[Amendment] Invasion of Privacy and Impersonation Addition

[Nazgûl Killer]

Proposer: Nazgûl Killer
Supporters: Magpie, Pontifex, -TopCat-, Irishron, Garbarsardar

From the ToS:

1. Harassment or Invasion of Privacy (1, 4, or 8 points)
   
   Continual harassing behavior directed towards a certain individual or group with the intent of creating an intimidating, offensive, or hostile environment on the boards, with or without use of explicit or implicit threats is prohibited. Posting private information without permission is also prohibited.

Proposed addition:

1. Harassment or Invasion of Privacy (1, 4, or 8 points)
   
   Private information about any member includes but is not limited to: Social security number, address, phone number, cellphone number, real name, details of personal life or even his or her Facebook or any other social network page. Any private information violation shall be dealt with in a case-by-case basis and includes any information about a member which he or she does not wish to share. This can exclude information already available in said member's information and profile.
   
   
   • Continual harassing behavior directed towards a certain individual or group with the intent of creating an intimidating, offensive, or hostile environment on the boards, with or without use of explicit or implicit threats is prohibited.
   • Posting private information about others without permission is also prohibited.
   
   

Changes and rationale:
First and foremost, I added that private information about other members only is prohibited, as any member is at fault of their own if they reveal their private information and should be regarded responsible for their own actions, as such they can reveal their own private information and not others'.
Second, I added the new section of people signing with other people's names. I've seen this happen twice now, the second time someone signed with my own name, I think this is quite the invasion of privacy and quite also the smearing of a good (or bad) name of another member.
Third, I added a definition of private information that I think will be fitting.


From the ToS:

Impersonation (1 or 4 points)

Falsely claiming to be another specific message board member or other known individual is not allowed. Neither is falsely claiming to be a moderator, administrator, Creative Assembly employee, or other authority figure. Moderators may use discretion in enforcing this against impersonations that are clearly not serious and so unlikely to fool anyone.

1. Impersonation (1, 4 or 8 points)
   
   Falsely claiming to be another specific message board member or other known individual is not allowed. Neither is falsely claiming to be a moderator, administrator, Creative Assembly employee, or other authority figure. Moderators may use discretion in enforcing this against impersonations that are clearly not serious and so unlikely to fool anyone. Using another member's user name to sign or leave an impression following certain statements without his or her consent is also prohibited. For example, a member is not allowed to use another member's user name as their own in their posts, private messages, signature or any other form of communication or advertising in TWCenter.

Rationale and explanation:
First, I changed the number of points from 1 to 4, to 1, 4 and 8. I think these things should be handled much more harshly than they have up until now.
Second, I added another type of impersonation that I've seen twice now on this board.

[magpie]

Seems a reasonable proposal, I support.

[Augustus Lucifer]

#1: I don't think removing a 1-pt version is a good idea. If the offense is serious the moderators will act accordingly and issue a 4 or 8 pt infraction. Removing the 1-pt option just serves to provide for poor application on matters we can't foresee, or the use of notes where 1-pt infractions might otherwise have been used(not necessarily a bad thing, but the opposite of the effect you seem to desire).

#2: The addition of "about other members" seems to unintentionally remove some of the scope of that provision. With that addition it can only apply to personal information, whereas without that it could conceivably apply to information present in a private forum which is moved out without permission. Though permission from whom it's not quite clear on, so there's that. 'Private information' isn't defined elsewhere to my knowledge so it's up to interpretation whether it should only apply to personal information or also information about a group.

#3: That might already be covered under 'Privacy and Release of Information' at the top of the terms. At any rate that's the place for such a release of liability, not within an individual section.

#4: As a technical consideration, how would one go about using another member's user name? Your user name is on every post or PM you make, you can't obfuscate it. At most you could request that your name be changed to one vacated by another member, and at that point the name isn't technically assigned to that member anymore. If you just mean doing this...

~ Nazgul Killer

...I'm not sure there's a pressing need for such a provision. This would also better qualify as 'Impersonation', so it's already covered, but it's pretty damn hard to pretend to be another user when usernames are blatant in the postbit.

Those are just my thoughts on the changes, I neither support nor oppose.

[Nazgûl Killer]

#1: I don't think removing a 1-pt version is a good idea. If the offense is serious the moderators will act accordingly and issue a 4 or 8 pt infraction. Removing the 1-pt option just serves to provide for poor application on matters we can't foresee, or the use of notes where 1-pt infractions might otherwise have been used(not necessarily a bad thing, but the opposite of the effect you seem to desire).

Fair enough, I see the reason behind it now. 1 point put back.

#2: The addition of "about other members" seems to unintentionally remove some of the scope of that provision. With that addition it can only apply to personal information, whereas without that it could conceivably apply to information present in a private forum which is moved out without permission. Though permission from whom it's not quite clear on, so there's that. 'Private information' isn't defined elsewhere to my knowledge so it's up to interpretation whether it should only apply to personal information or also information about a group.

I'll try and more clearly define private information.

#3: That might already be covered under 'Privacy and Release of Information' at the top of the terms. At any rate that's the place for such a release of liability, not within an individual section.

All right, removed.

#4: As a technical consideration, how would one go about using another member's user name? Your user name is on every post or PM you make, you can't obfuscate it. At most you could request that your name be changed to one vacated by another member, and at that point the name isn't technically assigned to that member anymore. If you just mean doing this...

~ Nazgul Killer

...I'm not sure there's a pressing need for such a provision. This would also better qualify as 'Impersonation', so it's already covered, but it's pretty damn hard to pretend to be another user when usernames are blatant in the postbit.

Those are just my thoughts on the changes, I neither support nor oppose.

I've seen incidents twice now (That have been dealt by moderators) that have had a certain post end with (I'll bring the second incident, involving me):

Happy to help,
Nazgul_Killer.

Despite it not being me writing it. Yes, I know, the member's name is displayed out large, but if a member signs his posts like this people can easily mistake him for an alternative user of mine, or if he signs with any other user name then he will be mistaken with an alternative user of someone else and so on, I think this is an extreme violation of privacy.

Also, I added and edited the part about impersonation. I may add some revising to it later.


@Magpie, I can't count in your support since I've changed a lot to the OP. If you don't mind declaring it again or not declaring it...

[magpie]

Happy to support your re-worded proposal Nazgul

[Nazgûl Killer]

Done & Done.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Current version is much better. Still rather ambivalent so I'll let those more impassioned on this issue discuss it.

[Harry Lime]

All that you have proposed is already covered anyway so why the need to add specifics?

[Nazgûl Killer]

I felt like it was needed. No idea why, but I did.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Actually...I support. First ToS amendment from the Curia I think I have ever supported.

[Garbarsardar]

As long as the magic words "but not limited to" are there, I see no problem.

[T.C.]

Support this

[irishron]

Support.

[Jom]

Using another member's user name to sign or leave an impression following certain statements without his or her consent is also prohibited. For example, a member is not allowed to use another member's user name as their own in their posts, private messages, signature or any other form of communication or advertising in TWCenter.

I don't support this at all. What is the need for it exactly? Everyone can see who is posting through the postbit and this section of the amendment seems to simply exclude the use of satire.

[Squid]

This can exclude information already available in said member's information and profile.

needs to be changed. This leaves a big gap where someone could be moderated for posting information a member has previously posted but not in their information or profile. For example in a post or visitor message or social group. I had an incident such as this where a member was complaining a person was revealing personal information, until I looked into it and realized the information had been posted, and not edited out, and was still freely available to look at on the site.

[Spiff]

"Posting private information about other members without permission is also prohibited."

I don't see why this is a desirable change, in general I would say privacy should be respected whether the individual is a member here or not. Should I really be able to post my neighbours "Social security number, address, phone number, cellphone number, real name, details of personal life or even his or her Facebook or any other social network page" if I know them?

I'm no expert on the current moderation policy but if I went around posting that kind of information about someone I would expect this to be a breach of the terms of service - yet under this amendment it would make such actions perfectly permissible.

[Harry Lime]

See this is why I've always been against specifying things in the ToS, it opens up too many loopholes. The current rules in this regard work well enough and until they are shown not to be, leave them alone.

[Nazgûl Killer]

"Posting private information about other members without permission is also prohibited."

I don't see why this is a desirable change, in general I would say privacy should be respected whether the individual is a member here or not. Should I really be able to post my neighbours "Social security number, address, phone number, cellphone number, real name, details of personal life or even his or her Facebook or any other social network page" if I know them?

I'm no expert on the current moderation policy but if I went around posting that kind of information about someone I would expect this to be a breach of the terms of service - yet under this amendment it would make such actions perfectly permissible.

You're right. Sorry about that, changed to to "Posting private information about others".

needs to be changed. This leaves a big gap where someone could be moderated for posting information a member has previously posted but not in their information or profile. For example in a post or visitor message or social group. I had an incident such as this where a member was complaining a person was revealing personal information, until I looked into it and realized the information had been posted, and not edited out, and was still freely available to look at on the site.

I don't think I follow you... What do you suggest instead?

I don't support this at all. What is the need for it exactly? Everyone can see who is posting through the postbit and this section of the amendment seems to simply exclude the use of satire.

Signing with another member's user name, whether it is or isn't in satire, in my view should be simply forbidden for the simple fact that you have absolutely no right to to do so. Besides, as I've said before, signing with someone else's user name can easily make the public think you are an alternative user of that member and can harm said member's reputation (Be it good or bad).

Actually...I support. First ToS amendment from the Curia I think I have ever supported.

You're biased

As long as the magic words "but not limited to" are there, I see no problem.

You actually made me check if they were there

See this is why I've always been against specifying things in the ToS, it opens up too many loopholes. The current rules in this regard work well enough and until they are shown not to be, leave them alone.

To be honest, I'm trying to make them more harsh. I think that invasion of privacy, even on an internet website, is one of the most horrible offenses anyone can make.

[Squid]

I don't think I follow you... What do you suggest instead?

Currently if I post my private information in this thread, say my name is John Doe I live at 123 Main St. and if anybody then also posts it they can be infracted with your wording because its not on my profile or in my information.

The wording should be changed to something like:

This can exclude information already publicly available on this site including but not limited to the forums and the wiki.

[magpie]

Currently if I post my private information in this thread, say my name is John Doe I live at 123 Main St. and if anybody then also posts it they can be infracted with your wording because its not on my profile or in my information.

The wording should be changed to something like:

If a member risks posting his personal address details in a forum, Who knows why he would do it. maybe drunk or a total innocent. Then another member quotes those personal details in another post its a dodgy area.
It may be an innocent repeat of the details or maybe the poster wants to stir up trouble for the person who gave out their address.
I think it should be an infraction offence and the posts deleted to be on the safe side for the sake of the general membership.The infraction can be appealed depending on the circumstances that the post was made.
Just maybe it should be an offence to give out your private home address on an open forum?