Meanwhile, objective reality doesn't actually care about anyone's opinions.
Not so fast…
In 1966 sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote The Social Construction of Reality. They asked, how do institutions actually arise? If an institution is essentially just a collection of interacting individuals, how do they come to appear as “given, unalterable or self-evident”? Berger and Luckmann argued that the objective reality of society, (i.e.,Durkheim’s “social facts”), is created by humans and human interaction, through a process of habitualization. If society and its institutions seem to be objective social facts that exist externally to individuals, they become that way through an ongoing process of creation and forgetting. Habitualization describes how “any action that is repeated frequently becomes cast into a pattern, which can then be … performed again in the future in the same manner and with the same economical effort” (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Not only do people construct their own society, but they accept it as it is because others have created it before them. Society is, in fact, “habit.”
Offline identity, medical conditions, sexual orientation, relationship problems, and so on.
If they're completely out of the blue (not related to any posts) or I have a preexisting negative relationship with the person they might constitute harassment in which case there's less of an obligation not to pass them on.
To me, anything I consider private is any word, sentence or paragraph I have written.
Going back to the OP of the other thread, while the actual body of the PM was not shared, the naming of the individual was. I would have felt better with words to the effect: "It has been brought to my attention that what I may have written could have been considered a personal attack." No name needed to have been mentioned. A short explanation could follow, and life could have gone on. For me, the line was crossed when a name/avatar/AKA was shared.
To me, anything I consider private is any word, sentence or paragraph I have written.
Surely you don’t mean that? If it were the case that any word, sentence or paragraph you’ve written would be private, then your posts in this thread would “private.”
Can we at least all agree that if someone pms me with private details, I ought not to then pass on those private details by pm to another shipmate or a host with those private details unless there is some overriding justification to do so?
That seems to me an important point, which is being lost in the way the question is being framed.
@pease, if you’re going to make your argument simply by dumping a big quote, could you at least please identify the source from which you’re quoting?
Apologies. It was on The Social Construction of Reality by Janice Aurini. The idea of the objective reality of this place being created by an ongoing process of creation and forgetting, of it being “habit”, seemed apposite in response to RooK's post.
And I don't think your previous question about my "position" is unreasonable, but I haven't as yet thought of anything that I haven't already said.
And I don't think your previous question about my "position" is unreasonable, but I haven't as yet thought of anything that I haven't already said.
The thing is, all you’ve already said has left me confused as to exactly what your position is. I was hoping that a simple sentence or two would clear my confusion.
@Doublethink, I searched the 2002 hosting and admin manuals saved deep in the bowels of my computer, and there is no discussion of private messages in them. I don't have anything later -- I deleted a lot of stuff when GDPR went through.
@Bullfrog, @Dafyd: what constitutes an "overriding justification"? What happens if the recipient thinks they have such a justification and the sender disagrees?
@Doublethink, I searched the 2002 hosting and admin manuals saved deep in the bowels of my computer, and there is no discussion of private messages in them. I don't have anything later -- I deleted a lot of stuff when GDPR went through.
@Bullfrog, @Dafyd: what constitutes an "overriding justification"? What happens if the recipient thinks they have such a justification and the sender disagrees?
That's an excellent question, and I think I was personally shying away from it because I'm not sure I'm qualified to say exactly where the line is.
Verbal abuse or evidence of harm is one big one. If you think the sender is somehow injuring themself or yourself, that's a pretty clear alarm.
Figuring out a good definition of "harm" is probably the next challenge. And I think in general I would trust the hosts to be responsible with handling these matters with confidentiality. I would also hope that shipmates have enough sense not to put anything that sensitive or potentially harmful onto the ship without being aware of what they were doing.
Can we at least all agree that if someone pms me with private details, I ought not to then pass on those private details by pm to another shipmate or a host with those private details unless there is some overriding justification to do so?
That seems to me an important point, which is being lost in the way the question is being framed.
Offline identity, medical conditions, sexual orientation, relationship problems, and so on.
If they're completely out of the blue (not related to any posts) or I have a preexisting negative relationship with the person they might constitute harassment in which case there's less of an obligation not to pass them on.
In data privacy terms (ie GDPR), what you're talking about is "personal data" and some of it is "special category" personal data.
In a personal capacity, what you do with some else's personal data is outside the scope of GDPR, but if you're acting for the service provider (ie in your capacity as a Host or Admin), you're expected to comply with GDPR. And in this regard, making another person's personal data public is a big no-no. Passing personal data on to an appropriate authority is not the same as making it public. The nature of your relationship with that person is not relevant. (Although it does affect other aspects of what a data controller is required to do.)
And I don't think your previous question about my "position" is unreasonable, but I haven't as yet thought of anything that I haven't already said.
The thing is, all you’ve already said has left me confused as to exactly what your position is. I was hoping that a simple sentence or two would clear my confusion.
I think I'd go back to what I wrote back at the start - there are a number of options for dealing with receiving an inappropriate or troubling PM that don't involve posting about it in Styx.
At this end of the discussion, I'd say that if you opt for dealing with it by posting a thread in Styx, be prepared to justify your actions.
Conversely, for the sender of PMs: if you send someone an unsolicited PM that could be viewed as being inappropriate, don't count on them keeping it to themselves.
: what constitutes an "overriding justification"? What happens if the recipient thinks they have such a justification and the sender disagrees?
Pretty much what Bullfrog has said. Harm, including emotional distress, to myself, the Ship, other posters, the original poster.
If the recipient thinks they have a justification and the sender disagrees, then that's a tricky ethical judgement. If the communication was unsolicited then the sender took the risk.
In terms of the risk, one thing I keep in mind is that the legal risk in relation to copyright, defamation or privacy law is likely to be increased by making something public (by posting about it in Styx) compared to just communicating it to one or more individuals by PM.
However, in the case of harm and abuse, I would expect the distinction between public and private to be less significant. (For one thing, abuse generally falls within the remit of criminal law.)
I think that trying to define harm, or whether harm is intended, is likely to be opening a very large can of worms, if the aim is to come up with a set of directives that can be applied here on the forums.
Unless I'm missing something, saying "username told me x" which paraphrases a view expressed in a "private message" is not covered by GDPR. If it isn't about personal data opinion or quoting someone else) that's nothing to do with anything under discussion.
Personal data is many things, but saying "Auntie Maisie dislikes my ties" isn't it.
Unless I'm missing something, saying "username told me x" which paraphrases a view expressed in a "private message" is not covered by GDPR. If it isn't about personal data opinion or quoting someone else) that's nothing to do with anything under discussion.
Opinions can be personal data, religious and political views are actually special category data.
Unless I'm missing something, saying "username told me x" which paraphrases a view expressed in a "private message" is not covered by GDPR. If it isn't about personal data opinion or quoting someone else) that's nothing to do with anything under discussion.
Opinions can be personal data, religious and political views are actually special category data.
I think if you imagine disclosure of a disagreement with another poster about tone falls within the protections of "religious or philosophical beliefs" then you are stretching that to include practically everything. Including abusive messages.
And I don't think your previous question about my "position" is unreasonable, but I haven't as yet thought of anything that I haven't already said.
The thing is, all you’ve already said has left me confused as to exactly what your position is. I was hoping that a simple sentence or two would clear my confusion.
I think I'd go back to what I wrote back at the start - there are a number of options for dealing with receiving an inappropriate or troubling PM that don't involve posting about it in Styx.
At this end of the discussion, I'd say that if you opt for dealing with it by posting a thread in Styx, be prepared to justify your actions.
Conversely, for the sender of PMs: if you send someone an unsolicited PM that could be viewed as being inappropriate, don't count on them keeping it to themselves.
Thank you, @pease. I would agree with all of that.
This might be a discussion of the reasonable range of caution in dealing with personal information. At what point does it become paranoia?
I'm not sure I'd draw the curtain as tightly as @pease would, but I do agree that a curtain is a useful thing to have. I also am not sure that this needs to be a policy concern (unless it keeps coming up) but if it did, a tighter curtain is probably safer for the purpose of risk-avoidance.
A lot of this can fall under "don't be a jerk." There's a certain range of goodwill and grace in people and the particular situation that inspired this thread seems - to me - to fall under that. It was a faux pas, not something that needs to be escalated into the equivalent of a legal dispute. I don't see any blood on the ground, figuratively speaking, though I do see the potential for blood if people acted maliciously. Privacy is a serious matter.
If situations like this were to keep occurring, or if we had a more grievous case of PM abuse, then perhaps there would be a need to make a policy decision out of it, and I think I would agree that "if you have an issue with a PM, keep it confidential by taking it to an appropriate host or admin" is preferable to starting a Styx thread.
That said, we all know that being a host or admin is a lot of work, and do we really want to dump more work on these unpaid volunteers, one of whom is my spouse.
It's an interesting question. I do not presume to have a solid answer. But that's my sense of it.
Unless I'm missing something, saying "username told me x" which paraphrases a view expressed in a "private message" is not covered by GDPR. If it isn't about personal data opinion or quoting someone else) that's nothing to do with anything under discussion.
Opinions can be personal data, religious and political views are actually special category data.
I think if you imagine disclosure of a disagreement with another poster about tone falls within the protections of "religious or philosophical beliefs" then you are stretching that to include practically everything. Including abusive messages.
There's a reason I said "can be" not "are". Personal data is a minefield.
Regarding curtains, it might not be the case that millions of people care about what we're saying, but it is the case that millions of people can see what we're saying. These forums exist, in part, that we may be seen.
In the above, I don't think it matters whether the numbers are hundreds, thousands or millions - our social habits have not had time to adjust to such an unknown, unseen gaze.
Regarding curtains, it might not be the case that millions of people care about what we're saying, but it is the case that millions of people can see what we're saying. These forums exist, in part, that we may be seen.
In the above, I don't think it matters whether the numbers are hundreds, thousands or millions - our social habits have not had time to adjust to such an unknown, unseen gaze.
I think I've always figured that "privacy on the internet is an illusion" and just taken that in stride.
Whatever I post here might be public fodder. And I have posted things I regard as somewhat sensitive and deeply personal. At the same time, being a private person of no real importance, I strain to think why anyone would think my online blatherings were worthy of such attention.
In that case, I am protected by my own perhaps-exaggerated humility.
Comments
To me, anything I consider private is any word, sentence or paragraph I have written.
Going back to the OP of the other thread, while the actual body of the PM was not shared, the naming of the individual was. I would have felt better with words to the effect: "It has been brought to my attention that what I may have written could have been considered a personal attack." No name needed to have been mentioned. A short explanation could follow, and life could have gone on. For me, the line was crossed when a name/avatar/AKA was shared.
Surely you don’t mean that? If it were the case that any word, sentence or paragraph you’ve written would be private, then your posts in this thread would “private.”
Sounds good to me.
And I don't think your previous question about my "position" is unreasonable, but I haven't as yet thought of anything that I haven't already said.
And thanks for the citation.
@Bullfrog, @Dafyd: what constitutes an "overriding justification"? What happens if the recipient thinks they have such a justification and the sender disagrees?
That's an excellent question, and I think I was personally shying away from it because I'm not sure I'm qualified to say exactly where the line is.
Verbal abuse or evidence of harm is one big one. If you think the sender is somehow injuring themself or yourself, that's a pretty clear alarm.
Figuring out a good definition of "harm" is probably the next challenge. And I think in general I would trust the hosts to be responsible with handling these matters with confidentiality. I would also hope that shipmates have enough sense not to put anything that sensitive or potentially harmful onto the ship without being aware of what they were doing.
In a personal capacity, what you do with some else's personal data is outside the scope of GDPR, but if you're acting for the service provider (ie in your capacity as a Host or Admin), you're expected to comply with GDPR. And in this regard, making another person's personal data public is a big no-no. Passing personal data on to an appropriate authority is not the same as making it public. The nature of your relationship with that person is not relevant. (Although it does affect other aspects of what a data controller is required to do.)
Also…
I think I'd go back to what I wrote back at the start - there are a number of options for dealing with receiving an inappropriate or troubling PM that don't involve posting about it in Styx.
At this end of the discussion, I'd say that if you opt for dealing with it by posting a thread in Styx, be prepared to justify your actions.
Conversely, for the sender of PMs: if you send someone an unsolicited PM that could be viewed as being inappropriate, don't count on them keeping it to themselves.
If the recipient thinks they have a justification and the sender disagrees, then that's a tricky ethical judgement. If the communication was unsolicited then the sender took the risk.
However, in the case of harm and abuse, I would expect the distinction between public and private to be less significant. (For one thing, abuse generally falls within the remit of criminal law.)
I think that trying to define harm, or whether harm is intended, is likely to be opening a very large can of worms, if the aim is to come up with a set of directives that can be applied here on the forums.
Personal data is many things, but saying "Auntie Maisie dislikes my ties" isn't it.
Opinions can be personal data, religious and political views are actually special category data.
I think if you imagine disclosure of a disagreement with another poster about tone falls within the protections of "religious or philosophical beliefs" then you are stretching that to include practically everything. Including abusive messages.
I'm not sure I'd draw the curtain as tightly as @pease would, but I do agree that a curtain is a useful thing to have. I also am not sure that this needs to be a policy concern (unless it keeps coming up) but if it did, a tighter curtain is probably safer for the purpose of risk-avoidance.
A lot of this can fall under "don't be a jerk." There's a certain range of goodwill and grace in people and the particular situation that inspired this thread seems - to me - to fall under that. It was a faux pas, not something that needs to be escalated into the equivalent of a legal dispute. I don't see any blood on the ground, figuratively speaking, though I do see the potential for blood if people acted maliciously. Privacy is a serious matter.
If situations like this were to keep occurring, or if we had a more grievous case of PM abuse, then perhaps there would be a need to make a policy decision out of it, and I think I would agree that "if you have an issue with a PM, keep it confidential by taking it to an appropriate host or admin" is preferable to starting a Styx thread.
That said, we all know that being a host or admin is a lot of work, and do we really want to dump more work on these unpaid volunteers, one of whom is my spouse.
It's an interesting question. I do not presume to have a solid answer. But that's my sense of it.
There's a reason I said "can be" not "are". Personal data is a minefield.
Regarding curtains, it might not be the case that millions of people care about what we're saying, but it is the case that millions of people can see what we're saying. These forums exist, in part, that we may be seen.
In the above, I don't think it matters whether the numbers are hundreds, thousands or millions - our social habits have not had time to adjust to such an unknown, unseen gaze.
I think I've always figured that "privacy on the internet is an illusion" and just taken that in stride.
Whatever I post here might be public fodder. And I have posted things I regard as somewhat sensitive and deeply personal. At the same time, being a private person of no real importance, I strain to think why anyone would think my online blatherings were worthy of such attention.
In that case, I am protected by my own perhaps-exaggerated humility.