Rule #3 - What Constitutes "Private" Info?

[acctnt_shan]

If you don't want the association, don't set it up.

It's like college kids having pictures of themselves trashed on FB when applying for jobs.  If you don't want to lose the job offer because of trashy pictures, either secure your account or remove the tags. 

People need to quit acting like their profiles on the Internet are private little bubbles.  It's out there, in the public domain. 

[jetson]

I don't get this.

IGI is a public forum.

WWGHA is a public forum.

Public forums can cite each other.

What a member says on each forum is in the public domain.

And I didn't cite anything.  I mentioned WWGHA, and did not provide a link.  All of the links were provided by the other member, though not to the posts I was referring to, because those posts are removed for rules violations.  I even offered to edit my post publicly, well before I was cited. 

Again, at worst, I made a connection between a member of this forum, and their membership on another forum.  For that, I suppose I've learned a very valuable lesson - for the sake of the forum rules, no less.

[Jay]

what about linking it and not saying anything... is it ok to post a public internet link and let it speak for itself?

why not?  it's totally public information.

In the example I used above regarding 'searching google'.....I say no.  Never.  ie....definitely private information. 

But in this case, I think Shan brought up a valid point imo with the post she linked.

I still dont like all the forum cross talk though.  I dont think it is healthy for either forum, and I am sure Jetson would not be too pleased if we started airing our dirty laundry and arguing about things that happened here...on wwgha.

[acctnt_shan]

In the example I used above regarding 'searching google'.....I say no.  Never.  ie....definitely private information. 

If it can be found in a Google search, using just the information you've made PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE on this forum... how the hell is it "private"?

[Jay]

If you don't want the association, don't set it up.

It's like college kids having pictures of themselves trashed on FB when applying for jobs.  If you don't want to lose the job offer because of trashy pictures, either secure your account or remove the tags. 

People need to quit acting like their profiles on the Internet are private little bubbles.  It's out there, in the public domain.

So Facebook isnt private anymore here?

Bulls**t!

Nothing should be posted here about another member that the member did not previously directly share.

I dont care if I posted it on Facebook, another forum, spray painted it on my house....whatever.  If I didnt share it here, you shouldnt be sharing it here.  Plain and simple.

[Coelacanth]

I still dont like all the forum cross talk though.  I dont think it is healthy for either forum, and I am sure Jetson would not be too pleased if we started airing our dirty laundry and arguing about things that happened here...on wwgha.

Gee, why don't you invent another rule for it ... 

[Jay]

In the example I used above regarding 'searching google'.....I say no.  Never.  ie....definitely private information. 

If it can be found in a Google search, using just the information you've made PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE on this forum... how the hell is it "private"?

IT IS.

If you all want to run google searches on every member here and talk about it in PM, that is fine.  But it should not now nor ever be shared publicly here.

That is just wrong, and a complete violation of rule 3.  And I will argue that for 100 pages if need be.

[Jezzebelle]

In the example I used above regarding 'searching google'.....I say no.  Never.  ie....definitely private information. 

If it can be found in a Google search, using just the information you've made PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE on this forum... how the hell is it "private"?

you had to have posted something public for the public information to be linked.  i agree with shan.


also- not the case here.  clearly augusto linked the threads himself, and surely we as members are allowed to comment on his posts content and links... there is no private info here.

[Jay]

I still dont like all the forum cross talk though.  I dont think it is healthy for either forum, and I am sure Jetson would not be too pleased if we started airing our dirty laundry and arguing about things that happened here...on wwgha.

Gee, why don't you invent another rule for it ... 

FYI.  I am not a mod.  I can voice my opinions as a member though.

[Jay]

In the example I used above regarding 'searching google'.....I say no.  Never.  ie....definitely private information. 

If it can be found in a Google search, using just the information you've made PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE on this forum... how the hell is it "private"?

you had to have posted something public for the public information to be linked.  i agree with shan.


also- not the case here.  clearly augusto linked the threads himself, and surely we as members are allowed to comment on his posts content and links... there is no private info here.

I am not saying it is the case here.  Shan was the one that said if it could be found in a google search, it could be shared here.  And THAT I simply totally and completely disagree with.

[acctnt_shan]

So Facebook isnt private anymore here?

Bulls**t!

Nothing should be posted here about another member that the member did not previously directly share.

I dont care if I posted it on Facebook, another forum, spray painted it on my house....whatever.  If I didnt share it here, you shouldnt be sharing it here.  Plain and simple.

Ummm, read again what I said.  Carefully. 

If I can use information a member has shared on this forum to find something available in the public arena of the Internet, I don't think anyone can claim "privacy" just because they don't like it being shared.   

I don't, however, think this applies to information that can only be found using someone's private FB content.  The job-offer example I provided was just an example of a similar situation where people mistakenly think that online content is private when it's not.

[jetson]

I still dont like all the forum cross talk though.  I dont think it is healthy for either forum, and I am sure Jetson would not be too pleased if we started airing our dirty laundry and arguing about things that happened here...on wwgha.

If forum cross-talk is considered sharing private info, then I would not argue.  But what are we going to do, make a new rule that we can't have forum cross-talk?  Ban members of each, from each?  Let's face it, this may take some time to settle, but it will settle.  And, as a regular member, if I want to remain here, I have to abide by the rules, whatever they may be.

When the letter of the rule overrides the spirit of the conversation, and punishes one member for something so vague, perhaps it should be discussed, and reconsidered.  I take pride in my participation, and I take rule violations seriously, and personally.

[JadedPulse]

Facebook, I agree that's private--unless the person has already shared their account here. Generally Facebook accounts are associated with a person's real name and really personal info that most people here don't share. I know most people don't know my name--least of all my last name--and I'd like to keep it that way.

[Jay]

I still dont like all the forum cross talk though.  I dont think it is healthy for either forum, and I am sure Jetson would not be too pleased if we started airing our dirty laundry and arguing about things that happened here...on wwgha.

If forum cross-talk is considered sharing private info, then I would not argue.  But what are we going to do, make a new rule that we can't have forum cross-talk?  Ban members of each, from each?  Let's face it, this may take some time to settle, but it will settle.  And, as a regular member, if I want to remain here, I have to abide by the rules, whatever they may be.

When the letter of the rule overrides the spirit of the conversation, and punishes one member for something so vague, perhaps it should be discussed, and reconsidered.  I take pride in my participation, and I take rule violations seriously, and personally.

No.  I dont think there should be another rule.  I think rule 3 does cover it.

Thinking about it further.....say I posted a pic on here linked to my imageshack or photobucket account.  And you went through and found other pics of me that I had not previously shared here.  Should you be able to post those pics you found of me....here....without my permission?  I dont think so.

And that is comparable to what happened in this issue.

So taking that into consideration, I think the mods made the right call here for future precedent.

The ladies up there ^^^^^^ ie Shan and Jezz are just snoopy snoopes and like to know everything about everyone.  They are....nosy.  I know them both all too well.   

[Jezzebelle]

if you don't private lock your FB and photobucket account... then it's not private, it is indeed public.  and photobucket even says "make album public?"  if you leave it public, then that's what it is.

plus the only way anyone could find anything is from the information that YOU post.

[Jay]

if you don't private lock your FB and photobucket account... then it's not private, it is indeed public.  and photobucket even says "make album public?"  if you leave it public, then that's what it is.

plus the only way anyone could find anything is from the information that YOU post.

That simply doesnt matter.  Just because someone doesnt lock down their accounts, does not mean you should be posting the info here. 

That is wrong....and should ALWAYS be considered a rule 3 violation.

And since it is VERY comparable to this situation, the violation should stand in my opinion.

We all know you love to snoop Jezz.  And that you are quite good at it.  Heck, it helped me in a personal situation before.  But that doesnt mean we need to allow the posting of such info here.

[Coelacanth]

Thinking about it further.....say I posted a pic on here linked to my imageshack or photobucket account.  And you went through and found other pics of me that I had not previously shared here.  Should you be able to post those pics you found of me....here....without my permission?  I dont think so.

Bulls**t!

It's public information IF THE PUBLIC CAN GET AT IT. WTF do you not get about this Jay?

You have no idea what you are talking about!

[JadedPulse]

It's public, yes. But nobody else should be posting information like that except the person that "owns" that stuff.

I would be angry if you went to my FB profile and posted a picture of me here that I hadn't previously shared.

[Jay]

Thinking about it further.....say I posted a pic on here linked to my imageshack or photobucket account.  And you went through and found other pics of me that I had not previously shared here.  Should you be able to post those pics you found of me....here....without my permission?  I dont think so.

Bulls**t!

It's public information IF THE PUBLIC CAN GET AT IT. WTF do you not get about this Jay?

You have no idea what the f**k you are talking about!

So if I am a member of a forum called IgetTurnedonBySneezing.com and was stupid enough to use the same username I did here, you can google it, find it, and post it here?

Oh HELL NO.

I think it is you that doesnt understand Rule 3 here.  We are not talking about what is publicly available on the Internet.  Heck, if I posted a pic here from my FB page, and then you found out my real name...and then you googled me by name, and found out my home address, the value of my home, my relatives names, the company I work for....etc etc etc etc.  The PUBLIC can get at ALL that info.  It still is a violation of rule 3.

[JadedPulse]

I think it is you that doesnt understand Rule 3 here.  We are not talking about what is publicly available on the Internet.  Heck, if I posted a pic here from my FB page, and then you found out my real name...and then you googled me by name, and found out my home address, the value of my home, my relatives names, the company I work for....etc etc etc etc.  The PUBLIC can get at ALL that info.  It still is a violation of rule 3.

Yeah, it's when somebody else posts something that hasn't already been shared by that specific member.

[Jay]

I think it is you that doesnt understand Rule 3 here.  We are not talking about what is publicly available on the Internet.  Heck, if I posted a pic here from my FB page, and then you found out my real name...and then you googled me by name, and found out my home address, the value of my home, my relatives names, the company I work for....etc etc etc etc.  The PUBLIC can get at ALL that info.  It still is a violation of rule 3.

Yeah, it's when somebody else posts something that hasn't already been shared by that specific member.

Which in this case....he did not.  He never said he was posting naughty pics on another forum.  ergo.  Rule 3.

[jetson]

No.  I dont think there should be another rule.  I think rule 3 does cover it.

Thinking about it further.....say I posted a pic on here linked to my imageshack or photobucket account.  And you went through and found other pics of me that I had not previously shared here.  Should you be able to post those pics you found of me....here....without my permission?  I dont think so.

And that is comparable to what happened in this issue.

So taking that into consideration, I think the mods made the right call here for future precedent.

The ladies up there ^^^^^^ ie Shan and Jezz are just snoopy snoopes and like to know everything about everyone.  They are....nosy.  I know them both all too well.   

I posted nothing of what was posted on the other site, I categorically called it out.  And the member I called out, had already clearly proclaimed that he was categorically going to get himself banned from that site.  There was far too much precedent laid out for this to be considered anything but blatant forum drama, to which I was hoping to put a stop to in my earliest reply asking him to just stop posting there.  As far as I'm concerned, that member consented by openly mocking the site, linking to it, and openly declaring hostile intentions.

[JadedPulse]

Eh, I think that's stretching it.

[Jay]

Eh, I think that's stretching it.

And I was just about to give you a cookie.  :/

[jetson]

Which in this case....he did not.  He never said he was posting naughty pics on another forum.  ergo.  Rule 3.

What he did was not private at all.  I think you know that jay...but I'm not sure you are willing to accept it.  I called him out in this forum, specifically showing that he was trying to get banned.  He was not doing anything private.  In fact, if you were at the forum during the few minutes, you would have seen the posting before it was removed.  He made it clear what he was doing, and then he chose an obvious rule violation to do it.  I called him out, and considering what his intentions were. I'm surprised you believe I was violating a forum rule.

[JadedPulse]

Eh, I think that's stretching it.

And I was just about to give you a cookie.  :/

You could still sway me, depends on the type of cookie.

Make it good, Jay!

[Jay]

No.  I dont think there should be another rule.  I think rule 3 does cover it.

Thinking about it further.....say I posted a pic on here linked to my imageshack or photobucket account.  And you went through and found other pics of me that I had not previously shared here.  Should you be able to post those pics you found of me....here....without my permission?  I dont think so.

And that is comparable to what happened in this issue.

So taking that into consideration, I think the mods made the right call here for future precedent.

The ladies up there ^^^^^^ ie Shan and Jezz are just snoopy snoopes and like to know everything about everyone.  They are....nosy.  I know them both all too well.   

I posted nothing of what was posted on the other site, I categorically called it out.  And the member I called out, had already clearly proclaimed that he was categorically going to get himself banned from that site.  There was far too much precedent laid out for this to be considered anything but blatant forum drama, to which I was hoping to put a stop to in my earliest reply asking him to just stop posting there.  As far as I'm concerned, that member consented by openly mocking the site, linking to it, and openly declaring hostile intentions.

You didnt have to expand on it Jetson.  You didnt have to say what he was doing to get banned. 

I do understand your point, and I will go even further and say, Augusto trolled you.  But his wrong doesnt justify another wrong...according to the rules.  What he did had no bearing on you being allowed to share further information.

I think the mods made the right call. 

[catwixen]

Jetson's "ding" should be wiped out. It was common knowledge what Augusto was up to. There was much discussion about it.

[rickymooston]

I would like to open a thread to the discussion of Rule 3 because of the recent incidences related to the posting of content from WWGHA threads.

I'm of the opinion that, because the WWGHA forum is open to public eyes, posts on that forum are not "private", and thus discussing their contents on this forum does not break Rule 3.  I believe that if information can be accessed by anyone with an Internet connection, it's impossible to consider it "private".

I agree, especially when people here have such close toes to the other forum.

[Jay]

Eh, I think that's stretching it.

And I was just about to give you a cookie.  :/

You could still sway me, depends on the type of cookie.

Make it good, Jay!

Buttercream filled double chocolate chip macadamia nut cookie sandwich.

http://foodporndaily.com/pictures/java-buttercream-filled-double-chocolate-chip-macadamia-nut-cookie-sandwiches/

*drool*