Privacy on Boards

ballooba

This is an issue that arose today. I'm not arguing the case itself but would be interested in what you think of the problem in general.

You may be familiar with the term 'Astroturf' posters. This is where organisations get people to pose as uninterested and go on internet sites to sing the praises of that organisation and/or products or services of that organisation.

For instance if I was launching the XBox 361 next year, I might pay a large group of people to go onto internet forums and build up a bit of a buzz about that product. Pose as gamers and generally build up it's profile.

This has been discussed here before over the years and the general sentiments was that this noise was unwelcome here.

Boards.ie is a prime target for people to come on here and pretend to be disinterested and sell all kinds of things from MP3 Players, SatNavs to Hosting (probably shouldn't have brought that one up ). Usually these people are quite obvious and are spotted very quickly.

What about the ones that slip under the radar? Should people have to declare vested interests in certain fora?

feylya

You're talking about Shills. They are generally removed very quickly from boards.

Karoma

How has "privacy" got anything to do with shilling?Unless, you mean that they can hide as we don't request a DNA sample prior to signing up? (not being particularly cheeky, just not seeing where you're coming from:))
Many shills are caught out and removed and their product/service becomes less desirable in the eyes of thousands... *shrug* What about the ones that slip under? The only way to get rid of the scourge is to eliminate all discussion of products,etc. or to eliminate all marketing types. The first is not an option...

What are your suggestions?

ballooba

Karoma wrote:

How has "privacy" got anything to do with shilling?

If someone publicly identifies the shiller.

gandalf

Well tbh there is commercial shilling and then this incident you are talking about which got you banned from Politics again, 5 minutes after you were unbanned.

To fill everyone in ballooba outed a member of boards as a worker/aid to a government minister. TBH I knew this person had an interest/affiliation to a certain government political party and had no major issue with that as they were/are well capable of discussing their position.

Alot of people have affiliantions with various political organisations that post in politics, I for example am an ex-member of the Labour party. Some make it obvious and others don't but providing they are prepared to discuss their opinions properly there is no issue with them posting.

The issue today is you posted this persons real name openly without thinking about the consequences of doing so. Maybe his employers are unaware he posts here, maybe they would be unhappy he does?

leeroybrown

I'm not sure what 'privacy' has to do with this either. The second comment about 'public identification' appears to be completely detached from the original post. Without knowledge of the situation referred to this thread appears to be direction-less and pointless.

If someone is a shill they should get banned and the offending material deleted. If someone is a skilled enough shill to avoid getting detected then I don't see what can be done. If someone thinks someone is a shill and decides to out them then it's really up to the mods on the board in question.

EDIT: Now I see the hidden agenda. In this case I agree with Gandalf. Outing someone as purporting to be something they are not is one thing but publicly disclosing someone real name, etc is going a bit far.

mike65

Heck if party hacks want to post as party hacks and thats understood I'd welcome it.

Mike.

ballooba

gandalf wrote:

Maybe his employers are unaware he posts here, maybe they would be unhappy he does?

His employer has used that defense before, it's fairly transparent.

I believe that people should have to declare if they are posting in fora where they have vested interests. I have a lot more respect for people who do declare their vested interests and I respect their opinions more when they are known to be taken with a pinch of salt. For instance a particular Mini salesman on the motors forum.

I'm not looking to discuss my banning, I've already said it was worth it.

aidan_walsh

ballooba wrote:

I believe that people should have to declare if they are posting in fora where they have vested interests.

Why do you feel that gives you the right to out them if they fail to do so themselves?

gandalf

TBH after you telling me which Minister he works with I feel sorry for him

LOL Tristrame banned ya so its between you and him

leeroybrown

The original post could be effectively be replaced with:

"Should people have to declare vested interests in certain fora?"

This would be a lot clearer.

There is one board where this is the case. Unless things have changed the UCD board requires anyone involved in Students Union politics declare their affiliation or be banned to avoid the tard-fest that would happen otherwise.

gandalf

leeroybrown wrote:

The original post could be effectively be replaced with:



This would be a lot clearer.

There is one board where this is the case. Unless things have changed the UCD board requires anyone involved in Students Union politics declare their affiliation or be banned to avoid the tard-fest that would happen otherwise.

Interesting, might be worth considering but tbh shills would be quite easy to spot unless they are extremely skilled.

Personally as I said once they are prepared to discuss their position then I have no issue with them posting? I do not like the idea of people being outed because they are involved with FF, FG, Labour, PD's, Sinn Fein etc etc most of us can gather after a few posts what way peoples fancies are positioned with regards to politics & parties.

RuggieBear

IMO there is no problem shouting shill at someone if you know it's true but posting the someone's real name (even if a shill) on here is a big no no and could warrant a site ban

copacetic

ballooba wrote:

His employer has used that defense before, it's fairly transparent.

I believe that people should have to declare if they are posting in fora where they have vested interests. I have a lot more respect for people who do declare their vested interests and I respect their opinions more when they are known to be taken with a pinch of salt. For instance a particular Mini salesman on the motors forum.

I'm not looking to discuss my banning, I've already said it was worth it.

I personally don't think they should have to declare 'vested interests' as that could mean anything. For instance does everyone have to declare in advance who they last voted for , if they are a member of a political party or who they work for? If so, why? Are their opinions no less valid?

I understand where you are coming from with people letting on that they are what they are not. As long as they don't do this I don't see the problem.

As for you actually naming someone on a public forum. If that's what happened that's way way way out of order and there would be a case for a permanent ban from boards in my opinion.

Why anyone would feel the need to identify someone like that is beyond me. Why not just say you know they are involved with a certain party or whatever?

leeroybrown

gandalf wrote:

Interesting, might be worth considering but tbh shills would be quite easy to spot unless they are extremely skilled.

I actually agree that it's not worth doing. I just said I'd point out the example. It would be a logistical nightmare too and would probably fill feedback and politics with sprawling arguments about what constitutes an 'affiliation'. Also, bad as some of the Politics arguments can become the are still relevant regardless of whether someone is hiding their affiliation.

hullaballoo

It's easy to police in UCD because there is such a low number of people who are active in the union, and you'd be surprised at the extent to which people think nicknames hide their identity.

The rule has fallen away from UCD recently because SU discussion is, thankfully, at an all-time low. It was really more for the discussion at the start of the year and in the run-up to elections.

Anyway, it would be practically impossible to police on a country-wide basis for the site.

ballooba

aidan_walsh wrote:

Why do you feel that gives you the right to out them if they fail to do so themselves?

I was already banned. So that is not the issue.

RuggieBear wrote:

IMO there is no problem shouting shill at someone if you know it's true but posting the someone's real name (even if a shill) on here is a big no no and could warrant a site ban

No need to hang me completely! :eek:
<snip>

gandalf wrote:

I do not like the idea of people being outed because they are involved with FF, FG, Labour, PD's, Sinn Fein etc etc most of us can gather after a few posts what way peoples fancies are positioned with regards to politics & parties.

It's a bit different now if they are getting paid.

copacetic wrote:

For instance does everyone have to declare in advance who they last voted for , if they are a member of a political party or who they work for? If so, why? Are their opinions no less valid?

For companies, if they work in marketing or sales maybe.
For political parties, membership.

I'm a member of Fine Gael. I'm very open about it. As a result a lot of people probably take what I say with a pinch of salt.

Nevyn

ballooba

Read this http://devore.journals.ie/2006/03/17/univershill-music/

for some insight.

aidan_walsh

ballooba wrote:

I was already banned. So that is not the issue.

ballooba wrote:

<snip>

:rolleyes:

ballooba wrote:

It's a bit different now if they are getting paid.

If they happen to belive in the idealogy of a party, what difference does it make if they work for the party or are a supporter from the back of beyonds. As long as they stick to the rules of the forum then their contributions should be as relevant and welcome as mine or yours or anyone elses.

ballooba

aidan_walsh wrote:

:rolleyes:

I'm not sure what that is about.

There are over 80,000 users on this site. If you can identity the person from the little info I have given there then you have too much time on your hands.

aidan_walsh wrote:

If they happen to belive in the idealogy of a party, what difference does it make if they work for the party or are a supporter from the back of beyonds.

The difference is that the result of the election determines whether they still have a job after Friday. Ideologies are cheap, public sector salaries are good.

aidan_walsh

ballooba wrote:

I'm not sure what that is about.

This is about you apparently thinking you can continue to do, albeit indirectly, what you were banned from the politics forum for. You know damn well that only an Admin will be able to remove that comment, and while you may not have named anyone directly you left just enough breadcrumbs for anyone who wanted to to be able to go back and find who you're talking about irrespective of whether the relevant posts were deleted or not (I admit I haven't checked).

Do you now think it might be relevant to explain why you think you can out a person, and do it when and where you like?

seamus

Asking people to declare their vested interests would only work for people who want to obey the rules.

Shills wouldn't bother, they're not here to participate. They're usually far too stupid to do it well anyway, and are spotted a mile off.

People/companies can't be named or "outed" by boards.ie or any of the moderators. Information about a user that is not publically available is protected by the Data Protection Act, and as such may not be released into the public domain except by the user themselves.

RuggieBear

ballooba wrote:

public sector salaries are good.

mine's not.

ballooba

aidan_walsh wrote:

You know damn well that only an Admin will be able to remove that comment, and while you may not have named anyone directly you left just enough breadcrumbs for anyone who wanted to to be able to go back and find who you're talking about irrespective of whether the relevant posts were deleted or not (I admit I haven't checked).

I can pretty much guarantee you that you won't be able to. Regardless, that was not my intention. I was merely pointing out that the person's name wasn't hidden. Outing them and naming them can't really be treated as seperate issues.

aidan_walsh wrote:

Do you now think it might be relevant to explain why you think you can out a person, and do it when and where you like?

I have been banned. I don't think it's particularly relevant.

seamus wrote:

People/companies can't be named or "outed" by boards.ie or any of the moderators. Information about a user that is not publically available is protected by the Data Protection Act, and as such may not be released into the public domain except by the user themselves.

I don't believe that would be the case. Surely that only applies to data controllers or people with access to data.

RuggieBear wrote:

mine's not.

Correction, some public sector salaries are good.

My apologies.

ballooba

Imagine we had representatives from every interest group on here posting as uninterested.

INO, HSE, INTO, SIPTU, TGWU, ESB etc.

Incidentally, I have no doubt that senior trade union officials do post here.

Balooba,If you are outraged that a person posts a particular view point contrary to your own thats your own business.

As Gandalf said,the poster in question is entitled to carry their posts on their sleeve in the forum subject to the charter.

You appear to be using this feedback thread solely to do here what you attempted to do in politics.
We deleted your attempt in politics as it was against the charter of the board and I banned you for a further 2 weeks just after you had been un banned for your previous charter infraction.

Interestingly also , the poster you are questioning has never been banned and hasnt came to the moderators attention for charter breaking before unlike yourself.
I would suggest that in 2 weeks time when your new ban is up that you attack the post and not the poster and do so constructively.
Thank you.

ballooba

Tristrame wrote:

Balooba,If you are outraged that a person posts a particular view point contrary to your own thats your own business.

I object to a person being paid to hold/post a view. There are plenty of genuine grassroots supporters of all shades on that forum who do not get paid.

Tristrame wrote:

As Gandalf said,the poster in question is entitled to carry their posts on their sleeve in the forum subject to the charter.

With all due respect to the postion of mods, the Charter is not written in stone.

Tristrame wrote:

You appear to be using this feedback thread solely to do here what you attempted to do in politics.

If that appears to you to be my intention, then you are mistaken.

Tristrame wrote:

Interestingly also , the poster you are questioning has never been banned and hasnt came to the moderators attention for charter breaking before unlike yourself.

That hardly makes it alright. That someone can shill away as long as they are discrete about it.

Hagar

@ ballooba Are you prepared to publish your real name and the company you work for?

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

I object to a person being paid to hold/post a view. There are plenty of genuine grassroots supporters of all shades on that forum who do not get paid.

You're entitled to feel the way you like.You can always put him on ignore.
Also I think your accusation there regarding him being paid to post is dangerous,coupled with your personalising this.

With all due respect to the postion of mods, the Charter is not written in stone.

I'm afraid it is,and pure granite blasted out of Galway and Wicklow rock.

If that appears to you to be my intention, then you are mistaken.

I'm not.

That hardly makes it alright. That someone can shill away as long as they are discrete about it.

All political discussion within the charter is welcome on the forum.

Boston

ballooba wrote:

I believe that people should have to declare if they are posting in fora where they have vested interests.

This is a discussion boards where people are free to praise or criticise as they want. A posters personal background should not be relevant since you should be attacking the arguments/opinions and not the users. What does it matter if someone works for a minister? You're still free to post that their views are wrong.

Your suggestion has much wider implications then the politics forum. Do you believe if I post something on the broadband of IOFFL forums that I should declare my interests? My credentials? Should other posters be forced to declare if they work for Eircom or another ISP. Should posters on tech forums declare their name and companies they work for? What right do you have to any such information, what does it matter that people are biased by the job they hold, everyone is biased by something, only the mods have to display fairness.

mr_angry

RuggieBear wrote:

IMO there is no problem shouting shill at someone if you know it's true but posting the someone's real name (even if a shill) on here is a big no no and could warrant a site ban

TBH, I disagree entirely here Ruggie. I think that when you start publishing opinion on the Internet, you have to accept that people are entitled to investigate that opinion, including who you are and what you do. As far as I am aware (and this is purely from a lay-person's point of view), there is no legal obstacle to you investigating the identity of someone who has published such information. I would say that its fair game, and that previous Boards incidents (e.g. Glenstal) show a distinct precendence in favour of that.

Feel free to correct / challenge me on that.

hullaballoo

Ballooba, if you attempt to out that person again, I will have to site-ban you until the admins make a decision on the policy.

ballooba

Well, all I wanted was to hear a few opinions. People obviously feel vested interests don't need to be disclosed. That is all I was looking for.

WRT to the charter being written in stone and mods opinions being above criticism. That is a bit conceited now in all fairness.

I won't even begin to comment on them claiming to have a better insight to what a poster is thinking than that poster themselves. :eek: Boards.ie infiltrates your brain (Don't worry, i'm not going to go conspiracy theorist like usual Feedback forum posters ).

Hagar wrote:

@ ballooba Are you prepared to publish your real name and the company you work for?

I have no problem declaring any vested interests I have. In fact, I always do. My username was actually my company name when I started posting here. Other than that, I don't feel it's particularly relevant.

RuggieBear

mr_angry wrote:

TBH, I disagree entirely here Ruggie. I think that when you start publishing opinion on the Internet, you have to accept that people are entitled to investigate that opinion, including who you are and what you do. As far as I am aware (and this is purely from a lay-person's point of view), there is no legal obstacle to you investigating the identity of someone who has published such information. I would say that its fair game, and that previous Boards incidents (e.g. Glenstal) show a distinct precendence in favour of that.

Feel free to correct / challenge me on that.

oh i'd absolutely agree with you that you open yourself up to being identified on boards simply by posting and there is no such thing as real anonymity on the net . But i don't think that gives others the right to publish your name and/or address should they be able to find it. I would argue that it is not fair game at all.

My understanding of the glenstal incident was that the owners of the site went after the troublemaker but never published his actual name (I could be very wrong):)

perhaps my opinion is a little half thought out.

copacetic

ballooba wrote:

Imagine we had representatives from every interest group on here posting as uninterested.

INO, HSE, INTO, SIPTU, TGWU, ESB etc.

Incidentally, I have no doubt that senior trade union officials do post here.

I see your point on some of the possibilities but don't see how you could possibly police it. Only people who want to follow the rules would be affected and not the shills you are worried about?

It also causes me an issue personally, I (like many boardsies I'm sure) work for a public sector company. One that would be discussed a lot on boards. In general the opinions expressed on boards on this body would be entirely negative and terribly ill informed. Usually I'll try not to get sucked in to threads but the odd time I will. I don't feel the need to outline who I work for before I post, my opinions would obviously outline me as sympathetic to this organisation which is enough in my opinion.

It could cause me difficulties with my employer if I was 'outed' as posting on boards on the subject of my employer especially if someone implied I was somehow speaking for them.

In my case do you feel I need to declare who I work for before I can post in a thread relating to them?

Also what about the case where people claim to work for a company when it appears very unlikely that they do? The reverse shill if you will?

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

WRT to the charter being written in stone

I said that bit

and mods opinions being above criticism.

I didn't say that bit.

That is a bit conceited now in all fairness.

It would be if thats what I said,I didn't.


Let me make it as clear as I can possibly make it.
The guidelines for posting sticky in politics is the charter.

It specefically prohibits personal attacks on posters there which is clearly what you were doing and is defacto what you attempted to re do here having been banned from politics after you tried to do so there.

As regards your question about outing,I'd agree with hullabalú that a call on that is ultimately with the admins.
However as it stands your episode today is reason enough for the mods of politics to take the action there that they did.

mr_angry

RuggieBear wrote:

oh i'd absolutely agree with you that you open yourself up to being identified on boards simply by posting and there is no such thing as real anonymity on the net . But i don't think that gives others the right to publish your name and/or address should they be able to find it. I would argue that it is not fair game at all.

My understanding of the glenstal incident was that the owners of the site went after the troublemaker but never published his actual name (I could be very wrong):)

perhaps my opinion is a little half thought out.

Well, its been a while since I read the original Glenstal thread, but IIRC, the person's real name, and the contact details for the istitution he was posting from were 'outed' on the thread by DeVore.

I realise from Seamus' post above that the Data Protection Act prevents Boards as an entity from giving out information originally supplied in confidence by the user, but I don't believe there is any obstacle to another user doing their own detective work and posting the results on-site. Then again, it may just be considered 'undesirable' by the moderators. Thats a different story though.

I think site-wide bans justified by the lack of a policy on the topic are going a bit far.

mr_angry

copacetic wrote:

It could cause me difficulties with my employer if I was 'outed' as posting on boards on the subject of my employer especially if someone implied I was somehow speaking for them.

If your employer doesn't already have a written policy on employee blogging / company posting, then you should probably encourage them to write one, or at the very least, you should talk to your manager about potential dangers in commenting on the organisation before doing so. If you choose to go ahead without doing so, you knowingly do it at your own risk.

gandalf

mr_angry tbh I think DeVore has the right to out someone if he wants, he is the owner of the site and would be legally responsible for any action taken.

As regarding a site ban I wouldn't want that myself as I believe ballooba's intentions are geniune but misguided.

I await an admins opinion on this with baited breathe though

ballooba

Tristrame wrote:

I said that bit I didn't say that bit. It would be if thats what I said,I didn't.

I never said you did say it. The charter is written by the mods based on their judgement/'esteemed' opinion. It follows then that if the charter is written in stone, that the opinions of the mods are above criticism. It is highly conceited view to have of one's abilities or views.

Tristrame wrote:

Let me make it as clear as I can possibly make it.
The guidelines for posting sticky in politics is the charter.

I know it is. I am arguing that it should be changed. I thought I made that clear.

Tristrame wrote:

However as it stands your episode today is reason enough for the mods of politics to take the action there that they did.

I never argued that I shouldn't be banned.

Tristrame wrote:

It specefically prohibits personal attacks on posters there which is clearly what you were doing and is defacto what you attempted to re do here having been banned from politics after you tried to do so there.

Again, that would be an opinion. One which you are entitled to have. As long as you do not try and express it as fact.

Tristrame wrote:

As regards your question about outing,I'd agree with hullabalú that a call on that is ultimately with the admins.

I'd like to hear what the admins think. The above sounds fair enough. The next time I feel like outing someone I might be a little less trigger happy. It would be nice if there were a protocol.

Edited:Spelling.

copacetic

mr_angry wrote:

If your employer doesn't already have a written policy on employee blogging / company posting, then you should probably encourage them to write one, or at the very least, you should talk to your manager about potential dangers in commenting on the organisation before doing so. If you choose to go ahead without doing so, you knowingly do it at your own risk.

So you are saying if you know who I work for you are perfectly entitled to 'out' me?

ballooba

gandalf wrote:

As regarding a site ban I wouldn't want that myself as I believe ballooba's intentions are geniune but misguided.

It would a bit disappointing to be denied the potential to reach Bubbles type cult status. Not that I aspire to that or anything.

copacetic wrote:

So you are saying if you know who I work for you are perfectly entitled to 'out' me?

I think he's more so saying that you should protect yourself from any potential upsets. You don't get insurance on a car because you intend to crash it.

gandalf

Compared to bubbles you are just an amature :P

ballooba

gandalf wrote:

Compared to bubbles you are just an amature :P

To compare myself to such greatness* would indeed be conceited.

*joke!

copacetic

ballooba wrote:

I think he's more so saying that you should protect yourself from any potential upsets. You don't get insurance on a car because you intend to crash it.

There is very little you can do to protect or insure yourself in these cases except never posting on boards! I feel that I post on boards as an individual but there is always a case to be made you represent the organisation you work for. Policies etc on this stuff aren't worth the paper they are written on as many of you would know I'm sure.

If someone attempted to 'out' me as an employee of a certain company I would be more than a bit upset about it. Whether the likes of Mr. Angry thought I had taken the risk and deserved what I got doesn't mean much to me. Am I nuts on this?

RuggieBear

mr_angry wrote:

Well, its been a while since I read the original Glenstal thread, but IIRC, the person's real name, and the contact details for the istitution he was posting from were 'outed' on the thread by DeVore.

is this it?

ballooba

copacetic wrote:

Policies etc on this stuff aren't worth the paper they are written on as many of you would know I'm sure.

It is perfectly reasonable for companies to have policies on when an employee is representing the company and when they are not. If only for practicalities like contract law, when does a person have agency to make a contract.

Can they make contracts from a private email address? Can the company be held liable for offensive material coming from a company email address? Things like that need to be made clear to protect employer and employee.

mr_angry

RuggieBear wrote:

is this it?

Ah, apparently its not quite as "out" as I thought it was (although it does little to protect the identity of the poster in question, and bears quite a bit of similarity to the topic at hand).

copacetic wrote:

So you are saying if you know who I work for you are perfectly entitled to 'out' me?

Pretty much, yes. While I reckon it might be morally reprehensible, I don't think there's any legal obstacle to me doing so, and depending on the context, as you've pointed out, there could be implications for you.

ballooba

mr_angry wrote:

Ah, apparently its not quite as "out" as I thought it was (although it does little to protect the identity of the poster in question, and bears quite a bit of similarity to the topic at hand).

It gives the person's surname, initial and what school they attend. I'm assuming this was the only information available.

homah_7ft

It's up to everyone posting on the web to decide what information they want to disclose. No one outed anyone as such. They just read what was posted elsewhere. People have been fired over blogs and the like. The question posed to the admins is not really a legal one but more of a site management one. It could have a chilling effect if people were to feel their position and name were attached to their posts on this board. That said, in my opinion the original poster (Ballooba) doesn't deserve a site ban because I feel what they did was done with the best of intentions and without contravening existing site rules.

Sangre

the glenstal incident was a blatent breach of the data protection act.