7 ms·

BBC may want to rethink that. Either it is illegal and then the police and courts are the place or it is legal and then it is none of their business. What they

BBC may want to rethink that. Either it is illegal and then the police and courts are the place or it is legal and then it is none of their business. What they are threatening is when they perceive their TOS are violated that they use personal information and interfere in other relationships. This exposes the BBC to liability e.g. if the person is fired they may ask the BBC to pay up. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

jellicle 9y ago
Why is it "none of the BBC's business" when you send hate mail to the BBC? Haven't you made it their business?
- interfixus 9y ago
  That magic spell again: Hate mail. All parties are invited to remember, one guy's considered opinion is another guy's hate speech. And then, ever so often, the wind changes, the tables are turned, those in the wrong are now in the right, and those in the right are now everybody's laughing stock.
  - Veen 9y ago
    The boundaries are fuzzy and subject to change. That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Who defines the standards? In this case, the BBC.
    - interfixus 9y ago
      And those standards to be defined by ... ???
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - PascLeRasc 9y ago
        The BBC. Someone's website isn't a public place. This isn't free speech.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Why do there need to be "standards of acceptability" at all? Seems to me the better world is one in which people don't interfere in other people's employment.
- npiazza83 9y ago
  The courts and laws are established to determine appropriate action in such a case. Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult. The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech". I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to jail. Such is the case here. The BBC just made themselves look like idiots for no enforceable reason.
  - jellicle 9y ago
    If telling your ISP about something you sent causes you "real financial harm", perhaps you shouldn't have sent it. Perhaps you are responsible for the "real financial harm" to yourself.
    - npiazza83 9y ago
      The law is designed to cover cases you might not immediately think of. Protecting men/women from "legal" harassing communication in the work place, protecting homosexual couples from discrimination, etc. eliminating such protections to stick it to nazis is, to put it mildly, naive
Veen 9y ago
Anything you choose to publish on the BBC's website is their business. It's not as though they're going around looking for naughty posts on third-party websites and tattling about it. There is no automatic right to anonymity when posting on someone else's website. If you post something publicly, surely the expectation is that you're fine with anyone seeing it. If the BBC chooses to share that with your boss, why is it different to anyone else choosing to share it with a member of the public. If you don't want everyone to know that you're a dick, don't be a dick in public.
- nsnick 9y ago
  It doesn't matter whose business it is, the BBC still can't use communication between you and the BBC to interfere in a relationship you have with your employer that is illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
  - wcummings 9y ago
    It's not really between you and the BBC, it's not private correspondence, it's a public post.
    - npiazza83 9y ago
      Its A) codified into a business contract, not the actions of a private individual B) the use of private metadata and C) the stipulation that BBC is the enforcement mechanism that is problematic here. Otherwise the BBC would quickly find that when they are late paying the contractors who work on their website their credit cards mysteriously get charged for the services rendered.
  - Veen 9y ago
    An analogy I have in mind might help. Say I write book arguing that a marginalized group are in fact responsible for all the evils in society. A publisher chooses to publish that book. Someone decides to send my boss a copy of the book and I get fired. Do I have cause to sue the sender for tortious interference? I don't know what the status of private communications with the BBC would be in this regard, but if you're using their platform to publish, then I think that my argument holds.
abandonliberty 9y ago
This would be much more reasonable if work networks or devices were used during the behavior. "Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws" They are actually reaching out to claim you have violated laws. Is this not potentially libelous?
kazinator 9y ago
Tortious interference occurs only if the BBC carries out their threat. But what is the legal status of the threat itself, not carried out? If there are no legal ramifications from merely threatening to perpetrate tortious interference, then it seems like a useful troll deterrent tool that the BBC has a right to use on their own site.
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  Tortious interference doesn't occur, in the slightest, whether the BBC carries out their threat or not. The hint is in the word "tortious." Explain the tort. Think about it: complaining to a manager at a fast food restaurant would result in liability for the customer in this world where tortious interference bizarrely applies.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    This is like complaining to a manager at a fast food restaurant because of some personal problem with the fast food employee, outside of the context of being served by that employee. The perpetrator is "getting even" with that person by trying to stir up problems for them at work. Maybe they met at a party last weekend, and the one insulted the other's girlfriend or whatever; nothing to do with hamburgers. If you have a problem with service and complain to a manager, then you're clearly not a "third party"; the contract between the employee and fast food restaurant has everything to do with serving you. Note that the BBC are not saying that they will contact your employer only if it can be determined that you used the employer's time and equipment to post the comments. Even if you post those comments using your own residential internet connection on your own time, they threaten to contact your employer.
    - JdeBP 9y ago
      It's not like fast food restaurants at all. This is a privacy policy. And it is like (say) the privacy policy that covers people with accounts at Japan Today, which says: > We reserve the right to use or share information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Japan Today Terms of Use, or as otherwise required by law. The difference is that unlike Japan Today, and other privacy policies mentioned elsewhere on this page, the BBC is trying to tell you whom the information will be disclosed to, pursuant to the guidelines from the U.K. Information Commissioner on privacy policies, but somewhat ineptly. Japan Today tells you that it may "share information", but nothing whatsoever about whom that is likely to be with. The BBC is trying to tell you whom it is likely to be sharing information with. And it should come as no surprise that if you are posting from a work computer, one of the people it is going to be sharing the information with is the company that your IP address backtracks to.

jellicle 9y ago

Why is it "none of the BBC's business" when you send hate mail to the BBC? Haven't you made it their business?

interfixus 9y ago
That magic spell again: Hate mail. All parties are invited to remember, one guy's considered opinion is another guy's hate speech. And then, ever so often, the wind changes, the tables are turned, those in the wrong are now in the right, and those in the right are now everybody's laughing stock.
- Veen 9y ago
  The boundaries are fuzzy and subject to change. That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Who defines the standards? In this case, the BBC.
  - interfixus 9y ago
    And those standards to be defined by ... ???
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - PascLeRasc 9y ago
      The BBC. Someone's website isn't a public place. This isn't free speech.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    That doesn't mean there can be no standards of acceptability. Why do there need to be "standards of acceptability" at all? Seems to me the better world is one in which people don't interfere in other people's employment.
npiazza83 9y ago
The courts and laws are established to determine appropriate action in such a case. Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult. The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech". I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to jail. Such is the case here. The BBC just made themselves look like idiots for no enforceable reason.
- jellicle 9y ago
  If telling your ISP about something you sent causes you "real financial harm", perhaps you shouldn't have sent it. Perhaps you are responsible for the "real financial harm" to yourself.
  - npiazza83 9y ago
    The law is designed to cover cases you might not immediately think of. Protecting men/women from "legal" harassing communication in the work place, protecting homosexual couples from discrimination, etc. eliminating such protections to stick it to nazis is, to put it mildly, naive

Veen 9y ago

Anything you choose to publish on the BBC's website is their business. It's not as though they're going around looking for naughty posts on third-party websites and tattling about it. There is no automatic right to anonymity when posting on someone else's website. If you post something publicly, surely the expectation is that you're fine with anyone seeing it. If the BBC chooses to share that with your boss, why is it different to anyone else choosing to share it with a member of the public. If you don't want everyone to know that you're a dick, don't be a dick in public.

nsnick 9y ago
It doesn't matter whose business it is, the BBC still can't use communication between you and the BBC to interfere in a relationship you have with your employer that is illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
- wcummings 9y ago
  It's not really between you and the BBC, it's not private correspondence, it's a public post.
  - npiazza83 9y ago
    Its A) codified into a business contract, not the actions of a private individual B) the use of private metadata and C) the stipulation that BBC is the enforcement mechanism that is problematic here. Otherwise the BBC would quickly find that when they are late paying the contractors who work on their website their credit cards mysteriously get charged for the services rendered.
- Veen 9y ago
  An analogy I have in mind might help. Say I write book arguing that a marginalized group are in fact responsible for all the evils in society. A publisher chooses to publish that book. Someone decides to send my boss a copy of the book and I get fired. Do I have cause to sue the sender for tortious interference? I don't know what the status of private communications with the BBC would be in this regard, but if you're using their platform to publish, then I think that my argument holds.

abandonliberty 9y ago

This would be much more reasonable if work networks or devices were used during the behavior. "Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws" They are actually reaching out to claim you have violated laws. Is this not potentially libelous?

kazinator 9y ago

Tortious interference occurs only if the BBC carries out their threat. But what is the legal status of the threat itself, not carried out? If there are no legal ramifications from merely threatening to perpetrate tortious interference, then it seems like a useful troll deterrent tool that the BBC has a right to use on their own site.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
Tortious interference doesn't occur, in the slightest, whether the BBC carries out their threat or not. The hint is in the word "tortious." Explain the tort. Think about it: complaining to a manager at a fast food restaurant would result in liability for the customer in this world where tortious interference bizarrely applies.
- kazinator 9y ago
  This is like complaining to a manager at a fast food restaurant because of some personal problem with the fast food employee, outside of the context of being served by that employee. The perpetrator is "getting even" with that person by trying to stir up problems for them at work. Maybe they met at a party last weekend, and the one insulted the other's girlfriend or whatever; nothing to do with hamburgers. If you have a problem with service and complain to a manager, then you're clearly not a "third party"; the contract between the employee and fast food restaurant has everything to do with serving you. Note that the BBC are not saying that they will contact your employer only if it can be determined that you used the employer's time and equipment to post the comments. Even if you post those comments using your own residential internet connection on your own time, they threaten to contact your employer.
  - JdeBP 9y ago
    It's not like fast food restaurants at all. This is a privacy policy. And it is like (say) the privacy policy that covers people with accounts at Japan Today, which says: > We reserve the right to use or share information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Japan Today Terms of Use, or as otherwise required by law. The difference is that unlike Japan Today, and other privacy policies mentioned elsewhere on this page, the BBC is trying to tell you whom the information will be disclosed to, pursuant to the guidelines from the U.K. Information Commissioner on privacy policies, but somewhat ineptly. Japan Today tells you that it may "share information", but nothing whatsoever about whom that is likely to be with. The BBC is trying to tell you whom it is likely to be sharing information with. And it should come as no surprise that if you are posting from a work computer, one of the people it is going to be sharing the information with is the company that your IP address backtracks to.