Being safe doesn't count for much if you don't feel that you're safe. Feeling like you're about to be attacked, even if you aren't, is something that people should not have to deal with on a regular basis.
3
An essential part of actually being safe is, in fact, feeling that you're safe.
@animuson of course you cannot be held responsible for data stored elsewhere. But you can, and should, be held responsible for data stored here. No, this won't make the users completely safe again but anything that improves their safety (and more importantly their feeling of safety) on this site should be encouraged. So the fact that the data may be available elsewhere is irrelevant. After all, you could use the same argument to say there's no point in dissociating. So I really don't understand why you would even bring that up. — terdon27 mins ago
@DavidA What does? My request or the fact that there is currently no real way of deleting yourself?
The GDPR does not mean you have to remove all mentions of a person per a standard request (I could do, and have done, a whole case study on this so I'm summarizing)
And yes, what terdon said there is absolutely true. I changed my username a few weeks ago. It took someone around three minutes to verify my old username through old comments on my posts after deciding to check.
https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public > You agree that any and all content, including without limitation any and all text, graphics, logos, tools, photographs, images, illustrations, software or source code, audio and video, animations, and product feedback (collectively, “Content”) that you provide to the public Network (collectively, “Subscriber Content”), is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Overflow on a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive basis pursuant to Creative Commons licensing terms (CC-BY-SA), and you grant Stack Overflow the perpetual and irrevo…
@LinkBerest My (limited) understanding of the GDPR and the CC license is that you have the right to have your name completely removed from the content you've shared. So if your name can be trivially inferred from a comment under your question, then the current dissociation is pointless and not fit for purpose. Is that wrong?
@DavidA licensed, yes. Why is that relevant?
Honest question.
@user58 And that is very much a question of safety.
First, define "trivially" (you cannot that would be defined by the court so its not a point in the GDPR but could be if you take this specific instance to court....btw. its not hard to show something is "not trivial")
It's irrevocably licensed because someone being able to say "delete all my stuff" would involve wiping wiki contributions, comments, answers, and questions (that other questions might be closed as a dupe of).
@LinkBerest Well, if I see a question posted by "userNNN" and a comment addressing "@Susan.H.Sharadon" then it's pretty trivial to put one and two together, right?
assuming they just dont comply, what are you going to do? Complain to the data protection authority in the UK? If they do anything it'll be years before anything happens
@Magisch No. And I'm far more interested in the moral obligations. SE are trying to show that they do actually care about the community. Well, here's a way to demonstrate that. I won't sue if they do nothing, but I will be further disappointed by a company I used to trust.
@DavidA Not delete my stuff! Of coure not. But remove my name from it, yes
@djsmiley2kconsumerofworlds great!
But let's not make this about the GDPR. Say there is absolutely no legal reason for SE to improve their current methods of allowing a user to remove themselves from the network. Even if there's nothing legal here, there is still a strong moral reason to do everything they can to help their users feel and be safer.
But, if you 'invoked' gdpr against SE, because they were a data controller, then they'd need to delete your information, from their databases, used for their business.
It doesn't mean they have to delete your information from every single place it occurs on the web, hosted by them.
@terdon Most of the @userXXX stuff is actually people trying to reply in comments. Either tracking IDs of the replied-to comment or replacing them with proper placeholders would be better when people change their names for more mundane reasons too.
@terdon Probably better for everyone. It would also make it possible to make sense of the mess that is meta right now with replies to comments that no longer exist..
Also, fyi, as someone who works in data (to include an IA way that deals with privacy) there's no US laws that cover removing "all mention" of a user - it all depends on the agreement you sign up-front
Philosophically, the USA is quite opposed to letting people control data about them. Information and opinions about you are called "reputation" and it's considered distinct from "identity".
now if you want to question whether that agreement fell into a category that invalidates it - there is precedence for this - that might be an interesting question for Law.SE
This is a US based company (hence, US courts must be considered)
@terdon ok no worries. Just I see people 'invoking' it, as if it's going to remove them from history. Really doesn't work like that, the internet doesn't forget.
@DavidA You must live in a very different society than any of the ones I've lived in :)
@LinkBerest I am not responsible for what people want to comment on. I only mentioned GDPR in passing and even continued with "But whether there is a legal obligation or not, there is clearly a moral one.".
The Creative Commons FAQ states that:
Third, if the licensor does not like how the material has been modified or used, CC licenses require that the licensee remove the attribution information upon request [...] in 4.0, this also applies to the unmodified work.
How do I remove / dissociate ...
The company has epically failed in making its users safe. Its sole safety feature is worthless due to a flaw in the design. There are no ways of making yourself more anonymous that would remove previous identifying information. Everything you do is linked across the network. There are, in essence, zero safety precautions on the network. That needs to change.
It's often framed as "the right to do stupid crap as a kid and not have it ruin your life", but you're essentially saying that people can't be "fair" (for some definition of that) with controversial knowledge.
The reason the USA is a bit weird is that it's a Common Law jurisdiction (so things will seem weird to people from continental Europe), and we've got an almost sacred attachment to freedom and a rejection of the "risk management" approach to rights.
I'm of that generation that learned to use the internet before social media and all that crap, when nobody used their real name. Ever. I am still shocked that so many people choose to do so these days.
@DavidA Well. Not quite. The US is very attached to the idea of being attached to freedom. However, it is a country that isn't particularly free and has ridiculously oppressive laws that allow people to be detained for years with no charge, deported to other countries, tortured, fined for travelling to third countries etc. It's actually quite fascinating to an outsider how the US insists on this idea of its being a particularly free society.
2
user351483
@DavidA I have a puffer jacket, is that insulating enough?
@terdon risk of getting political anytime I hear a police horror storry not even necessarily someone getting shot just some BS like an officer makes up some charge or arrests people for no reason and it costs thousands of $ and lands on your record or some crap
@terdon I managed to get SE to improve the notice about privacy a bit for that feature, but it's still trivially broken and really should not exist in this form
@Magisch which is horrible because it makes all the good cops look like garbage too and makes it 10x more difficult to do your job and piles on 20x more stress cause you don't even want to tell people you are a cop (when did that become something to be ashamed of?), and .... a lot more
@DavidA I think it's important to have that 'right to be forgotten'. Especially as it's not applied willy-nilly from what I've seen in the news over here (court cases), but it is nice knowing that companies can be forced to remove stuff other people posted about someone, sometimes with no other goal than revenge.
@DavidA What is the right to know? There's no such thing as far as I am aware. And you can publish what you like, that doesn't mean it must remain public for all eternity.
@Magisch sigh they're really not though (I'm not going into the statistics now - ask me later maybe I'm just tired of defending myself today) but I understand the perspective and hate that there are those that abuse positions of power
@LinkBerest I couldn't say, but with all the cases I see and hear about of police officers showing up somewhere, straight up murdering someone who sometimes even called them for help and not facing any repercussions whatsoever does create a sense of dread, no matter how unlikely
"is this person going to shoot me dead on the spot? they could without any consequences"
This is obviously a case of confirmation bias since you don't hear of the thousands of times cops come in, do their job well and leave. But yeah, it's understandable.
yeah, I said I'm not gonna discuss (I've had to defend myself 8+ times today, I'm tired. Also have to get ready for my afternoon stand-up which is on-site) - and I get it as that's all people hear about, no stories about cops helping at all anymore
I've lived in four countries, and the UK is the only one where I haven't been afraid of the police. Also the only one where police don't go around wearing guns, which is a large part of why they're not that scary: if you don't have a gun, you need to know how to diffuse a situation without killing everybody.
I will say if you want to look into the postive more - look for articles on "community policing" which is what I subscripted to when I wore a badge (it involves only having specific officers armed, trying to build community repore, etc...)
> The King's army (Cavaliers) could not give his power back and Charles I was executed. Another idea says the rhyme refers to King Richard III and his defeat at the Battle of Bosworth. Yet another says that Humpy Dumpty was based on the sudden catastrophic fall of Cardinal Wolsey from Henry VIII era. The Cardinal became ill on the way to his trial and died before he got to London.
oh http, is that a problem?
oh lawd I've seen gdpr mentioned in 3 places now ¬_¬
But perhaps @Arthur might consider wording the part about criticizing a community to read more specifically about 'critizing members of a community for being members of that community'.
Something like "To be clear, criticism aimed at someone or a group of people, just focused on who/what they are, (community, religion, gender etc.) is rarely constructive and often not welcome on these boards.
look that comment is reading like it's putting words in your mouth I personally won't worry about it, I had a comment that did this to me other on another site politics.stackexchange.com/questions/45758/…
@ArthurHavlicek I think your point is weakened because you also mention an individual. You are absolutely right, but that might be confusing people. Perhaps something like "criticizing an entire group of people for the actions of individual members is rarely constructive"?
@StephanS Sorry, nitpicking, but could you change Those whom tend to value to Those who tend to value? The who there is referring to those, the subject. It's not the same as Those for whom the bell tolls.
@SridharRatnakumar It's... to me it looks a bit like people saying 'But I've always offered people the same snacks/drinks at my birthday party, and thus treated them equal'. But it kinda changes when your aunt brings home the news that she's suffering from old age diabetes. Now, suddenly your way of treating everyone equal isn't equal anymore! You'll have to switch to a new kind of equality: One where you offer everyone snacks/drinks they can actually eat/drink.
That's because some mods are language nerds, and we predicted that "Use stated pronouns (when known). When in doubt, don't" would be even more confusing ;)
@SridharRatnakumar That seems a bit reductionist. What do you mean? Of course being kind is kindness. We're just trying to refine what being kind actually means, what it takes to be kind.
I rewritten entirely. "Constructive criticism should focus attack on opinions and facts, rather than on the people that hold them. Voicing (negative) opinions about a community (race, gender, religion...) , or even "some of it's members" should be avoided." Is this better ?
@terdon I think what he's getting at is it isn't kindness if it's required, kinda like it isn't nice for someone working an entryway to hold the door open for you because they're being paid for it, but let's try to drop this one
@SridharRatnakumar If people are being kind, I hope that means they'll be willing to get some sugar/carb free snacks/drinks for the diabetic aunt. But some people need a little push recognizing that... Refusing to get some is indeed pretty unkind!
@ArthurHavlicek I don't like 'attack' in there, personally. Constructive criticism is all about not attacking...
@StephanS Well, I did spent a few weeks thinking and figuring stuff out for my own... and I have a weird brain that often draws from completely random analogies, like mom's birthday party that took place while I was thinking ;)
...I'd started flagging individual comments that could be removed at some point, but then I realized I was basically flagging every comment and gave up.
@Tinkeringbell Ah, I've never taken a vacation from moderating before. Just a vacation from work which usually comes with me being less glued to a computer than usual, and therefore moderating less.
@ArthurHavlicek Yeah, but it doesn't. That's the problem. It will still leave the various comments linking my name to my posts. I have asked for a data dump though. I'm curious to see what I'll get.
@ArthurHavlicek I doubt it would affect anything except the data on the site itself. There's some more stuff in some cases that would have to be manually removed
@user58 Well, SE have taken certain steps I find encouraging. For instance, I got an employee commenting on my meta post today, minutes after it was posted. I may not particularly like what they had to say, but they said it and that's great!
@JoseAntonioDuraOlmos don't you know how the News cycle works? No one has been mad about that for like 4 topics ago. Now we're all mad about something that I don't know what it is but we'll have more meta posts about it
Hello, I have a comment and I don't know if it's rude or not. Could someone take a look? meta.stackexchange.com/questions/334058/… Also, if it's not rude, would you mind flagging as "no longer needed"? It doesn't suggest an improvement or ask for clarification. Plus, it could start an heated argument and I don't want that
The Creative Commons FAQ states that:
Third, if the licensor does not like how the material has been modified or used, CC licenses require that the licensee remove the attribution information upon request [...] in 4.0, this also applies to the unmodified work.
How do I remove / dissociate ...
