Privacy Policy

[Iona Mink]

Hi,

This questions follows from a conversation I had with Kewpie last night. Does this site have a privacy policy? And if so, could someone provide me a link to it? Kewpie said that it is contained in the tos. I couldn't see it and Kewpie unfortunately didn't get back to me with clarification.

Just to be clear, I am certain all of the information gathered is done innocently, however I am still interested in knowing the answer.

For background, here is the conversation.

How do you know he is lying?

Site administrator does not give a tool to moderators to access to central private message function.

A user Death Disco is really ignorant to believe such a stupid statement of some people who left to start other site.

AYNIM uses a free software which does not have many tools. It makes them to think that moderators of this site are able to read other users' PMs.
However, it's untrue.

Site administrator gave mods to other tool which gave me info about a user Death Disco is a pathetic coward and liar.

Thanks Kewpie for confirming.

Are we able to know what other tools are at your disposal?

I'm afraid I'm not allowed to discuss moderation tools with you.

Why is that?

Because it's against moderators conduct which is set by site administrator.

Is there somewhere I can read how my personal information is being monitored, collated and disseminated?

I'm afraid all this makes me rather uneasy.

http://www.morrissey-solo.com/tos.shtml

Site administrator and moderators do not store and able to access users' personal info.

Thanks.

I'm a little confused. Can you direct me to where on the tos it states the kinds of information being monitored? Or my privacy rights? I did read it but it is late and I may have missed it. Thanks.

I don't understand your last sentence, you are able to access user's personal information?

If you are unable to access personal information, what are the kinds of information were you able to gather from your moderation tool that Death Disco was "a pathetic coward and a liar". I might be wrong but that sounds like you have personal information about him that you have gathered by methods allowed to you via this site.

I would still be interested as well as knowing the answer to the questions I have highlighted in bold.

Thank you.

[davidt]

There is no set "privacy policy" for the site, the closest is in the TOS. In section 5. Submissions - "Any Content, creative materials, ideas, or suggestions you send to the Site by email or otherwise, including, without limitation, images, original artwork and text, will be treated as non-confidential and non-proprietary."

Moderators can see the member's IP address of the posts and email addresses. This is necessary for abuse / spam prevention and the settings I use are those that come standard with the vBulletin software. As an admin I have access to the database and the text of the PMs are not encrypted.

[Iona Mink]

There is no set "privacy policy" for the site, the closest is in the TOS. In section 5. Submissions - "Any Content, creative materials, ideas, or suggestions you send to the Site by email or otherwise, including, without limitation, images, original artwork and text, will be treated as non-confidential and non-proprietary."

Moderators can see the member's IP address of the posts and email addresses. This is necessary for abuse / spam prevention and the settings I use are those that come standard with the vBulletin software. As an admin I have access to the database and the text of the PMs are not encrypted.

Thanks David for a prompt and straight answer.

Is this information stored and if so, for how long?

I would interpret section 5 to relate to material submitted for publication on the site and not personal details. As I have selected certain aspects of my profile to remain private, would you consider things such as my email address to be 'non-confidential and non-proprietary' in as far that it can become public information? Surely some things are to be held in a confidential relationship between the user and the Site (and it's representatives)

Would Kewpie be able to answer how from knowing Death Disco's IP address and email on what basis is she can confidently call him a liar (he claimed to have support on the site) and a coward, with a warning to "behave himself"? I realise this may infringe upon Death Disco's privacy so I don't ask to know details or specifics, more to how can that sort of judgement be made from an IP address and email?

It seems to me that there is a sense of moderators being able to hold certain types of information over users head (so to speak) to pull out when they see fit.

[davidt]

Yes email addresses are confidential. I don't know the context of Death Disco being called a liar but moderators do also see moderation actions, such as warnings / infractions given to users.

It is often a conflict for members of the site to post and also moderate but please understand this is the way the system works, they are volunteering their time to help keep things moving and orderly. I could look for completely unbiased people to moderate but they would probably not do a very good job and would probably want to be paid. If you have a concern you are welcome to email me or post here in the forum as you have.

[Death Disco]

Hi,

This questions follows from a conversation I had with Kewpie last night. Does this site have a privacy policy? And if so, could someone provide me a link to it? Kewpie said that it is contained in the tos. I couldn't see it and Kewpie unfortunately didn't get back to me with clarification.

Just to be clear, I am certain all of the information gathered is done innocently, however I am still interested in knowing the answer.

For background, here is the conversation.



















I would still be interested as well as knowing the answer to the questions I have highlighted in bold.

Thank you.

Both of the questions you highlighted seem to be more about me than about any privacy policy or lack thereof...

[Death Disco]

Would Kewpie be able to answer how from knowing Death Disco's IP address and email on what basis is she can confidently call him a liar (he claimed to have support on the site) and a coward, with a warning to "behave himself"? I realise this may infringe upon Death Disco's privacy so I don't ask to know details or specifics, more to how can that sort of judgement be made from an IP address and email?

Can you please leave me out of this.

[Iona Mink]

Yes email addresses are confidential. I don't know the context of Death Disco being called a liar but moderators do also see moderation actions, such as warnings / infractions given to users.

It is often a conflict for members of the site to post and also moderate but please understand this is the way the system works, they are volunteering their time to help keep things moving and orderly. I could look for completely unbiased people to moderate but they would probably not do a very good job and would probably want to be paid. If you have a concern you are welcome to email me or post here in the forum as you have.

Are you able to tell me if IP addresses are stored and if so, for how long?

I have no problem with the moderators you have selected. I have no doubt they all do a exceptional job on their own dime however, as they are also members in addition to being moderators I would hope that they are held to the same standard (and quite possibly higher) than the rest of us schmucks, namely that they adhere to the TOS as well. In particular, section 6, point 1

[You agree to not use the Service to:]

1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

Moderators have a authority, given by you, to see information that most people can't. By publicly proclaiming and boasting of that privileged knowledge in order to wield power/authority over another user is flying in the face of this directive.

[Iona Mink]

Both of the questions you highlighted seem to be more about me than about any privacy policy or lack thereof...

You're a convenient example of how personal information can be used to make public judgements about users. I won't bring your name up again.

[davidt]

Are you able to tell me if IP addresses are stored and if so, for how long?

I have no problem with the moderators you have selected. I have no doubt they all do a exceptional job on their own dime however, as they are also members in addition to moderators I would hope that they are held to the same standard (and quite possibly higher) than the rest of us schmucks, namely that they adhere to the TOS as well. In particular, section 6, point 1

[You agree to not use the Service to:]

1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

Moderators have a authority, given by you, to see information that most people can't. By publicly proclaiming and boasting of that privileged knowledge in order to wield power/authority over another user is flying in the face of this directive.

IP's are stored with the post so are not deleted.

What private info was leaked?

[Iona Mink]

IP's are stored with the post so are not deleted.

What private info was leaked?

Given my post above yours and sticking to my word, I won't continue.

Thanks for your time.

[Death Disco]

You're a convenient example of how personal information can be used to make public judgements about users. I won't bring your name up again.

Thanks. Feel free to continue asking questions, I'd just rather not be involved in it. I don't want my IP address accidentally plastered all over this site. Good work on putting the Patsy picture back, too.

[Iona Mink]

Thanks. Feel free to continue asking questions, I'd just rather not be involved in it. I don't want my IP address accidentally plastered all over this site. Good work on putting the Patsy picture back, too.

That's fair enough. The conversation is bound to involve you again so I'll stop. I'm sure the issue will raise its head again in the future when I'll revisit it again

Thanks for your words about the avatar. Patsy it will stay in one form or another!

[Iona Mink]

IP's are stored with the post so are not deleted.

What private info was leaked?

So I've thought about this and think I can explain myself this way.

For me privacy is anything that a person doesn't wish to disclose. We are not public figures and there isn't a case of the public's right to know. We are free to decide what we make public information and publish on the site and what we do not.

I think it is also wrong to confuse an "invasion of privacy" with "private info being leaked". To invade someone's privacy or right to privacy is different that leaking private information.

So let me suggest a hypothetical. I work in the medical field where privacy and confidentiality is paramount. Perhaps that is why this struck a chord with me.

So patient 1 and patient 2 are in the waiting room. They are chatting away close to the nurses desk.

Patient 1: "Well, you know my family has a strong constitution. The doctor says I am as strong as an ox. I could take on 10 men and defeat them. The doctor says he has never see anything like it. "

Patient 2: "Really? That's amazing"

Nurse sitting at desk: "Hahahahahahaha, you're a liar! You're a pathetic coward!"

Patient 2: "How do you know this?"

Nurse: "The doctor has given me access to information to know these things about this patient."


In my opinion, has any info been leaked? No. Privacy invaded? Yes. I guess it depends if you think the information shared with you is confidential or not and whether your representatives has the authority to allude to that information about others with us or not.

[davidt]

So I've thought about this and think I can explain myself this way.

For me privacy is anything that a person doesn't wish to disclose. We are not public figures and there isn't a case of the public's right to know. We are free to decide what we make public information and publish on the site and what we do not.

I think it is also wrong to confuse an "invasion of privacy" with "private info being leaked". To invade someone's privacy or right to privacy is different that leaking private information.

So let me suggest a hypothetical. I work in the medical field where privacy and confidentiality is paramount. Perhaps that is why this struck a chord with me.

So patient 1 and patient 2 are in the waiting room. They are chatting away close to the nurses desk.

Patient 1: "Well, you know my family has a strong constitution. The doctor says I am as strong as an ox. I could take on 10 men and defeat them. The doctor says he has never see anything like it. "

Patient 2: "Really? That's amazing"

Nurse sitting at desk: "Hahahahahahaha, you're a liar! You're a pathetic coward!"

Patient 2: "How do you know this?"

Nurse: "The doctor has given me access to information to know these things about this patient."


In my opinion, has any info been leaked? No. Privacy invaded? Yes. I guess it depends if you think the information shared with you is confidential or not and whether your representatives has the authority to allude to that information about others with us or not.

I see what you are saying and I agree, mods or admins should not be using private information inappropriately. Your hospital example may be close to home but I think it's a little different.

There isn't any really personal info required to use the site - no credit card information, address, or even real name. Certainly no private info such as patient health history. IP's are not really identifiable and can easily be masked by proxies anyway. Email accounts used to register are easily created.

Instead of a hospital, let's say it's a free animal hospital run entirely by volunteers. Some volunteers help out more than others and have been chosen to help keep things going. To do their job they have more access to things like files and security cameras. One volunteer ('A') spots another one ('B') abusing animals after hours on a security camera. He then goes back and looks though other saved security videos and sees more abuse. 'A' reports the user to the admin volunteers by the usual process. Meanwhile 'A' is talking with a group of volunteers and 'B' walks in and starts talking up how much he loves animals. 'A' gets mad and shouts out 'you are such a liar!' and walks out.

Is there some sort of privacy invasion? I suppose so, technically. Maybe not, since it is part of A's job to have access to this additional information. My point before is that mods are humans and are also forum users and there may be a conflict at times. I asked for more info such as what was actually leaked inappropriately so I can take action as necessary.

[Death Disco]

Nurse sitting at desk: "Hahahahahahaha, you're a liar! You're a pathetic coward!"

[Iona Mink]

I see what you are saying and I agree, mods or admins should not be using private information inappropriately. Your hospital example may be close to home but I think it's a little different.

There isn't any really personal info required to use the site - no credit card information, address, or even real name. Certainly no private info such as patient health history. IP's are not really identifiable and can easily be masked by proxies anyway. Email accounts used to register are easily created.

Instead of a hospital, let's say it's a free animal hospital run entirely by volunteers. Some volunteers help out more than others and have been chosen to help keep things going. To do their job they have more access to things like files and security cameras. One volunteer ('A') spots another one ('B') abusing animals after hours on a security camera. He then goes back and looks though other saved security videos and sees more abuse. 'A' reports the user to the admin volunteers by the usual process. Meanwhile 'A' is talking with a group of volunteers and 'B' walks in and starts talking up how much he loves animals. 'A' gets mad and shouts out 'you are such a liar!' and walks out.

Is there some sort of privacy invasion? I suppose so, technically. Maybe not, since it is part of A's job to have access to this additional information. My point before is that mods are humans and are also forum users and there may be a conflict at times. I asked for more info such as what was actually leaked inappropriately so I can take action as necessary.

Hi David,

I may be missing a trick here but is there a 3rd party aggrieved party in this? Who would represent the animals in the scenario that I initially mentioned? If I were to take you animal shelter analogy, Morrissey would be the aggrieved party. I'm not sure that is correct. By the looks of things, it could be argued you don't care too much for animals either.

The scenario you describe isn't accurate. A person didn't just say "you're a liar" walk out but stayed and repeated the claim, called the person stupid and added a warning of "behave yourself". She made a public judgement with private information.

No, I think your animal hospital comparison is not quite right. Saying we are all volunteers doesn't sit right with me. We are not all equal. Surely that is obvious. We all stopped being equal 'volunteers' when you gave a select few powers over other 'volunteers'. We stopped being equal when you gave certain members the power to change others posts, to judge and punish other users with infractions. There is a clear authority and power structure at work. I don't have a problem with that. So be it. If it works for a productive environment, long may it continue. Let's not pretend it is otherwise though. So I think the animal shelter with some volunteers helping more than others analogy has its flaws. [By the way, the volunteers who help out more than others would equate to those with higher post counts but I digress.]

Let me posit another scenario to remove all variations on power, authority and break it down to the bare bones of invading someone's privacy. Because ultimately that is what this is about. You and I are in agreement that no personal information was leaked. I've never claimed that to have happened. Then again, TOS doesn't talk about leaking private information, it says "invasive of another's privacy".

So say for instance I am an alcoholic. I regularly go to meetings but it is something I don't tell anyone about. In fact, part of the agreement of attending AA is that no one should reveal who attends. Say for instance one day I was about to attend a meeting when I come across an acquaintance who works in the place where the meeting takes place. They presume I am an alcoholic.

Later on we are socialising in a group. Someone asks me if I would like a drink and I say "Oh god no, I never touch the stuff. Can't stand it!" The acquaintance pops up and says "hahahahahahahahah, you bloody liar! You're a pathetic drunkard!"

Now, this acquaintance didn't read out my credit card number but did she invade my right to privacy?

[davidt]

Hi David,

I may be missing a trick here but is there a 3rd party aggrieved party in this? Who would represent the animals in the scenario that I initially mentioned? If I were to take you animal shelter analogy, Morrissey would be the aggrieved party. I'm not sure that is correct. By the looks of things, it could be argued you don't care too much for animals either.

The scenario you describe isn't accurate. A person didn't just say "you're a liar" walk out but stayed and repeated the claim, called the person stupid and added a warning of "behave yourself". She made a public judgement with private information.

No, I think your animal hospital comparison is not quite right. Saying we are all volunteers doesn't sit right with me. We are not all equal. Surely that is obvious. We all stopped being equal 'volunteers' when you gave a select few powers over other 'volunteers'. We stopped being equal when you gave certain members the power to change others posts, to judge and punish other users with infractions. There is a clear authority and power structure at work. I don't have a problem with that. So be it. If it works for a productive environment, long may it continue. Let's not pretend it is otherwise though. So I think the animal shelter with some volunteers helping more than others analogy has its flaws. [By the way, the volunteers who help out more than others would equate to those with higher post counts but I digress.]

Let me posit another scenario to remove all variations on power, authority and break it down to the bare bones of invading someone's privacy. Because ultimately that is what this is about. You and I are in agreement that no personal information was leaked. I've never claimed that to have happened. Then again, TOS doesn't talk about leaking private information, it says "invasive of another's privacy".

So say for instance I am an alcoholic. I regularly go to meetings but it is something I don't tell anyone about. In fact, part of the agreement of attending AA is that no one should reveal who attends. Say for instance one day I was about to attend a meeting when I come across an acquaintance who works in the place where the meeting takes place. They presume I am an alcoholic.

Later on we are socialising in a group. Someone asks me if I would like a drink and I say "Oh god no, I never touch the stuff. Can't stand it!" The acquaintance pops up and says "hahahahahahahahah, you bloody liar! You're a pathetic drunkard!"

Now, this acquaintance didn't read out my credit card number but did she invade my right to privacy?

I used the volunteer example to contrast the hospital / place of business example you used with much different privacy issues. It doesn't matter who the 3rd party represents, the point is the person was caught being abusive and lied.

In the AA example, that does seem to be a violation of the policy as private info (the attendance of the AA meeting) was leaked or would be if the statement was explained. That person can certainly take it up with AA if they are concerned about it.

PS - what did you mean by this?

By the looks of things, it could be argued you don't care too much for animals either.

[Peterb]

This is slipping into parody.

[Death Disco]

This is slipping into parody.

Who's Parody?

[Iona Mink]

PS - what did you mean by this?

It was a tongue-in-cheek remark which should have been punctuated with a .

It was to light hearted jibe at your chequered past, or rather Morrissey's chequered past with you.

It was meant in jest. Truly.