Green Room - Week 36 - Day 14

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

Before I get into it – remember to vote in the poll! There’s a lot at stake! So read, comment and vote for your favorite entries! http://therealljidol.livejournal.com/595911.html

***

The discussion yesterday led me down an entire new rabbit hole of how we manage communication and privacy in an electronic age, and how that impacts how we deal with things.

It started with me wondering about the Readercon situation – and how the outcry for the committee to be more forthcoming with what was going on with their decision about banning that guy for harassment. (and ultimately, the changing of their decision to a permanent ban instead of for two years). What did mean that the victim released his name? Especially when it was a board of a book convention who had taken her complaint.
It’s not like that was some sort of legally binding act. It might not even be completely enforceable – it *definitely* wouldn’t be without the con taking actual legal action.
What did it mean that the Con as itself (and several individuals from the committee) came out and made statements using the name of the guy that they banned?
Now when you google him – those things show up. Not based on a court case or being put on an official list somewhere – but because of internet activism.

In some ways, it’s a really good thing. In others – it got me questioning where we are going.

There was the Dietrich case http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177048/Savannah-Dietrich-Teen-faces-jail-lashing-Twitter-naming-boys-sexually-assaulted-her.html where the outrage kicked in after the defensive attorneys filed a motion to hold her in contempt for violating a judge’s gag order. Most people see her case and went “OMG!” and rushed immediately to her defense and thinking that was insane. The defense eventually dropped the motion after the outcry.

BUT – should they? After all, she was quite blatantly saying that she didn’t care about the gag order.

If it’s “privilege” to restrict her from speaking – call it “judicial privilege”.

Now, granted, I happen to think the “boys” (or “monsters”, which is far closer, although an insult to monsters) should have been tried as adults. You want to do an “adult” crime, you should be prepared to be treated like one. Which would have taken the need for a gag order away… but since they weren’t, and the order was in place – not to mention that she said that she was more than willing to take the penalty… maybe she should have been forced to take that penalty. After all, she definitely did it, and she was proud that she did it!
I’m sure she would have received more than enough donations to cover the cost of the fine, and probably would have ended up with a first time offender program rather than the jail time…

Just because she was upset by the verdict (as a lot of people were) doesn’t mean she can act out…

OR, does it?

“But Gregg Leslie, interim executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said Dietrich should 'not be legally barred from talking about what happened to her. That's a wide-ranging restraint on speech.'
Ms Leslie said this sort of issue is becoming more common.
'In the past, people would complain to anyone who would listen, but they didn't have a way to publish their comments where there would be a permanent record, like on Facebook and Twitter, for people to see worldwide,' he said. “
That’s a question that seems to be coming up more and more lately, as the legal structure tries to frantically catch up with the technological one.

Are facebook “likes” protected speech? http://www.webpronews.com/facebook-likes-are-definitely-free-speech-says-facebook-2012-08

http://jezebel.com/5926326/justice-for-sexual-assault-maybe-but-thank-twitter-not-the-authorities - police weren’t even aware of the photos being distributed. But it’s clear that Twitter had a huge role in catching these monsters in India.

There are so many things going on with this particular case, some pretty deep and messed up things… including the low rate of convictions and of course, the “reporter” sitting there *filming* a sexual assault for a half hour!! But also included in that list of messed up things – is that instead of taking it to the police, it was taken to Twitter first!

Now again, there are cultural stuff going on, and the idea that the police wouldn’t actually do anything is certainly a real concern. But I can easily see this situation becoming more and more prevalent – where the internet mob is receiving the information directly to rant about, and wonder why no one in authority has addressed it, when the “authority in question” hasn’t even seen the evidence!

(Apparently, in the Readercon situation, there was an email sent, that the committee members never received, and didn’t know about until people started talking about how they never answered it!)

Taking the issue from the issue of “individuals” and what it means to due process – and moving to a more Romneyesque idea of “individuals”/business concerns. Which is where it becomes a little more complicated. Because most people wouldn’t have a problem with hitting the creeps and monsters of the world with every last bit of light that they can.
But when that intersects with everyday life?

http://www.continuitycentral.com/feature0994.html “As staff Tweet about their day, or post comments on Facebook about their boss’s latest antics, their right to freedom of expression and privacy comes into direct conflict with the company’s interests to protect its professional reputation.”

http://convergence.sprint.com/blog/post/2012/05/22/The-Gray-Line-%e2%80%93-Privacy-versus-Openness.aspx

“So what is acceptable in terms of privacy? In the healthcare industry, new doctors are counseled on the use of social media. Friending patients on Facebook is discouraged or prohibited; doctors are encouraged to manage their online profile to ensure photos and other content is not incongruent with their professional reputation; and there are restrictions on the type of information that can be shared online, even in private doctor/patient portals. Growing up in an environment of openness and sharing, some younger doctors feel these guidelines are too restrictive.
The line is a gray one. Society is reshaping the boundaries of what is acceptable, and enterprise IT is left to balance accessibility, privacy, and security, while enabling the free flow of information necessary for employees to collaborate and for companies to excel. “
***
Some of this had to do with Readercon, and where my brain led me. But it also had a lot to do with rereading some of my old posts from the early days of my own journal.
I mentioned *a lot* of stuff about my life. Which is what blogging is about, revealing yourself and your world.
The nature of LJ has always had a safe haven aspect to it because of the use of user name and the feeling that it wasn’t connected… with LJ linking up with facebook and twitter, “to keep up with the times”, that line was crossed.
But it got me thinking about where we are going on issues of privacy in a culture of openness, where people seem to be willing to say just about anything, about anyone. Where is that line of personal responsibility toward what you say and “put out there”? Does it vary?
What about other people’s information? In a culture of “innocent until proven guilty” and “a nation of laws” (two things you always hear about) is there a needed counter-balance to meet “victims rights” involved in social media? Should the laws be changed to reflect that, or should people just be willing to pay the penalties if they step over the line as social activism/vigilantism?(depending on your view of it)

I don’t know. I just think they are good questions to ask ourselves as an internet culture going forward.

Comments

[noodledays.livejournal.com]

I definitely have some thoughts to share, but I want to be first first. :)

that Dietrich case is really hard for me to stay rational about - I know that in her situation or if (god forbid) my child were there, I'd find it hard if not impossible to find real fault with what she was moved to do.

Idk, now that so much can be committed for indefinite time when it's put online, I think people's awareness and thoughtfulness have a ways to go to catch up with how fast the technology is moving and what it implicates.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

“That Dietrich case is really hard for me to stay rational about - I know that in her situation or if (god forbid) my child were there, I'd find it hard if not impossible to find real fault with what she was moved to do.”

Which is why I picked it. Because my own initial reaction was the same as yours – they are lucky that they didn’t get worse than that! Plus, after fearing who they showed the pictures to – she managed to find the strength to put herself out there as a symbol for rape victims and their ability to strike back through social media.

I was really glad to see the motion dropped – but less cool about the outrage at it being filed in the first place. That’s the defense attorney’s *job* to protect their clients, regardless of what they happen to think of them. If the prosecutor was doing as good of a job, maybe they wouldn’t have gotten off on a “light sentence” (whatever that ended up entailing).

My mind (being the scattered thing that it is) keeps going back to MLK and wondering if, today, he would never have spent time in jail – if his Twitter followers would have caused such a ruckus that he would have been released… ;)

[alien-infinity.livejournal.com]

You're FIRST!! ^_^

[ecosopher.livejournal.com]

Isn't it a weird kind of position we put ourselves in when we decide to start a personal blog? I love reading about other people's lives, in the same way that I guess I love reading stories: it's interesting to connect with others, especially when you have something in common. I struggle with knowing how much to reveal, especially since there are children involved in my life. I try to limit their internet exposure by posting photos only very, very rarely, and by not using their names, and at times I wonder, am I being overly cautious about this? It does seem a bit extreme, sometimes.

It's all so difficult to conceive of how permanent every piece of information is. Once it's up there, it's anyone's, and even though I friendslock or filter anything I think is sensitive, I'm also aware that there are ways that these things can be circumvented. I'm sure none of the stuff I write about is that interesting to most people NOW, but obviously when I win the Nobel Prize for Literature in a few years, it could be an issue.

[similiesslip.livejournal.com]

And you WILL win that prize!!!:)

[pixiebelle.livejournal.com]

This is a really good discussion and one that is be interested in thinking about, but man... I'm at work. My boss is being a dick (what else is new?) and I probably shouldn't be on my phone much less dedicating brain power to really important discussions.

Work? Why must you get in the way of stuff I'd prefer to be doing?

That being said, I'm reading the entries by person. I've gotten through two. I've read a few others out of place and without commenting, so I'll try to go back and revisit them and comment soon. That being said, I probably won't comment on every piece due to reading from my phone when I get a free moment at work, but just know that I'm reading everything. I'll comment where I can though since I see that some entries haven't gotten much feedback.

[p-m-cryan.livejournal.com]

Timely topic, for me at least. Lots of things to think about.

[sdaisyk.livejournal.com]

The one thing that stuck out for me about the gag order case was that the victim was not consulted about the plea deal and she didn't know about it until it was read in court. Since she had no say in that decision, I feel that it did infringe on her rights.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

That was definitely surprising. Obviously the state attorney *completely* fell down on the job where that was concerned.

[kathrynrose.livejournal.com]

I saw you bolded "comment." I am reading everything. I am not commenting on much. I've never been good at that if I don't have something to say, and just a "I read this" is worse than saying nothing, IMO.

I have 44 entries left to read.

As for social media, I don't link any accounts ever, and on the ones with my actual name on them, people aren't going to learn much about me besides my opinion of the evening's tv shows, or my dissatisfaction with the weather. The meaty bits I save for LJ, and f-locked beyond that. I have a blog, but it's just for crafty stuff. No substance there. :)

I think people who have their smart phones tell the world where they're eating dinner are begging someone to rob their house. Also, I don't ever need to see a picture of your dinner, ever.

Something I really love about having a block of posts for each competitor, is I have a better feel for a couple of people than I ever have. It's the kind of intensive study I need to get past my issues with names. I was reading someone yesterday, all their posts in a row, and I thought, "Oh, I'll bet she's the one who wrote that piece a few weeks ago..." I've been reading all these weeks, but when that "tell me what you liked best" post went up recently, I could only go by my spreadsheet, even with people on my f-list.

So, today, for example, I can see notodette's name and think, "Smart, funny, creepy as hell ::shudder::"

[xo-kizzy-xo.livejournal.com]

As for social media, I don't link any accounts ever, and on the ones with my actual name on them, people aren't going to learn much about me besides my opinion of the evening's tv shows, or my dissatisfaction with the weather. The meaty bits I save for LJ, and f-locked beyond that.

I'm the same way :nodding: I don't link my FB to my LJ for that very reason. If I wanted things to be totally public, my LJ would be totally public. Then I think, "Well, if it were totally public, what else would anybody see except Idol entries?" Which is fine -- there are people who have accounts specifically for Idol -- but then that makes me think, "Oh, then if I have an Idol-only LJ that I link to my FB, who's to say that somebody from FB can turn around and hunt down my Kizzy LJ?" Maybe it would never happen, but I'm paranoid enough to think it might :/

I guess it boils down, at least in the LJ-verse, what your primary purpose is in having a LJ. Some people use LJ as a public blogging platform. Others use it specifically for writing. Those of us who have always used LJ primarily as an actual journal/diary are a bit more circumspect when it come to social media openness in that we don't want our "meatier" selves to be known to the whole world, but with the way social media keeps expanding, we may not have a choice at some point.

[notodette.livejournal.com]

OMG WOW! A GR mention from kathrynrose?! I am honored!

[roina-arwen.livejournal.com]

Goodness, what a very in depth question! I must ponder. Ultimately, people need to be responsible for their own thoughts and actions, and be aware of the impact that what they write/say/share can have an impact on the welfare of others. OTOH, I don't personally want people policing my thoughts and writing. It's all a bit above me...

[lrig-rorrim.livejournal.com]

All of these issues are near and dear to my heart, as someone with a unique name who's been online for a longlonglong time now and has mostly claimed that name (Cislyn) as the primary means of interaction online. I think that as we move forward, culturally and technologically, these things are going to crop up more and more.

Specifically, I think the conversation will circle around the intersection between real life, virtual spaces, and identity. It just keeps coming up again and again, and this is the world we live in now. For instance, this whole conversation dovetails into the google+ "nym wars" (http://boingboing.net/2011/08/20/understanding-the-nym-wars.html), where a social media platform tried to dictate what kinds of names were "real". What's real when it comes to a name? If you've called yourself by a name for years, it's what your friends call you, and it's your preferred identity in online spaces, is it any less real than the name on your birth certificate? Does it matter that the space where you use that name doesn't physically exist in the real world? What about the issues of privacy, or issues of law for the media provider? Where and why do we draw the lines defining and redefining ourselves and say "no, you have to stick with this. This is who you are"?

We have new and amazing ways of conceiving identity and shaping it - not just through names, but through deeds and actions and words and images - that weren't conceived of just a few short years ago, and the social challenge of keeping pace with these changes is going to be a real test of character for us all.

As for me, I'm just fascinated by the discussion, and tickled to see it being talked about and thought about. Hell, even this journal was an experiment in identity in different spaces for me (how comfortable will I feel writing with a name mostly not attached to me? How long will I be able to keep my natural inclination to just say "yeah, I'm me, Cislyn" at bay and what will people think of this name as compared to my 'real' name?). In the world we live in now, we have amazing opportunities to really revolutionize the very ways we think of ourselves, where we draw our borders and how we interact with others. There are unprecedented opportunities for growth, introspection and change. Or, maybe we'll just all post drunken pictures to facebook and regret it later. I dunno. But I'm interested to find out.

[lrig-rorrim.livejournal.com]

And on a lighter, fluffier note, I'm (finally!) going to go see the new batman movie this afternoon, with my roomie. There might be stuff to say about masked vigilantes and superheroes and cultural stuff that's thoughtful and relevant to the conversation, but instead I'll just squee about batman a bit and go get ready to go. ;)

[porn-this-way.livejournal.com]

*is amused that we both independently used the phrase "light and fluffy" in conjunction with today's GR*

Enjoy your caped crusader!

[teenagewitch.livejournal.com]

I also don't link my accounts. I have a couple of friends who are on both but as a general rule LJ and FB and any other blog I have are completely separate. I want it that way.

As for the Readercon issue, I got to be privileged enough to see this from the beginning and I am still seriously angry about the entire thing. I think that this guy deserves everything coming to him and I hope that Readercon loses members and that every con after this learns to enforce the rules they choose to have or risk losing people.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

Just from looking at pictures of the guy, he looks like someone that I would try to avoid. I’m not even a woman that he’d be following around! He has one of those faces.

Which is horrible to stereotype someone like that – but in this case, I think I’m safe. ;)

I have no allegiances or connections to the con, or any of the people involved, directly or indirectly. Just someone who read about it, thought it was an interesting situation – and realized “wow, there are a lot of actual legal implications involved. I hope they have counsel and taken steps to cover themselves. Otherwise there might not *be* a Readercon if that Walling guy decided to come after them.”

[porn-this-way.livejournal.com]

Well, this is a light fluffy green room day, with no weighty stuff to think about at all. Oy!

I never, ever use my real name online, and I never, ever would. If some snoop-ass person from the professional side of my life tries to google me, I'm a fucking ghost, and that's exactly how I like it. Unfortunately, my legal name is fairly uncommon, especially in the part of the US I live in (alternate spelling of a common first name + Italian last name, and Texas ain't exactly known for its high population of guidos), so this means I've got to be really damn careful. Like HELL I'm going to censor everything I write, so I just censor my name instead, keep my livejournal separate from my facebook, use pseudonyms on both, and am careful to not post personally identifiable info. I've had some fairly crafty students swear up and down they were going to find me on Facebook or twitter or any social networking site, and after several days, they finally gave up and were convinced I didn't use the Internet to socialize. This made me feel extremely secure, because if a group of tech-savvy 9th graders desperate for dirt on their English teacher can't find me, it's doubtful that an employer will. Do I think bosses have any fucking business snooping after employees and disciplining them at work for what they do\say on their personal time? Hell fucking no, at least not unless the person is spouting company secrets to the public or slandering a coworker by name or something else that's both work-related and legally sketchy, but I ain't down with this shit where people get in trouble at work for posting a pic of themselves doing a kegstand or making a politically incorrect tweet, from home, on their own time. Employees are not indentured servants owned by their bosses, and the idea that someone could get fired, or not hired, or anything else for spouting personal shit on personal time is downright fucking creepy. But, if the system sucks, and it's not gonna change, then the best thing to do is just circumvent the hell out of the system rather than rolling over, accepting it, and giving snoops and bullies control of your life. Damn right, I'm gonna admit that I drink vodka, hate my boss, cuss like a sailor, and bang other women, but I'm gonna make damn sure that if your nosy Big Brother ass Googles me, you're gonna find exactly what I want you to find - jack shit.

I already rambled my arse off about the Readercon, and will probably come back and do more later (posting teal deers from a tablet is more difficult than one might think!), but as for the Dietrich case - I completely applaud that girl. If memory serves, the girl (as in, the rape victim) at no point agreed to any sort of gag order. She basically just had the court tell her that she had no choice but to protect the identies of her attackers, while the attackers got off with a slap on the wrist. So in this case, the perps were actually convicted of sexual assault in court (as opposed to convicted by a panel at a scifi convention), and a rape victim was *ordered* to fucking protect her attackers, and given no choice in the matter at all. I woulda been tweeting that shit from the mountaintops too! This wasn't a random, baseless allegation where the reputations of some fine, upstanding young men were getting slandered and dragged through the mud by a bitter ex girlfriend looking for revenge or some shit. This was an actual victim whose only wrongdoing was refusing to be an accomplice in her own assault by protecting her convicted attackers, and well, if you don't want to be called a rapist, then don't rape people. That court order was fucked up, and I think this is one of those instances where the law was shite and needed to be challenged head on, because sometimes, that's the only way to get shit done.

[kathrynrose.livejournal.com]

Well, this is a light fluffy green room day, with no weighty stuff to think about at all. Oy!

IKR? There's reading assignments and homework and shit. This is not what the GR is for. The GR is for bitching about Gary and eating cookies and stuff. ::shrug::

[kathrynrose.livejournal.com]

This just in -

milk_and_glass made me sob with her Dedication (http://milk-and-glass.livejournal.com/626941.html) post.

[ashgaelsonaria.livejournal.com]

These questions are and have been continually addressed threw out time.
This is how civilization evolves.
There was a time when rape was not only not a crime but was a legitimate method for acquiring a spouse.
The blame placed on the victim and laws that existed forced the victom into marriage - unless there was a significant difference in social status.
But that changed because people questioned it.
Personally, I think publishing the names of sex offenders is the right thing to do.
We as a society are far to leanent on the perpetrators of such crimes.
Knowing that such crimes have the highest raite of receivity the criminal's are oftan given little more then a handful of years to serve and frequently get parole in just one or two years.
Conversely people who kill someone in an accedent can expect to serve atlest 15 years if they get parole even though they are not very likely to commit said crime ever again.
seriously, the likely hood that the person is going to continue to commit a crime should be consided.
People who are habitual offenders should not be placed back into society. Doing so is just aiding them in there crimes.

[lilycobalt.livejournal.com]

My concern about putting personal information out there has actually held me back in Idol. First, it contributed to my decision not to compete in season 6. Then, it contributed to me hiding in a hole for much of season 8. I don't know where the line is on personal information. I used to stay mum about a lot more, but now the main things I don't mention are my name and specifics about my location.

I absolutely do not want everyone from other parts of my life to find this journal!

Need to read more. It's hard without my reading glasses, but I'm still pushing on.

[xo-kizzy-xo.livejournal.com]

I absolutely do not want everyone from other parts of my life to find this journal!

Same here :nodding:

[kathrynrose.livejournal.com]

Hey Gary -

While you've been all tied up in legalities and convention brouhaha, you have completely fallen down on keeping me up to date on important news like bad olympian hair!

I can't believe I had to see that on FB instead of here.

[clauderainsrm.livejournal.com]

I'm completely out of the loop on it as well! I can't believe I've missed that big story!!

[medleymisty.livejournal.com]

Should any of you find out my full name and google me - I promise I'm not a killer! Seriously - every time I google my name the results are all about people in prison for murder. I kind of liked the girl who killed a dude with an axe, but the one who killed her own toddler...

[pixiebelle.livejournal.com]

If you google me, you'll find a ballet teacher in Wyoming (I think?) and a grade school teacher in Greenville, SC. That's it. And the funny thing is... I went to grad school at Clemson in SC, and my professor's neighbor was the grade school teacher with my name.

Small world, eh?

[comedychick.livejournal.com]

Friending patients on Facebook is discouraged or prohibited [...] Growing up in an environment of openness and sharing, some younger doctors feel these guidelines are too restrictive.

I'm FB friends with my therapist. She's 47, so I don't think it's a young generation thing. :P I appreciate having her there, and it's one of the reasons I trust her.

I'm not going to involve myself in the rest of this discussion, though.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Personally I suspect internet privacy concerns are something which will only really interest our generation. Kids growing up now will do so with the knowledge that nothing on the internet is private. Passwords, secrecy, pseudonyms, laws and so on will continue to be deployed to make information discovery difficult, but that's not the same as impossible and the assumption must always be that all information may become public at any time. (Last time someone claimed to me there was absolutely no link between two of their accounts I linked them in under 30s. Don't assume it can't be done.)

My advice to anyone would be that insofar as you can it is best to live your life in such a way that your many selves can be linked without undue harm to you, even if that wouldn't be your first choice.

Now for some people that genuinely isn't an option (although far, far fewer people in my view than claim this is the case). If you are one of those people, I strongly recommend you keep your secrets off the 'net. It's the only way to be sure.