2010.06.30 - KATU Confirming TH posting in its Comments Section

[carole]

If she's been reading here on Websleuths like so many think, who did she think people would think she was using***** as her ID?!?!?

 

[pinkpuddytat]

Well, I wonder what the privacy statement says when you sign up? That they can trace your email and release that information to the public? Sheesh.

ETA: Maybe the email address was public? Was it visible in the postings or by looking at her account? In which case I suppose *anybody* could have traced it, and it wouldn't seem such a breach of privacy.

E-mail addresses are not visible on that forum, at least not unless someone chooses to add it to their public profile. However, there's one comment on the current thread saying that other posters were aware a long time ago of the info KATU is now reporting, so perhaps she did have it on her public profile?? Assuming not, I suspect the Terms of Service (privacy provisions) were a factor in the delay in KATU coming out with this "story". They may have wanted to consult with their legal counsel about whether the fact that she had given her identity in her posts made it okay for them to publicize the fact that they'd confirmed those claims through normally non-public information that they had access too. They may also have wanted to consult with investigators (and wait for a response), and to make sure the e-mail account hadn't been compromised (e.g. one of her loose-lipped friends could have had her password and been making these posts).

 

[SuziQ]

I'm gonna be shocked if there isn't a small print type thing that says they ultimately own whatever you post and can reprint reuse etc etc. I am pretty sure I have seen that when signing up for accounts especially media run sites.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I have posted on blogs and not hidden my IP. Can I ask why is that ignorant?

I am assuming TMH wanted privacy for her comments to KATU, otherwise why not post under her own name?

If you post to a blog and expect privacy, then take steps to protect your own privacy. Don't trust the blog owner to respect your privacy for you.

I liken it to someone who is actively dating and actually believes their one night stand when she says "don't worry, I can't get pregnant" or he says "don't worry, I had a vasectomy." Take care of your own fertility and you won't get any surprises.

Me, I take exactly the opposite tack: I have done things such as posting my home address on usenet, with the statement "I am perimenopausal, I am legally blind and I have a 12 gauge shotgun; any questions?"

When someone tried to blackmail me by threatening to mail what they imagined was embarrassing information about me to my professional associates, I told them to save their receipts and I'd be happy to reimburse them for their costs.

But! If I had a reason to post anonymously, I know how to do so without trusting anyone else to keep the secret for me.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

KATU really shouldn't have released that info, but they just couldn't wait to get it out could they? Bad move in my opinion - especially since this is still an OPEN CASE and the little fella hasn't been found! They could have held onto that info, let her continute to post - maybe she would slip up, but no....she won't be posting there anymore. Good Grief! So much for protecting the integrity of this case!

Is this the same station/website that had it on their site about Kyron's body being found?

 

[GrainneDhu]

I haven't finished reading today's updates, but I just don't think she's the brightest bulb. i don't think she's tech savvy - I don't think she's got low intelligence, but there's more and more that makes me wonder how on earth she could have pulled this off?

I tend to agree with you. It's the single factor that makes me wonder if there is any way she could have done this without help.

I wouldn't describe myself as tech savvy but I am smart enough to ask people who are tech savvy about my options before I take action. Clearly, she hasn't been doing that to date. I'm hoping this will change.

 

[Emma Peel]

If she's been reading here on Websleuths like so many think, who did she think people would think she was using ***** as her ID?!?!?

there is no membership/ID required to simply read (not post) here in the public forums...

I try not to think about it. :innocent:

 

[carole]

I still think everyone is missing the point that she wasn't trying to be anonymous. She was posting with ***** and answering questions about what was being said about her on the internet.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

I don't agree with tracing her information and informing the public. To me, that just seems wrong!

Mel

She was identifying her*self* on those posts. That makes a big difference in my book. They went ahead and checked out the identity claim she was making in her posts (and it's possible that investigators requested they do this), but they didn't give out any information beyond what she had already posted this public forum. They didn't give the e-mail address and they didn't identify the "professional Internet profile" site to which they'd linked the e-mail address.

 

[scandi]

I still think everyone is missing the point that she wasn't trying to be anonymous. She was posting with ******* and answering questions about what was being said about her on the internet.

I thought she was using another NIK in the comment section on KATU.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Is this the same station/website that had it on their site about Kyron's body being found?

I'm not sure about that, but I did see that info posted on another forum yesterday. I immediately came here because I knew WS would have the truth. Not sure who initially ran that story/rumor. Does anyone know if it was this news outlet?

 

[Emma Peel]

I understand what you're saying carole, and I noticed that too a while back. This sort of thing makes me feel the crazy going on. IMO

 

[pinkpuddytat]

Really? Where does it say that? Or that their privacy policy (or that of Automattic) allows for this type of disclosure ?

I don't see that they *disclosed* anything. Just drew attention to what she'd posted and confirmed the identity that she'd already claimed in her posts.

 

[wondering1]

Really? Where does it say that? Or that their privacy policy (or that of Automattic) allows for this type of disclosure ?

like I said....scroll up. They're posted. Automattic is separate, optional and requires a separate check. I know b/c I went (almost) through the registration process to confirm.

that said, what's with all the concern about the privacy of who's posting on public forums. Nothing to hide, no worries....right?

 

[DairyGirl]

I'm not sure about that, but I did see that info posted on another forum yesterday. I immediately came here because I knew WS would have the truth. Not sure who initially ran that story/rumor. Does anyone know if it was this news outlet?

No, it was KOIN.

 

[CarmelEyesD]

Privacy policy of intense debate says this: (portions)

"# We don’t share your personal information with anyone except to comply with the law, develop our products, or protect our rights.
# We don’t store personal information on our servers unless required for the on-going operation of one of our services.
# In our blogging products, we aim to make it as simple as possible for you to control what’s visible to the public, seen by search engines, kept private, and permanently deleted."

If you have questions about accessing or correcting your personal data please contact our support team.

Automattic Inc. (“Automattic&#8221 operates several websites including automattic.com, wordpress.com, gravatar.com, intensedebate.com, and akismet.com. It is Automattic’s policy to respect your privacy regarding any information we may collect while operating our websites.

Automattic also collects potentially personally-identifying information like Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Automattic does not use such information to identify its visitors, however, and does not disclose such information, other than under the same circumstances that it uses and discloses personally-identifying information, as described below.

snips:In each case, Automattic collects such information only insofar as is necessary or appropriate to fulfill the purpose of the visitor’s interaction with Automattic. Automattic does not disclose personally-identifying information other than as described below.

Automattic discloses potentially personally-identifying and personally-identifying information only to those of its employees, contractors and affiliated organizations that (i) need to know that information in order to process it on Automattic’s behalf or to provide services available at Automattic’s websites, and (ii) that have agreed not to disclose it to others

Other than to its employees, contractors and affiliated organizations, as described above, Automattic discloses potentially personally-identifying and personally-identifying information only when required to do so by law, or when Automattic believes in good faith that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect the property or rights of Automattic, third parties or the public at large

http://automattic.com/privacy/

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

No, it was KOIN.

Thanks, DairyGirl!!!!!

 

[wondering1]

Privacy policy of intense debate says this: (portions)

"# We don’t share your personal information with anyone except to comply with the law, develop our products, or protect our rights.
# We don’t store personal information on our servers unless required for the on-going operation of one of our services.
# In our blogging products, we aim to make it as simple as possible for you to control what’s visible to the public, seen by search engines, kept private, and permanently deleted."

If you have questions about accessing or correcting your personal data please contact our support team.

Automattic Inc. (“Automattic”) operates several websites including automattic.com, wordpress.com, gravatar.com, intensedebate.com, and akismet.com. It is Automattic’s policy to respect your privacy regarding any information we may collect while operating our websites.

Automattic also collects potentially personally-identifying information like Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Automattic does not use such information to identify its visitors, however, and does not disclose such information, other than under the same circumstances that it uses and discloses personally-identifying information, as described below.

snips:In each case, Automattic collects such information only insofar as is necessary or appropriate to fulfill the purpose of the visitor’s interaction with Automattic. Automattic does not disclose personally-identifying information other than as described below.

Automattic discloses potentially personally-identifying and personally-identifying information only to those of its employees, contractors and affiliated organizations that (i) need to know that information in order to process it on Automattic’s behalf or to provide services available at Automattic’s websites, and (ii) that have agreed not to disclose it to others

http://automattic.com/privacy/

right...her posts were published through the katu website tos. Automattic is separate and has a totally different privacy policy. It requires a separate check on the registration form. Try it...I did.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

I have to totally disagree. I think anyone is a fool to think they have ANY expectation of privacy when they post on the internet, much less in the public comments section of a public website run by the msm. Seriously????

Especially when they identified themselves in the posts! Really, I just don't get what all the posters here see as the problem.

I have a reasonable expectation that WebSleuths management won't pull my real name (or e-mail address which contains my name) out of their private database and spray it out on the public forum. But if I identify myself on the forum, then I see no reason why they shouldn't post on the public forum that they've confirmed I really am who I said I was.

KATU was faced with a self-identified poster who either really was who she said she was, or was falsely posing as a key figure in a very high profile criminal investigation. They probably got plenty of inquiries (quite possibly including from LE) as to whether this poster really was who she said she was. It was totally responsible for them to use the non-public registration information (without making *that* information public) to confirm this, and then either confirm it publicly, or delete all the posts as presumed to have been made by an impostor.

If you don't want your real identity publicly revealed and connected to internet posts you made, you'd be well-advised to start by not giving out your real identity in the posts!

 

[CarmelEyesD]

I didn't see Calliope's post-I was still a few pages behind. More proof that great minds think alike!