The Expectation Of Privacy In A Very Public Chatroom
from the paper-makes-a-difference dept
Is there anyone who doesn't yet realize that anything you write online can (and will) be found at some later date via a search engine? Apparently, even when that's the case, people still seem to mentally cling to the idea that there's some sort of privacy online -- even in very public spaces. E-Media Tidbits points to just such a situation, where the UK newspaper The Guardian used its own chatrooms as fodder for a print story, and the people in the chartroom freaked out, as if their privacy had somehow been breached. They had posted information in a chatroom that was run by The Guardian, and yet they were still quite upset to find the same info they posted online, and which could easily be found via Google, was put into a story that was printed on paper. Part of the problem may have been one of expectations. Even though the Guardian had stated that items on the boards could be reused, they didn't clearly state that they planned to use this content in an article. Still, it's a bit odd to think that someone could complain about their privacy being violated after they were the ones who proactively posted the info themselves in a crowded and well-read user forum.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Shocking
~ John
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Props to the Wayback Machine
I confess to having had a moment of indignation at this "invasion of privacy"... But only a moment. What is happening here is people are getting a taste for what celebrities go through and they don't like it one bit. With luck people will stop buying crap like People and try living their own lives.
From now on I live like anything I say or post might come back to haunt me - and if it does.. Well, that's why we have the word "doh".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Props to the Wayback Machine
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Privacy is attainable.
When I was working on my first chat program for a friend's project, I actually went out of my way to make sure the text was encrypted on the client side before it was transmitted to the network. Only a client, currently logged in to a scheduled chat event, could decrypt the messages. The scheme was pretty and I never logged chats. (That was up to the client-side user.) - So it's possible to keep things private to a degree that will satisfy the end-user, besides if they gave personal information...that was never the fault of mine or of my friend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
Next they'll be taking info from Techdirt Comments and posting them publicly.
Oh wait, thats what I'm doing now!!! ack!!!
I just did it to myself!!!
I just did it again!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Privacy in chat room
It is illegal in some states now to surrepticiously record and publish with tape recorders and video tape as well w/o public notice. that is why many dept stores have signs somewhere stating that video recording of the area is being done.
If the people had to go thru some signup, and it had a notice that the discussions were the property of the publisher, then they have absolutely no basis to be surprised at all.
Obviously common sense (which seems to be totally lacking now days everywhere) would make one think the saying anything anywhere, would be subject to being repeated, if not recorded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It happen to me...
First of all, it was unedited, and questions I asked in the article, was left in the printed text and it just seemed so out of context as it was purely intended for an online forum.
Secondly, they had removed my signature from the article, and just left my initials. (For good and bad...)
Third, there was no reference where it was taken from.
Four, in the Terms of the forum, there were no indication that this could happen.
I was offended, as I didn't expect it to be printed, I was not asked if I wanted it printed, and I was not asked or given the chance to edit/complete the article.
If they liked what I wrote, I would preferred that they got in contact with me, telling me that they were interested, giving me a chance to complete the article and adapt for the correct medium and maybe give a small compensation for the work.
I posted my dissatisfaction on the forum, and my message got deleted. Re-posted - deleted...
After several mails to the company, I got an answer, not really happy with it, and at the end... I haven't been there since. I post my articles elsewhere.
Provoke
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Shocking
[ link to this | view in thread ]
posting messages
[ link to this | view in thread ]
looking for job
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Props to the Wayback Machine
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It happen to me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
private chatroom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
helpping troubled people
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lil Wayne
[ link to this | view in thread ]