Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Journal by dalek

I've been approached about working on a new privacy policy for SoylentNews and have agreed to do so. This journal is the first step in that process.

SN currently runs on Rehash, which is written in Perl and dates back to Slash 2.0. Many privacy-related considerations in Rehash are dictated by decisions made by the Slashdot admins nearly 25 years ago when they wrote the original code. The age of this code and its dependencies on tools like mod_perl make it nearly unmaintainable, meaning that SN may implement a new code base sooner rather than later. This is a pivotal time to discuss a new privacy policy for SN, an the decisions made now will likely influence the implementation of whichever new code base powers SN in the future.

SN has three primary stakeholders, which are 1) the ownership, 2) the staff, and 3) the community. To be successful, any site policy needs the support of all three of these stakeholders. That means the community needs to be actively engaged in the process.

My first steps will be to solicit input from the SN community and to spend most of my time listening. There are three important questions to discuss:

1) Problems: What privacy-related considerations are important to you, the members of the SN community? What are your concerns? As long as the issues are reasonably relevant to privacy, anything should be on the table here. This includes things like what user data gets stored, how long it is retained, who has access to it, the right to be forgotten, anonymous commenting, and anything that can reasonably be construed as a privacy issue.

2) Process: All three stakeholders must be supportive of any privacy policy for it to be effective. Therefore, once a privacy policy is drafted, we need a process for all three stakeholders to approve this. I anticipate the biggest questions here will be how you, the members of the SN community, get to voice your support or to request amendments to the policy. What process would the community like us to follow for enacting policy? Do all logged-in users get to vote? Does the community elect representatives?

3) Potential Solutions: Once you, the members of the SN community, make your privacy concerns heard, we need potential solutions for those concerns. These solutions will be limited by a few constraints. To allow for robust discussions and make SN a welcoming community, we need the ability to track abuse of the site (e.g., spam comments, sock puppet account creation, gaming the moderation system, etc...) to prevent disruption of the discussions. SN is required to comply with the laws in relevant jurisdictions such as the United States and the state of Delaware. Any solutions have to be practical, given the limited financial and human resources. Working within those constraints, SN policy should go above and beyond what is merely required by law, and to maximize the privacy of the members of the community.

I'll start by posting three journals at least 7-10 days apart to discuss each of these issues. For this journal, I want to focus on the first point, which is what privacy concerns you have, What is important to you, as members of the SN community, and what do we need to address in the new privacy policy? While any discussion of privacy matters is on-topic in this journal, I'd like to try to keep the discussion focused as much as possible on privacy-related problems that we need to address.

There are a few ground rules in this discussion:

1) If you're giving examples of specific privacy concerns, please don't include actual user names or people. Please use hypothetical terms, or use generic names like "person A" and "person B."

2) The new privacy policy is forward looking, meaning that the discussion should focus on how we can be better in the future, and not on holding people responsible for past mistakes or how the existing code is written.

3) Please keep the discussion civil and welcoming. Everyone deserves a chance to participate in this discussion and to be heard. Please keep the discussion constructive and refrain from posting personal attacks. Privacy is for everyone, and that means everyone deserves to be heard. I ask that you please don't try to dominate the discussion or shout other people down, and instead let everyone make their opinions known.

4) Please keep the discussion on-topic. Any privacy-related matters are on-topic, but issues like story selection are beyond the scope of this policy. Let's keep issues like politics out of this discussion, too.

5) Please don't moderate people down unless they're off-topic, trying to dominate the discussion, shouting people down, or posting personal attacks. Even if you disagree with someone else, please don't moderate them down unless they're violating the ground rules for this discussion. I want everyone to be heard.

I pledge that I'll read every comment that you post. My direct input to this discussion will be minimal, and I probably won't post at all except maybe to answer questions or ask for more detail if appropriate. I'm not here to debate with people. I just want to listen to your concerns. Anonymous Cowards are welcome in this discussion, but all comments that I post will be from the dalek account. I have unchecked the "willing to moderate" box in my user preferences, which means that I am not moderating any comments in this discussion. I am just here to listen.

I want to make these discussions as inclusive as possible. That means I intend to allow Anonymous Coward input to all of these journals. In exchange for keeping these discussions open, I ask that you please keep these discussions on track. I will post future journals, but for now, I want to know what your privacy concerns are, and what topics we need to address in the new privacy policy.

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Comment Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02, @07:31PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02, @07:31PM (#1309462)

    True, but then doxxing, a fully legal activityin the US, should have the same punishment. Was there a credible threat? Even staff didn't think so, so why does that get to weaponize staff?

    I don't condone either posts, but the history of the site has many staff abuses. A few users left citing abuse from admins including journal deletion that included IRC drama, sock puppeters getting free reign, comments de-anonymized, and less obvious abuses like politically biased story submission approvals.

    Soylent News's unique draw was the 99.9% free speech rule, with illegal activity being the limit. Some of the most heinous white supremacy and lengthy spamming of anti-semitism was proof enough, with staff saying the community moderation would handle it. Now site criticisms are allowed spam mods.

    The lesson is that SN leadership is OK with white supremacy but not criticism of site policy. If you're fine tolerating racist filth and political terrorism I would think you could ignore repeating criticism, or at least demand staff update site policy to actually reflect what is allowed on the site and technically what information is stored.

    Repeating because it is important, SN leadership is OK with white supremacy but not site criticism or personal mentions of anonymous usernames. There is 100% a code of conduct, it is just held in the heads of those with power.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 03, @05:52AM (1 child)

    by janrinok (52) on Saturday June 03, @05:52AM (#1309528) Journal

    True, but then doxxing, a fully legal activityin the US

    Well, in that statement you are simply wrong [soylentnews.org]:

    It can constitute a violation of state or federal laws if it was intended to threaten, annoy, harass, or intimidate the victim.

    Doxing can be illegal in some jurisdictions when the victim’s residential address ... are posted on the internet to invite others to blackmail the victim. For example, there are state and federal laws that can be applied to the case such as California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 and Penal Code sections 422 and 646.9 prohibit the same or similar activities. The federal laws that can be applicable are 18 U.S.C. § 119 and 18 U.S.C. § 2261A.

    The legality of doxxing depends on the means of obtaining the information and the result of the doxxing attack. Doxxing laws in the US may define doxxing as a crime if the data was illegally obtained or if the doxxing attack is linked to cyberbullying or harassment.

    Most of the comments we publish online are protected by the First Amendment, even when those comments are mean-spirited or intended to hurt someone’s feelings. However, you can face criminal penalties if there is evidence you intended to cause harm to the victim.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @07:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 03, @07:09AM (#1309550)

      Get better lawyers, janrinok! Preferably ones licensed to practice before the Bar in the jurisdictions you are controlled by. And spending SN funds on bad legal advice is ground for charges of malfeasance. Have you, or anyone associated with you, paid for substandard legal advice, knowingly?