The Terms of Service says they can suspend you for any reason without notice, so they've never violated the most basic of their own rules when suspending someone.
NOt that I want to see them sued for tons of money. I would just like to see the rules be a lot less vague. When dealing with large companies money talks. Usually it's the only thing that does. Getting there attenions is only possible by fucking with thier money.
It makes a lot of sense to make it against the rules to tell people where to find information that you wouldn't normally be allowed to post, if you ask me. Leaving a loophole open would be a lot more questionable than enforcing the rules as they are.
Anything beyond "look at their user info page and use some search engines" is a violation.
What doesn't make sens is attempting to ban information that is commonly available from other public sources and then running around trying to prevent people from telling others about those sources. The policy is insane from the get-go.
Well, yes, but I think it is at least somewhat reasonable to say you can't post other users' addresses or phone numbers. Even though this is the internet, a site like LJ has users that expect some assistance with privacy.
I was once temporarily suspended for posting Danga's phone number (which I copied from a publically available source that I won't name for obvious reasons), and even I think this policy is acceptable.
"Lost that lovin' feelin..."decadence1June 6 2005, 20:16:03 UTC
In regards to invasion of privacy, LJ abuse does not, in fact, have any objective criteria for determining what qualifies.
Quite honestly I'm aghast. That point of yours almost goes so far as to suggest they take into accounts all the facts of the case based upon verifiable reports, and act using their experience and skillsets in accordance with the rights you so give them when you agree to the ToS and all its terms; a subjective approach. Wow. I need to be held. ...Mom?
Besides which adopting rigid definitions of harassment/invasion of privacy just acts as an invite to abusers to use a method/channel to abuse thats falls outside that list.
LJ Abuse didn't care
I bet they don't give me a bithday present either. I feel your pain bro'. I know all you do is whine here like a "..." and people laugh at you, but honestly: I love ya man.
Re: "Lost that lovin' feelin..."njyoderJune 8 2005, 06:16:39 UTC
No, they didn't take into account all the facts. They specifically ignored that the person in question explicitly gave me permission to post their information.
The ToS is vague enough that practically anything can be construed to give that kind of information. Being vague opens it up to extremely subjective interpretations. Tell someone to use information from their user info page in a search engine? That's an invasion of privacy! Tell someone to perform a whois on their KNOWN website domain name? That's an invasion of privacy too!
While we're at it, why not forbid any and all mention of WHOIS and search engines? Telling people that you can use a search engine to find "private" information is bad, so lets ban the mentions of those! Oh and don't forget phone directories, we wouldn't want people knowing that you can look up numbers with those!
Besides which adopting rigid definitions of harassment/invasion of privacy just acts as an invite to abusers to use a method/channel to abuse thats falls outside that list.And this kind
( ... )
Re: "Lost that lovin' feelin..."decadence1June 8 2005, 23:08:24 UTC
Brain dead thinking? Why,thank you.
Short answer: Context. Longer answer: Taking your example of a phone directory, people give their permission for their inclusion for a defined purpose - legitimate non-harassing contact. It isn't there to a) be repeated verbatim on the 'net or b) hyperlinked to to accomplish same as item 'a', or c) highlighted as a resource which may be referenced and used to harass that person or otherwise contact them with ill-intention / facilitate others to do same.
"...they didn't take into account all the facts. They specifically ignored that ..." Their not arriving at the same conclusion as yourself regarding the importance of a factor you deem mitigating is not the same as ignoring it.
Re: "Lost that lovin' feelin..."njyoderJune 8 2005, 23:24:27 UTC
See, you might have had a point until you brought intentions into it. The LJ ToS does NOT take into account intentions anyone can and will be suspended for posting information, it doesn't matter what their intentions are as far as LJ Abuse is concerned. In fact, they will do this just for information on the person's NAME, which can't be used to harass--you need actual contact information.
You're also missing the point too, should LJ abuse now ban the mention of search engines, phone directories and WHOIS? Following your logic, since they can be used for bad intentions, the mere mention of them should be banned. Oh shit, I just mentioned them right now, better report me!
You're also citing the wrong rule for that anyway. If it were an issue of harassment, then they would give out a violation for harassment, not a so-called invasion of privacy.
Their not arriving at the same conclusion as yourself regarding the importance of a factor you deem mitigating is not the same as ignoring it.She gave permission, why would they not
( ... )
Comments 31
Reply
Reply
I think that going to court over a Livejournal is a little much.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Anything beyond "look at their user info page and use some search engines" is a violation.
No, even that's a violation.
Reply
Reply
I was once temporarily suspended for posting Danga's phone number (which I copied from a publically available source that I won't name for obvious reasons), and even I think this policy is acceptable.
Reply
Reply
:)
Reply
Quite honestly I'm aghast. That point of yours almost goes so far as to suggest they take into accounts all the facts of the case based upon verifiable reports, and act using their experience and skillsets in accordance with the rights you so give them when you agree to the ToS and all its terms; a subjective approach. Wow. I need to be held. ...Mom?
Besides which adopting rigid definitions of harassment/invasion of privacy just acts as an invite to abusers to use a method/channel to abuse thats falls outside that list.
LJ Abuse didn't care
I bet they don't give me a bithday present either. I feel your pain bro'. I know all you do is whine here like a "..." and people laugh at you, but honestly: I love ya man.
Peace.
Reply
The ToS is vague enough that practically anything can be construed to give that kind of information. Being vague opens it up to extremely subjective interpretations. Tell someone to use information from their user info page in a search engine? That's an invasion of privacy! Tell someone to perform a whois on their KNOWN website domain name? That's an invasion of privacy too!
While we're at it, why not forbid any and all mention of WHOIS and search engines? Telling people that you can use a search engine to find "private" information is bad, so lets ban the mentions of those! Oh and don't forget phone directories, we wouldn't want people knowing that you can look up numbers with those!
Besides which adopting rigid definitions of harassment/invasion of privacy just acts as an invite to abusers to use a method/channel to abuse thats falls outside that list.And this kind ( ... )
Reply
Short answer: Context.
Longer answer: Taking your example of a phone directory, people give their permission for their inclusion for a defined purpose - legitimate non-harassing contact. It isn't there to a) be repeated verbatim on the 'net or b) hyperlinked to to accomplish same as item 'a', or c) highlighted as a resource which may be referenced and used to harass that person or otherwise contact them with ill-intention / facilitate others to do same.
"...they didn't take into account all the facts. They specifically ignored that ..."
Their not arriving at the same conclusion as yourself regarding the importance of a factor you deem mitigating is not the same as ignoring it.
Reply
You're also missing the point too, should LJ abuse now ban the mention of search engines, phone directories and WHOIS? Following your logic, since they can be used for bad intentions, the mere mention of them should be banned. Oh shit, I just mentioned them right now, better report me!
You're also citing the wrong rule for that anyway. If it were an issue of harassment, then they would give out a violation for harassment, not a so-called invasion of privacy.
Their not arriving at the same conclusion as yourself regarding the importance of a factor you deem mitigating is not the same as ignoring it.She gave permission, why would they not ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment