7 ms·

The idea that, because a single user broke confidence and published a private correspondence, the real identities of each contributor might be exposed is, quite

The idea that, because a single user broke confidence and published a private correspondence, the real identities of each contributor might be exposed is, quite frankly, horrifying to me. While it might, possibly, be reasonable to accuse that member only of defamation, the access requested is far too broad. If this suit is successful, it will set a chilling precedent: That no conversation on the Internet may be considered legally private, and that any negative conversations may run the risk of a lawsuit-enforced doxxing.

komali2 8y ago
This is the primary reason I oppose government agents having routine access to citizen phones. People that send me documents and pictures presumably sent them in confidence.
mpweiher 8y ago
Huh? There is a simple solution: don't widely distribute content that's actionable. And yes, there is no privacy for criminal acts ("we just shared this child porn privately, it's none of your business" doesn't really fly...)
- larkeith 8y ago
  > don't widely distribute content that's actionable This is a strange argument to apply to the first few users, sharing a document with one or two friends. I should have been more clear: Legally private as opposed to publicly published, not as in private from the law.
  - sverige 8y ago
    Well, it was put up on a server accessible to lots of people. How is that legally private?
    - larkeith 8y ago
      ...which is why it seems reasonable to sue the user who circulated the list publicly. However, there should be no difference between an actual document, published to a public forum, and an entirely fictitious one published to the same - all authors excepting the one who published it should be irrelevant.
gaius 8y ago
the real identities of each contributor might be exposed is, quite frankly, horrifying to me Person A adds your name to a list and you'll never know that that's why Person B tossed your resume in the trash. That's horrifying. And in the UK at least, illegal https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-blacklisting/ https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-blacklisting/
- larkeith 8y ago
  I don't disagree with this, but it's not mutually exclusive: There are solutions that do not involve wholesale data disclosure. There's also some added complexity given the context: As the failure of the legal system in addressing sexual assault and harassment is responsible for both the necessity of this list and the "guilty until proven innocent" atmosphere that causes it to have impact, it seems questionable to use that selfsame system to punish the workaround developed (the list).
- DanBC 8y ago
  The spreadsheet wasn't being used to stop men from getting jobs. It was being used to warn women that they may need to protect themselves when working with those men. Please don't conflate the UK laws about blacklisting - which come from a time of vigorous anti-union activism in the construction industry that prevented men from working in any company in their industry for many years (and led to the creation of UK laws about data protection) - with this small private spreadsheet.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - gaius 8y ago
    he spreadsheet wasn't being used to stop men from getting jobs The linked article on Scribd says that that was the purpose of the list. a time of vigorous anti-union activism "They're not union members, this is, umm, some other list" won't fly in front of any judge. ---- I can't reply because I'm "posting too fast" so here is my reply here: I'm familiar with the case. And so there is no doubt: those who have actually committed crimes mentioned on the spreadsheet should be in jail. But anonymous blacklists are not the way to get justice for anyone, they are too open to misuse.
oh_sigh 8y ago
Would you feel the same way if the private group was a bunch of men talking about their various sex escapades with other women in their profession?
- larkeith 8y ago
  Yes - while whoever published it should be held fully accountable, a private conversation is just that - private. It should be noted that in this hypothetical, I suspect the list would have much less impact - such a document could be easily forged. While the same is true of the actual list, the context of the #metoo movement and the causes behind it lead to much-increased plausibility.
jki275 8y ago
The defamation was still occurring. The fact it was being hidden among a secret group doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it simply changes the scope.
- larkeith 8y ago
  By this logic, complaining to my friends about my boss should be actionable.
  - nostromo 8y ago
    If you lied about your boss in a serious way it would be.
  - casefields 8y ago
    If you tell them your boss is a pedophile and rapist you better bet your ass you can get pinched.
nostromo 8y ago
There’s no requirement that defamation be public. If one lies about a person in a one on one conversation with a close friend, he or she could be sued for defamation.
bradleyjg 8y ago
> If this suit is successful, it will set a chilling precedent: That no conversation on the Internet may be considered legally private, and that any negative conversations may run the risk of a lawsuit-enforced doxxing. This has nothing to do with "on the Internet". On the contrary, there's lots of suggestions here and elsewhere that "on the Internet" should be an ad hoc nullification machine that sweeps away and all legal precedent that don't comport with the cyberpunk ethos of slashdot in its heyday. Come to think of it, now it's even spreading beyond "on the Internet". I've seen the term "doxxing" used to refer to a bona fide newspaper printing the name of a person that physically attended a rally. That's not doxxing. That's journalism and it's been going on long before Vint Cerf was a twinkle in his father's eye.

komali2 8y ago

This is the primary reason I oppose government agents having routine access to citizen phones. People that send me documents and pictures presumably sent them in confidence.

mpweiher 8y ago

Huh? There is a simple solution: don't widely distribute content that's actionable. And yes, there is no privacy for criminal acts ("we just shared this child porn privately, it's none of your business" doesn't really fly...)

larkeith 8y ago
> don't widely distribute content that's actionable This is a strange argument to apply to the first few users, sharing a document with one or two friends. I should have been more clear: Legally private as opposed to publicly published, not as in private from the law.
- sverige 8y ago
  Well, it was put up on a server accessible to lots of people. How is that legally private?
  - larkeith 8y ago
    ...which is why it seems reasonable to sue the user who circulated the list publicly. However, there should be no difference between an actual document, published to a public forum, and an entirely fictitious one published to the same - all authors excepting the one who published it should be irrelevant.

gaius 8y ago

the real identities of each contributor might be exposed is, quite frankly, horrifying to me Person A adds your name to a list and you'll never know that that's why Person B tossed your resume in the trash. That's horrifying. And in the UK at least, illegal https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-blacklisting/ https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/legal-qa-blacklisting/

larkeith 8y ago
I don't disagree with this, but it's not mutually exclusive: There are solutions that do not involve wholesale data disclosure. There's also some added complexity given the context: As the failure of the legal system in addressing sexual assault and harassment is responsible for both the necessity of this list and the "guilty until proven innocent" atmosphere that causes it to have impact, it seems questionable to use that selfsame system to punish the workaround developed (the list).
DanBC 8y ago
The spreadsheet wasn't being used to stop men from getting jobs. It was being used to warn women that they may need to protect themselves when working with those men. Please don't conflate the UK laws about blacklisting - which come from a time of vigorous anti-union activism in the construction industry that prevented men from working in any company in their industry for many years (and led to the creation of UK laws about data protection) - with this small private spreadsheet.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- gaius 8y ago
  he spreadsheet wasn't being used to stop men from getting jobs The linked article on Scribd says that that was the purpose of the list. a time of vigorous anti-union activism "They're not union members, this is, umm, some other list" won't fly in front of any judge. ---- I can't reply because I'm "posting too fast" so here is my reply here: I'm familiar with the case. And so there is no doubt: those who have actually committed crimes mentioned on the spreadsheet should be in jail. But anonymous blacklists are not the way to get justice for anyone, they are too open to misuse.

oh_sigh 8y ago

Would you feel the same way if the private group was a bunch of men talking about their various sex escapades with other women in their profession?

larkeith 8y ago
Yes - while whoever published it should be held fully accountable, a private conversation is just that - private. It should be noted that in this hypothetical, I suspect the list would have much less impact - such a document could be easily forged. While the same is true of the actual list, the context of the #metoo movement and the causes behind it lead to much-increased plausibility.

jki275 8y ago

The defamation was still occurring. The fact it was being hidden among a secret group doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it simply changes the scope.

larkeith 8y ago
By this logic, complaining to my friends about my boss should be actionable.
- nostromo 8y ago
  If you lied about your boss in a serious way it would be.
- casefields 8y ago
  If you tell them your boss is a pedophile and rapist you better bet your ass you can get pinched.

nostromo 8y ago

There’s no requirement that defamation be public. If one lies about a person in a one on one conversation with a close friend, he or she could be sued for defamation.

bradleyjg 8y ago

> If this suit is successful, it will set a chilling precedent: That no conversation on the Internet may be considered legally private, and that any negative conversations may run the risk of a lawsuit-enforced doxxing. This has nothing to do with "on the Internet". On the contrary, there's lots of suggestions here and elsewhere that "on the Internet" should be an ad hoc nullification machine that sweeps away and all legal precedent that don't comport with the cyberpunk ethos of slashdot in its heyday. Come to think of it, now it's even spreading beyond "on the Internet". I've seen the term "doxxing" used to refer to a bona fide newspaper printing the name of a person that physically attended a rally. That's not doxxing. That's journalism and it's been going on long before Vint Cerf was a twinkle in his father's eye.