academic circles. People with tenure are notoriously difficult to fire – hell, that’s even kind of the point. Sort of like, “You’ve been here so long and you’ve done such a good job, we’re going to remove the Sword of Damocles that’s been hanging over your head, and make it so that we can’t fire you on a whim.”

But even tenured university faculty members are not above the law; there’s a line that, if crossed, results in termination. I think reasonable people can disagree as to whether Tuba crossed such a line in the current situation. But if you’re a Tuba Apologist (not that there’s anything wrong with that), I want you to do a little thought-experiment and answer the following question:

What is the least heinous thing that Tuba can do that, in your opinion, would warrant a termination of Administrator status? I mean, sure, if she stole everyone’s credit card numbers, that’d be just cause for banning in anyone’s opinion. Same if she deleted everything from the Board. But I want to know your “line in the sand” that cannot be crossed, and then the action that juuuuuuust crosses that line. Compare it to what went down in the current situation. Is one egregiously worse than the other?

For me, the invasion of privacy and especially the deliberate tap-dancing around Board rules (i.e., the "I had to do it in LiveJournal because I can’t do it on the Boards) do indeed cross that line. If they don’t for you – well, like I said, that’s fine. But at least give the situation a moment’s thought instead of saying, “Tuba friend me good! She stay-stay!”

I wanted to quote this post, because in all the tempest surrounding this issue, I thought this question was the most concise and pertinant one. Where would YOU draw the line, those of you who think Tuba should continue in her administrative position?

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

@1010011010

That the publically available resource in this case was an online registry for sex offenders doesn’t change the fact that providing the link between a specific record in that database with the the user StageManager is a privacy violation… no different than if she has just posted his name and address without any apparent source.

Actually, the RSO was using his real name in his email address, which he himself made available to the public in his profile. Thus he himself was the first one to provide the public link between his username and the database.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

@Guinastasia

And the admins of this board don’t give a shit about the whole thing, they don’t CARE that we’re concerned over the way this place is run, and they probably wouldn’t even have done jack shit if we hadn’t kept at them. And that pisses a lot of people off.

This is a flat-out lie. Whatever you think you understand about the inner workings of the board, Guinastasia, let me assure you that you are 100% wrong.

[leander]

@John Carter of Mars

Actually, the RSO was using his real name in his email address, which he himself made available to the public in his profile. Thus he himself was the first one to provide the public link between his username and the database.

That’s true, but would you think it appropriate if someone were to post your real name, address, phone # and picture along with allegations of illegal activities for all to see?

[Guinastasia]

Well, I’m sorry, but that is the impression I’m getting. This wasn’t the first violation of privacy-remember Aldebaran? Then when this whole mess flared up, Dex told us flat out that the Reader doesn’t consider us a priority. And now the staff STILL is working on their privacy policy, and can’t reassure us.

Now, I may be wrong, it’s just how it LOOKS to me, like the only reason they addressed what Tuba did was because we raised such a stink. Even if that’s not true, a lot of us are getting that impression.

[leander]

@Arnold Winkelried

This is a flat-out lie. Whatever you think you understand about the inner workings of the board, Guinastasia, let me assure you that you are 100% wrong.

Which part? That you don’t give a shit or that you wouldn’t have done anything if not for the public outcry?

[Arnold_Winkelried]

leander: Both.

[Scotticher]

@meanoldman

Actually, come to think of it, has nothing to to with TD specifically. More with general attitude. And those against the return of TD (speaking in wild generalizations) seem to be be the kind of people I avoid IRL.

Well, you are partially correct. Some people like to argue and get enraged…and this situation just handed them a “THING” to get all het up about …on sort of a silver platter. On the other hand, some of the people who are expressing concern are actually concerned. I also avoid the kind of people you are talking about IRL, too. Life is too short.

It is a really good community, though. Very intelligent people with lots of heart and things to share. I hope you won’t give up one us just because we are being fractious about this one issue. Heh…much later, you will be able to give up on us for being fractious on OTHER issues. I guarantee it.

[Guinastasia]

Scotti, I still want you to know that I consider you a friend, even if we disagree over this thing.

[Scotticher]

Oh honey…of course! I never thought otherwise.

[leander]

@Arnold Winkelried

leander: Both.

Well, that’s nice to hear and all, but it seems clear that the second part isn’t exactly true. It’s obvious you guys care an awful lot about this place, there’s no doubt about that; but the way this thing unfolded, and the way action was taken, makes it pretty evident that your course was affected by the reaction of the members. Don’t take that as a personal slight or threat to authority; it wouldn’t kill you to admit that the rubble aggravated the rub, and as a result highlighted some weakness in the staff’s approach and brought about some much needed changes to this little community.

[Scotticher]

You know, HERE

[Arnold_Winkelried]

leander, clearly you didn’t read Guinastasia’s post very carefully. Here’s what she said: “they probably wouldn’t even have done jack shit if we hadn’t kept at them.” I repeat, that is not true. If you want to think it’s true I’m obviously not going to convince you. Go ahead thinking what you want.

[Duderdude2]

@Arnold Winkelried

This is a flat-out lie. Whatever you think you understand about the inner workings of the board, Guinastasia, let me assure you that you are 100% wrong.

Actions speak louder than words, and thus far, the SDMB’s actions have lead many of us to a similar conclusion that Guinastasia arrived at.

[Scotticher]

@Scotticher

You know, HERE

Is that obscure enough to pique your interest? Didn’t think so.

Unfortunately, it was part of a whole post that somehow got lost in the mists of time and it is time for me to go to bed so I haven’t time to recreate it.

Fortunately, it wasn’t all that important. Nothing I have to say really is.

Night now.

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

@leander

That’s true, but would you think it appropriate if someone were to post your real name, address, phone # and picture along with allegations of illegal activities for all to see?

Well, if I was an RSO that was using this message board as a playground to stalk kids, I’d probably expect something like that to happen when I got caught.

Like the old Beretta theme song: “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time…”

[1010011010]

@John Carter of Mars

Actually, the RSO was using his real name in his email address, which he himself made available to the public in his profile. Thus he himself was the first one to provide the public link between his username and the database.

Oh, I never said the link TubaDiva provided was a particularly hard one to forge. It’s also in his ICQ profile. It takes a few minutes to hunt down the information TubaDiva posted. I’d never bothered to do that legwork, and most of us probably hadn’t bothered to look him up, either.

It probably wouldn’t be that difficult to hunt down the real names and addresses of a lot of the SDMB members. And it probably would make a lot of the SDMB members uncomfortable to have their real name and home address posted. I’d fully expect a user who posted another user’s personal information to be banned.

I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the user wasn’t banned in this instance… or any explanation for why it was necessary to post his name and home address.