91–100 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about we start with racism? Some things are a grey area but some are downright harassment.
Are critical comments about Islam, as a religion, racism? How about pointed comments about Israel's settlements? Because I've heard people try to construe both as such.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean when you say you don't believe it's a "slippery slope"? That the proper boundaries are obvious to everyone? I think the reason this is okay is that notifying a school or employer of your behavior is not the same as persecution.
There's this idea I've seen a lot lately amongst social justice activists that the correct boundaries are obvious and a simple matter of common decency, and that anyone who dares to question this by asking where they should be placed is simply obfuscating to justify bigotry and harassment. Of course, no two people's idea of where the obvious, clear boundaries are is actually the same, it's just they don't generally r…
I'm no fan of the 'employer' part, because it places companies in a position as arbitrators of behaviour that they don't deserve. BUT: Considering the stuff I see people posting online, I do think it's such a cesspool of hatred, ill-will and really bad arguments that I am concerned how societies will continue to function, if these interactions become a routine part of civic society. In the past, your opinions, and st…
I'm not sure I think this idea of the BBC's is a bad idea.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents
Information shared with third party without consent Providing personal details to a family member without consent
Any organisation that stores and uses personal data relating to identifiable living individuals, either on a computer or in a paper filing system, is a "data controller" for the purposes of the DPA. Data controllers are obliged to handle personal data in accordance with the eight data-protection principles set out in schedule 1 to the DPA unless a specific exemption applies. The first principle is that data must be processed fairly and lawfully, which requires any processing (including disclosure) to be done either with the consent of the individual or in order to fulfil legal obligations such as contractual obligations. This disclosure would be a serious breach of privacy.
This sounds like it would be a breach of the UK Data Protection Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents Information shared with third party without consent Providing personal details to a family member without consent Any organisation that stores and uses personal data relating to identifiable living individuals, either on a computer or in a paper filing system, is a "data controller" for the purpose…
Whilst most privacy policies do not say whom the data are shared with when it comes to enforcing terms and conditions and protecting the site/its users, the BBC's privacy policy here is. The UKICO guidelines point out that part of fairness is telling people whom data are going to be disclosed to; which the BBC is doing.
If one has a gripe against that, then one has a gripe against everyone, from Reddit to Amazon. Because all of their privacy policies have clauses that say, in one form or another, that personal information is disclosed in order to enforce terms and conditions, and to protect the site/its users. Reddit's and several others' are elsewhere on this page. Here is Amazon's:
> We release account and other personal information when we believe release is appropriate to comply with the law; enforce or apply our Conditions of Use and other agreements; or protect the rights, property or safety of Amazon.co.uk, our users or others.
Ironically, the BBC is actually attempting to be the best of the bunch. Other people actually do not comply with the UKICO guidelines and make no mention of whom the data are disclosed to in such cases. They just make vague "we disclose data" statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything you choose to publish on the BBC's website is their business. It's not as though they're going around looking for naughty posts on third-party websites and tattling about it. There is no automatic right to anonymity when posting on someone else's website. If you post something publicly, surely the expectation is that you're fine with anyone seeing it. If the BBC chooses to share that with your boss, why is i…
Funny, I've never heard of an Officer of the BBC. I've heard of an Officer of the law and an Officer of the court. They're generally responsible for enforcing penalties, fines, jail sentences, probation, sex offender lists, etc. If you'd like to add, "tattling to your employer" to that list I suggest you talk to parliament. They get awfully upset when you try to "do things for them" via cellophane business contracts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, I've never heard of an Officer of the BBC. I've heard of an Officer of the law and an Officer of the court. They're generally responsible for enforcing penalties, fines, jail sentences, probation, sex offender lists, etc. If you'd like to add, "tattling to your employer" to that list I suggest you talk to parliament. They get awfully upset when you try to "do things for them" via cellophane business contracts.
Certainly BBC has officers. Some of them even have "Officer" in their job titles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Executive_Committee
The answer is that there are existing federal statutes in place to allow this. They are controversial and often challenged. Tow truck drivers operate in a grey area of the law and are frequently found to be in violation of the law. I would hope that the BBC values their operating license more than my local tow company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it "none of the BBC's business" when you send hate mail to the BBC? Haven't you made it their business?
The courts and laws are established to determine appropriate action in such a case. Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult. The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech". I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to ja…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything you choose to publish on the BBC's website is their business. It's not as though they're going around looking for naughty posts on third-party websites and tattling about it. There is no automatic right to anonymity when posting on someone else's website. If you post something publicly, surely the expectation is that you're fine with anyone seeing it. If the BBC chooses to share that with your boss, why is i…
It doesn't matter whose business it is, the BBC still can't use communication between you and the BBC to interfere in a relationship you have with your employer that is illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
If it's somebody posting from home in their own time, dobbing them in seems a bit weird. How do they know who I work for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The courts and laws are established to determine appropriate action in such a case. Proving real damage to the BBC due to what they perceive to be "hate speech" is difficult. The BBC has put in their terms that they reserve the right to cause real financial harm to those they perceive to be writing "hate speech". I can put in my contract that I reserve the right to murder you, and if you sign it I'm still going to ja…
If telling your ISP about something you sent causes you "real financial harm", perhaps you shouldn't have sent it. Perhaps you are responsible for the "real financial harm" to yourself.