imc privacy policy

by Ray Wed Sep 11, 2002 13:53

First of all, I think something like this should be raised on the mailing lists, not the newswire. (If you were unhappy with the answer you got on the list, you could of course raise it on the newswire)

Secondly, I think this has already been answered. When someone posted your details on the newswire without your permission, you asked for them to be removed, and they were. Is there any reason to believe it would be different in future.

Only two people have access to the server logs. Since I'm not one of them, I have no way of knowing who KM is, and so can't be absolutely certain that he's not one of them. I think its incredibly unlikely.

I don't think KM is a danger to every activist on indymedia. I think you and he are involved in a feud, and if you both keep throwing around insults as you do then its inevitable that things will get out of hand eventually. In the meantime its not doing either of you any favours.

by pat c Wed Sep 11, 2002 14:44

ray,

i believe that all people who post to indymedia have a right to know whether or not their details are safe.

i don't think such discussion should be restricted to the lists. there is no point in discussing this aspect of it any futher, we are not going to agree.

secondly i believe km is a danger to all activists on the list. if imc are not prepared to stand over its privacy policy then how can anyone have confidence that the integrity of their personal details will be maintained?

already we have seen a dangerous drift wherby people feel its ok to finger those in the iawm as to their political affiliations.

i started no feud with km. he reacted like a raving lunatic to a posting which advertised an event & a lecture in a museum. that is where this originated from & he is intent on carrying on.

ray, the central point which needs to be addressed is whether or not imc believe that posters have a right to privacy. by claiming that this is just a personal feud, the issue of the imc privacy policy is overlooked.

i've had my details published. now they are fingering the swp.

it could well be the wsm next.

by Ray Wed Sep 11, 2002 15:08

- i believe that all people who post to indymedia have a right to know whether or not their details are safe.

Pat, you asked before who in indymedia had access to that kind of information, and you were told its limited to two people. And it is most definitely not indymedia policy or practice to try to identify people from their IP addresses - even if its you asking.
So, unless you think the situation has changed, I don't see why you are suggesting that posting to indymedia is unsafe.

- secondly i believe km is a danger to all activists on the list. if imc are not prepared to stand over its privacy policy then how can anyone have confidence that the integrity of their personal details will be maintained?

Because this has come up exactly once so far. When someone posted your personal details on the newswire they were deleted immediately. Do you have any reason to think that this situation has changed?

- the central point which needs to be addressed is whether or not imc believe that posters have a right to privacy.

As far as I can see this has been addressed by the clear practice of indymedia so far. If someone posts your details on the wire without permission, bring it to the attention of the editors and they will delete it. That's what's happened so far, why should the future be any different?

- already we have seen a dangerous drift wherby people feel its ok to finger those in the iawm as to their political affiliations.

To be honest, I think this is a separate issue. As far as I can see, the reason why the party affiliation of IAWM people was identified was because people wanted to know if the committee was dominated by a particular group. No phone numbers or employment details were published. I don't think this is 'red-baiting', nor do I think that its an attempt to get people into trouble. (Which doesn't mean I think it was a great thing to do)

- i started no feud with km. he reacted like a raving lunatic to a posting which advertised an event & a lecture in a museum. that is where this originated from & he is intent on carrying on.

I'm sure if you just ignored him it would have been forgotten about long ago.
It actually took me a while to find a thread with both of you in it, but in
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=11292&start=100
for example, commenting on Kevin Myers, you compare him with KM. Naturally he replies, and off the two of you go.
I don't know who started it, and it really isn't that important. The important thing is that if you both keep seeking opportunities to argue with each other then you'll find them. And it doesn't take very long for the insults to start flying. And when that happens, two things happen -
Everyone else's opinion of _both_ of you goes down.
Things get out of control, and threats start appearing.

It would be a lot better, for you and for us, if neither of you referred to each other any more.

by Ras Putin Wed Sep 11, 2002 15:25

Every word posted on the Internet is available to Echelon, the CIA, the FBI, MI5, and the Special Branch. Just keep that in mind.

by pat Wed Sep 11, 2002 15:25

ray

you keep trying to bring this down to being a feud, its more than that.

a person has stated his belief that under imc rules, he is entitled to publish peoples personal details on indymedia if he gathers those details outside of imc.

that is the crux issue.

does imc believe he is correct in his interpertation of the privacy rules?

by Brian D Wed Sep 11, 2002 15:31

im sure the IMC collective has taken as much caution as possible when it comes to privacy on the web. of course if you have some sort of talent in this regards why not add that to the IMC collective. but to be honest with you i am quite happy posting here, if your paranoid about IMC why not be paranoid about writing an email just as much as one poster says, EVERYTHING posted on the internet can be read by FBI, Special Branch etc etc... anyway i doubt the IMC collective is selling or contact details to the highest bidder, eh?

by Ray Wed Sep 11, 2002 15:36

- you keep trying to bring this down to being a feud, its more than that.

I think the reason its come up at all is because of a feud, yes

- a person has stated his belief that under imc rules, he is entitled to publish peoples personal details on indymedia if he gathers those details outside of imc.

I think KM was saying that the indymedia rules don't explicitly forbid it, which may be true.
But you and I both know that when this has come up before the indymedia editors were happy to remove people's personal details from the newswire. There was no suggestion of changing this at the last meeting (I don't think privacy even came up). There has been no announcement that the privacy policy has changed. So I don't know why you are so worried that it has changed.

(And I still think that the place to find out about indymedia policy is the mailing lists, not the newswire)

by pat Wed Sep 11, 2002 15:54

obviously i don't think imc as a collective are going to release peoples details. (if km has access to those details he might.)

someone had posted a comment in which they stated that imc rules didn't prevent them from posting private details they collected elsewhere.

ray has now made it clear that the person is mistaken in their belief.

by Ruairi Wed Sep 11, 2002 16:52

Guys, as the 'movement' grows, so too does the monitoring, subversion and attacks on it. I second yer man who mentioned echelon and co.

If you think this debate should be on the list, then go to the god damn list! This debate is exposing lot's of ridiculous weaknesses that needn't be done on the newswire. I believe this echoes Ray's own policy, which he doesn't appear to be adhering to.

by Daithi Mac Sithigh Wed Sep 11, 2002 18:26 macsithd at tcd dot ie

The IMC privacy policy is there to reassure users that the people who run this site - the IMC collective - will not make use of their personal details.

That's it.

There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER there about content on the site. If anyone wants to change this, they can propose it - but it's patently obvious that it is a separate and distinct issue of "privacy".

The incident that sparked off this debate was the discussion in the Comments section of the political affiliations of IAWM members.

This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the IMC privacy policy as it currently exists.

Furthermore, those who are complaining about the discussion of the politics of these individuals should bear this in mind: does a director of a bank, for example, have the right to demand that Indymedia remove an article that criticises his membership of Fianna Fail?

Nonsense.

Activists don't own Indymedia. We can't apply a special god-like status to ourselves. This "right" of privacy that's being claimed is a right to suppress expression. Just like our so-called leaders have relied upon the libel laws to protect their interests, the call now goes out to protect privacy - extending to the membership of a political party!! Sure, there's a problem when someone's name and address is released - but it must be understood that comment on political party/organisation membership is far removed from that.

by Aidan Thu Sep 12, 2002 01:57

Dear Pat C, you ignorant freak,

George Bush
The White House
Washington DC

I am now in breach of Indymedia Privacy guidelines according to Pat. George can demand this be removed.

Essentially Pat you now want Indymedia to breach their privacy policy cause you want to know KM is?

Which would be a breach of privacy. You've no evidence King Mob did this or King Mob is a member of the Indymedia collective yet you come out with

"secondly i believe km is a danger to all activists on the list. if imc are not prepared to stand over its privacy policy then how can anyone have confidence that the integrity of their personal details will be maintained?"

And "now they are fingering the SWP" Whos' they pat? What is this McCarthistic witchhunt based on

Whoever this was Just mentioned the department where you work. Not the fucking GSM co ordinatinate of of your bleeding cubicle. This could have come from a great deal of sources, yet you ignore this and demand Indymedia expose someone abusing our privacy policy for your own gratification.

As I understand the way the IMC logs work, it would be nigh on impossible (In short bloody hard work) to trace a IP address on Indymedia. For example even if I wanted to I couldn't I neither have the skills or passwords. And even if you did, it would be a tremendous amount of work. It seems unlikely that anyone would go through all that to yank your chain.

What I am getting amazingly pissed off about is your abusing Indymedia on the newswire. There was a meeting you knew about it and you could raise these issues to the collective. You didn't show. You instead what to attack Indymedia from the safety of the newswire. You're a crank Pat.

I notice you've as per usual been forced into retracting your more unreasonable comments so let me ask you a few questions.

1. What evidence do you have that KM is a member of the Indymedia collective?

2. What evidence do you have that KM if he was a member abused Indymedia privacy guidelines?

If you haven't got any I'd ask to stop attacking and slandering Indymedia on the newswire, again.

Privacy policy. Again Indymedia did exactly as you asked, and I'm frankly astonished that you have issues with Indymedia.

Pat behaving in a argumentive manner, and abusive attitude (please don't play the innocent party you've given abuse and gotten abuse, this isn't one person fault) and been too open with your personal details. This can happen. On any website similar to this.

onto publishing details on the site. Thats something to be discussed, I personally have strong feelings on this my girlfriends details where published on a NRUS site about a year ago, so I can understand the strength of feeling you display. But to twist this into another piece of slanderous abuse of Indymedia Ireland is just tiresome and what little sympathy I have for you has been worn threadbare.

by pat Thu Sep 12, 2002 14:00

aidan

i am not trying to be a crank. i know you regard me as one but i have no desire to raise your blood pressure. ( try & cut down on the abuse a bit)

i had reason to believe km was involved in imc from the sort of remarks he makes.

i'm not out to slander imc but daithjis remarks now look as if its ok to publish peoples peronal details on indymedia.

this is a charter for cranks & police agents.

it effectively means that no one can be sure that it is safe to engage in debate on indymedia.

if you annoy someone, then hey have the right to publish your details.

indymedia doesn't feel so safe anymore.

by Daithi Thu Sep 12, 2002 14:48

Don't be afraid of slandering IMC, Pat - we're debating these issues openly, instead of in Tony O'Reilly's boardroom -that's what Indymedia's about.

I don't think that we open ourselves up to abuse by allowing a certain amount of freedom to authors. I don't intend to argue for unrestrained and unedited nonsense - but the point is that these issues should be dealt with on a case by case basis. The "privacy policy" is in the realm of data protection - that's a cast-iron guarantee, that IMC will make no use of personal information gathered in the admin of the site.

If someone's personal information goes onto the newswire that's "editorial policy" not "privacy policy". There are varying degrees of what's acceptable and what's not - for example, posting the home address of someone would (in my opinion) be unacceptable unless there was some overriding public interest reason why its publication was necessary (for example, if a public figure was running a business from his/her home, and there was a picket outside it). On the other hand, the discussion of the political activities of a left-wing or otherwise unknown to the mainstream media activist would be generally acceptable - if Enda Kenny's opinions can be discussed, so can Kieran Allen's, Finghin Kelly's, or Pat C's.

And of course there are all points in between.

Personally I think this is an acceptable policy to reassure users but as always that's just one person's views so if Pat (or anyone else) doesn't feel that their concerns have been addressed then just sing out now.

by pat Thu Sep 12, 2002 15:10

i have no desire to slander imc. i accept that indymedia should be a forum for robust debate & polemic & is not a place for the fainthearted.

but i do think radical activists (as distinct from bankers) have the right to some privacy. how far do you go?

just let peoples affiliations be mentioned?

Let their work address be published?

let their home address be published?

its a slippery slope to a charter for coppers narks.

by King Mob Fri Sep 13, 2002 03:44

Pat I hate to burst your bubble but I didn't post your work address on the site. I merely pointed out that you "were still harping on" about privacy.

This should not be taken to mean I was the culprit.

I don't like you. I think you're a ignorant crypto fascist, who demands free speech for everyone except those you don't like, and thin veiled racism for people who's politics and background you disagree with.

However to accuse me of doing this is unfair. Although not out of character.

Come to think of it you do this alot. A few people have wondered about my idenity, and I'm happy to say pat we've met on a few occasions (and people yes he's just as obnoxious and self righteous in the real world) and I don't particularly like you or your world view.

However. What reasonable suspicions do you have? Again you see you want to slander IMC Ireland because you have a hunch I'm a part of it. You want to believe I am your nemisis and am out to get you. You're a dull ignorant little pigfucker, but if you hadn't dragged me into that kevin meyer debate I'd have probably ignored you (Thank you for the advice Ray, I should have listened). But amazingly I don't give you much thought Pat, sorry to burst your bubble. I didn't do it. It's not me, and not my style or cup of tea.

As for posting personal details on the site. Pat I cannot comphrend what your fucking problem is. Someone (and I know how thick you can be so I'll repeat this) Somone who isn't me, posted your details on the site. You complain. Indymedia remove it; you attack Indymedia's privacy policy. Whats your point? You've essentially had your question answered by Indymedia's action. If you don't want your detials published they won't be.

Quit fucking whinging.

As for the insane double standard you preach. It's okay to print this persons home address cause they're a banker, and not okay to print an activist. It's okay to give you IP logs, but not okay to give them to coppers.

Double standards exist in our society duh. But talking about trying to fight for a more equitable and just world, while arguing for double standards and two sets of rules is utterly moronic.

As for the ability to publish details, I've noticed you've dropped the Pat C and just Pat. Do what everyone else is doing use a pseudoneum, don't use a work e-mail addy, and be careful. and you'll feel much safer.

Alternatively you could go home hide under the fucking covers, and stop posting your groundless abuse of Indymedia every week on the newswire they've thoughtfully provided to you.

I'm amazed at how patient the collective has been with you. They're volunteers putting up with what has rightfully been described as one lone crank.

by pat c Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:30

king mob you can hide behind your stupid handle but you will be uncovered eventually.

i know you were reponsible for putting my details up & your juvenile insults cut no ice. under the sf race nite item you used the qoute i mentioned.

you support neither civil liberties nor the right to privacy on imc.

quite basically you have the political mentality of a child.you support the ruc/psni, you are pro imperialist, you don't believe "natives" have the right to self determination. you think the gaa is the same as the orange order.

really young man, you are the crypto fascist. it is you who are against the radical spirit & committment to a passionate telling of the truth which is central to imc values.

you're obviously not happy in ireland, so why not go to britland? you'd get on well with the BNp & NF they also support loyalists, are pro imperialist & don't believe in self determination for the natives.

pearse wrote: "in the begining, we will likely make mistakes; we may shoot the wrong people."
he was right; they should have started with the west brits.

you can continue now whatever raves & rants you want. you are exposed as a tout. go and cry on your handlers shoulder.

by King Mob Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:55

For proving my point.....

Your only evidence is that I read the same comment, on the same thread that you did. It's hardly a smoking gun. In fact it puts you in the John Cairns level of "proof". You can believe all you want. You're wrong.

And then you spout the same jibbering hate filled nonsense that I accused you of doing.....

You can put words in my mouth, as per usual, but it's not true. You can believe all that you like, it doesn't make it reality.

by pat c Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:09

people have read your pro-loyalist, pro-imperialist & racist comments on indymedia.

i need put no word in your mouth (you type with your mouth?).

by Ray Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:53

There's nothing to stop either of you from listening now.
The more you argue with each other, the less respect you get from anyone else.
Saying "its him, not me" doesn't get you anywhere, and simply isn't true anyway.
King Mob, you can stop this by refusing to mention Pat (directly or indirectly) and refusing to reply when he mentions you.
Pat, you can stop it by refusing to mention king Mob (directly or indirectly) and refusing to reply when he mentions you.

Its very simple, and if you can't manage it then its nobody's fault but your own.

by King Mob Fri Sep 13, 2002 22:31

Scene Int. hospital night...

A elderly ugly rabid toothless little gibbering drooling muppet in a straight jacket ranting about west brits, in a paranoid delusional state of mind.

A peep hole is closed with a clang, dampening out his delusional rantings slighty, the pitch and intesnsity increases shrilly....

The sound of footsteps clicking on a cold floor, growing distant walking away from the abusive voice, which grows in pitch but decreases in volume.....

Goodbye Pat. You've just been proving my point of view, that you're a hate filled biased dull son of a bitch. Listen to what the IMCers said, they asked you to prove your accusations, and pointed out that you are too much of a coward to show your face at an Indymedia meeting to confront the people you are accusing. Instead you enjoy attacking people without justification to fufill your tired weary world view. You can't deal with what they said so you ignore it.

Goodbye Pat. No one is listening you can scream yourself horse because it's okay, no one cares.

Least of all me.

KM
-Be realistic demand the impossible-

by pat c Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:10

ray

as you can see, king mob is intent on continuing to abuse me & others. (on other threads as well, paul k john c etc are attacked when they have had nothing to do with the thread)

he appears to be incapable of indulging in rational adult argument.

i intend to refrain from trading insults with him

imc readers can make up their own minds based on our previous comments.

i wasn't at the imc meeting as i had another meeting. any criticism i have of imc i've made openly.

i don't hide behind a mask like km.