KatieL | 02 Nov 2014 1:19 p.m. PST |
Currently the policy states that private information will never be published. Apparently that's no longer the case and private information can be made public when the editor decides. The site's privacy policy should be updated to reflect this. |
David Manley | 02 Nov 2014 1:31 p.m. PST |
Based on what has happened recently thats a poll suggestion that I would support |
Winston Smith | 02 Nov 2014 2:12 p.m. PST |
|
Editor in Chief Bill | 02 Nov 2014 2:18 p.m. PST |
Currently the policy states that private information will never be published. I just checked the site FAQ, and I don't see any privacy statement at all. Where are you seeing this? |
Delta Vee | 02 Nov 2014 2:55 p.m. PST |
at the bottom of the member settings page. It reads PRIVACY POLICY: Your private information – including your name, email address, and reading habits – will not be provided to any third-party except in those cases where you specifically authorize us to do so (for instance, if you enter a contest that requires providing your address to the sponsor).
I think that is what KatieL is mentioning. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 02 Nov 2014 4:22 p.m. PST |
…at the bottom of the member settings page. That's been superseded by the site FAQ. I'll delete that. |
kreoseus2 | 02 Nov 2014 4:53 p.m. PST |
So our private information is not now private ? |
sebigboss79 | 02 Nov 2014 5:16 p.m. PST |
No such policy apparently…for anyone or just a few? |
Editor in Chief Bill | 02 Nov 2014 5:34 p.m. PST |
I'll be glad to add something to the site FAQ, if you think something is not covered. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 02 Nov 2014 5:47 p.m. PST |
KatieL is continuing a discussion begun on Frothers… |
Editor in Chief Bill | 02 Nov 2014 6:31 p.m. PST |
I see that malicious rumors are being spread on Frothers again. First of all, TMP does not have your credit card details, so rumors that your credit card information is at risk are just nonsense. Second, TMP has very little private information on anyone. Mostly just email addresses, and why would we give that to anyone? The only exception is in the case of individuals who are acting maliciously towards the website, in which case they forego any privacy protections and we will share information with law enforcement and other appropriate agencies. |
darthfozzywig | 02 Nov 2014 6:54 p.m. PST |
I thought this was in reference to the posts where Bill listed someone's email address over some kerfluffle. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 02 Nov 2014 7:09 p.m. PST |
People who maliciously create sock puppet accounts will not be protected by our privacy policy. |
Winston Smith | 02 Nov 2014 8:13 p.m. PST |
I am not a malicious sock puppet. I am a nice sock puppet. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 02 Nov 2014 8:55 p.m. PST |
So I have the expectation of privacy ? Yes so why am I getting Football/Soccer spam….when I don't follow any sport. I don't know, but TMP doesn't have anything to do with it. |
David Manley | 02 Nov 2014 11:03 p.m. PST |
"I just checked the site FAQ, and I don't see any privacy statement at all. Where are you seeing this?" Bill, I'm surprised you needed to ask the question bearing in mind the privacy policy was discussed last week, a discussion in which you took an active part. "KatieL is continuing a discussion begun on Frothers…" No Bill, KatieL is continuing a discussion that started here when you published someone's email address without their consent. Don't go getting all "frothers did this" on us now. "The only exception is in the case of individuals who are acting maliciously towards the website, in which case they forego any privacy protections and we will share information with law enforcement and other appropriate agencies" Thats fair enough, provided the policy states exactly that. I think what a number of people are concerned about is that in the case that sparked this last week you posted an email address here in open forum in contravention to the policy stated at the time, then invoked the "harming the website" amendment. Just decide what your policy is, write it down clearly and tell us, post it and then stick to it. |
Tank Top | 03 Nov 2014 4:19 a.m. PST |
I've just seen this and I must say I don't really like the idea of the possibility of my email being broadcast on a public forum for any spammer to harvest. Yes I do understand that this supposedly would only happen as a punishment for doing something wrong on TMP, but mistakes do happen and you can't undo publicly broadcast information. |
venezia sta affondando | 03 Nov 2014 4:46 a.m. PST |
Is the decision to publish private email addresses taken by one editor or by a majority of the editors? Whatever the answer, what is the correct way to do it? Should there be an independent arbiter deciding, so as to exclude the emotion from the decision making? |
Ucalegos | 03 Nov 2014 5:50 a.m. PST |
Surely if there's been a change in policy on this, to the extent of deleting the notice on the members setting pages there out to be some sort of announcement on the main page or something. "PRIVACY POLICY: Your private information – including your name, email address, and reading habits – will not be provided to any third-party except in those cases where you specifically authorize us to do so (for instance, if you enter a contest that requires providing your address to the sponsor)."
That's pretty explicit. I don't think posting a members email address on the boards can really be covered as sharing "information with law enforcement and other appropriate agencies" |
KatieL | 03 Nov 2014 10:35 a.m. PST |
"Mostly just email addresses" And for some people their real names and the contents of PMs which may contain phone numbers, paypal addresses, physical locations or workplaces. It's theoretically possible that they could contain things like healthcare information. And suddenly, why people would like an expectation of privacy becomes slightly more apparent. |
Robert Kennedy | 03 Nov 2014 8:19 p.m. PST |
Hmmmm…..I use my real name. And here is my email address too. JCFalkenbergthe3rd@rocketmaildotcom |
KatieL | 04 Nov 2014 3:51 a.m. PST |
Being happy to publish your private data doesn't mean you should insist that other people should also be happy with a lack of privacy. |
Ucalegos | 04 Nov 2014 4:48 a.m. PST |
That's not your email address. That's something similar that enables people to email you. There's a difference. |
deephorse | 04 Nov 2014 11:57 a.m. PST |
Sounds like the U.S. needs a Data Protection Act. |
Robert Kennedy | 04 Nov 2014 10:22 p.m. PST |
Pray tell. Please enlighten us as to the difference. |
Robert Kennedy | 04 Nov 2014 10:24 p.m. PST |
Never said I was happy about it. Just that unlike others I don't care if anyone knows. |
Ucalegos | 05 Nov 2014 12:38 a.m. PST |
It's easy enough – tell us why you wrote it out dotcom. |
KatieL | 08 Nov 2014 5:50 a.m. PST |
Have you considered using a "grey-listing" email host? When they get email from an address they don't recognise the transmission is ended with a "temporarily unavailable" response. Real email servers will try again later, and then they accept it. Spam clusters don't both with the retrying. The only downside is that email from new people can take a bit longer than normal to arrive. |