2010.06.30 - KATU Confirming TH posting in its Comments Section

[xin]

I agree completely. Wonder what the Society of Professional Journalists will say about it. Wait. I know. They will HATE it.

 

[sherbetjello]

I think the release of information has the potential for a very chilling effect on freedom of expression on the 'net.

I agree.

 

[Aedrys]

Obeying? When the weight of the world is on your shoulders you shouldn't be criticized for trying to defend yourself the only way you can. Also, how is posting on a news board a mistake? She had a reasonable expectation of privacy just like we all do here and should not have been outed in the media.

A friend of Terri's said in this article that she had done what Kaine told her to do and had remained quiet, but with the RO and divorce papers, she was going to speak out (which she hasn't done yet since that statement was made). I was just pointing out that this was a lie since she was posting comments on a public, newspaper website. There is very little expectation of privacy on places like that. WS is different in that there are much higher standards here than most places.

That being said, I don't think the media should have outed her either. But they did and it can't be taken back. She should have been more aware of the fact, in this day and age, that posting on places like that and Facebook can get her exposed.

Sorry grandmaj, if your post was directed me, I didn't see it until after I posted this post. If you want me to delete it, I will. I added the link to the article since the thread it came from was closed and I couldn't link to the quote.

 

[wondering1]

Obeying? When the weight of the world is on your shoulders you shouldn't be criticized for trying to defend yourself the only way you can. Also, how is posting on a news board a mistake? She had a reasonable expectation of privacy just like we all do here and should not have been outed in the media.

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???? Add to that that they are involved in a high-profile criminal case with the fingers pointing directly at them. Does she have the right to defend herself? Sure. But to expect it to be double-top-secret...not uh.

 

[Sherbie]

You can google one of the quoted comments in the article and see the link to her Intense Debate comments page, where she used the name RDSQRL:

http://intensedebate.com/people/RDSQRL

Totally public page. Looks like she made only 5 comments, two of which were just "thank you" comments; one which explained the truck was towed due to starter; one explaining where they were in the church during the vigil; and one asking people not to judge because they don't have the facts. Nothing of a bombshell nature in the comments.

ETA: I assume it's okay to characterize the posts (no direct quoting or word-for-word). If not, mods, please let me know and I'll edit or delete (or you can). Thanks!

 

[Jack]

~SNIP
Because our Site may offer message boards, conversation pages, chat rooms or other public forums inviting public participation through user submissions, you may choose to provide a user submission. When you do so you might be providing personal information that may be posted publicly or otherwise disclosed without limitation as to its use by a third party. We cannot protect your privacy for your user submissions, and we cannot guarantee your anonymity. We reserve the right to disclose information regarding user submissions pursuant to this Policy. ~~

http://www.katu.com/about/privacy

If someone posts about a crime, or threatened someone, or confessed to some crime I could see why they would have to disclose your information to LE. But to out someone to the public because they have suddenly come under intense public scrutiny is wrong on all level. I imagine they are going to regret outing her.

 

[Sherbie]

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???? Add to that that they are involved in a high-profile criminal case with the fingers pointing directly at them. Does she have the right to defend herself? Sure. But to expect it to be double-top-secret...not uh.

I agree with you completely. I guess there are still people out there who think they are truly anonymous when they post online.

That being said, I think it's crappy of any site to give up their users' identities, except to law enforcement when requested.

 

[Aedrys]

I hope she hasn't been doing a lot of phone calls or texting either. Casey Anthony practically handed her case to LE because she could not shut her mouth or stay off of her cellphone. I really hope TH was smarter than that.

 

[Jack]

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???? Add to that that they are involved in a high-profile criminal case with the fingers pointing directly at them. Does she have the right to defend herself? Sure. But to expect it to be double-top-secret...not uh.

Yes, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they identified every one of their members that would be one thing but to identify only her and only because she is in the spotlight is wrong. Would it be okay for Tricia to out you because she found out people would be interested in who you are?

ETA: Just using you as an example, not suggesting anyone is interested in knowing who you are.

 

[sherbetjello]

Yes, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they identified every one of their members that would be one thing but to identify only her and only because she is in the spotlight is wrong. Would it be okay for Tricia to out you because she found out people would be interested in who you are?

Great POST!

 

[Jaxson]

I agree with you completely. I guess there are still people out there who think they are truly anonymous when they post online.

That being said, I think it's crappy of any site to give up their users' identities, except to law enforcement when requested.

While I realize that I am giving up my privacy by posting online by the same token I don't expect my little posts to cause someone to hunt me down. At any rate she really didn't explain herself or defend herself. She simply gave a couple pieces of information and nothing that would have jeopardized the investigation.

 

[KaylynnCouture]

Honestly, I didn't think it was her. I didn't think someone could be that, well, dumb.

You and me both. That was rather unintelligent.

 

[Aedrys]

Yes, you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If they identified every one of their members that would be one thing but to identify only her and only because she is in the spotlight is wrong. Would it be okay for Tricia to out you because she found out people would be interested in who you are?

And again, that is because Websleuths is a forum with MUCH higher expectations and standards than MOST places. I am not worried about posting here. Anywhere else, yes, I worry. There is not the same level of privacy on most websites as there is here, which is one of the many reasons I love Websleuths so much.

But I do agree that identifying her just because she's in the spotlight is wrong. That website should not have done that.

 

[akashana]

She has not even been named a Person of Interest by LE, let alone been arrested. They could have shared the info with the police and still kept her information private. I personally think this is setting a bad precedent.

Just my lil' ol' humble opinion.

 

[wondering1]

I agree with you completely. I guess there are still people out there who think they are truly anonymous when they post online.

That being said, I think it's crappy of any site to give up their users' identities, except to law enforcement when requested.

I suppose. But, in a way, she's using their website as a conduit for her version of the facts and in her defense. If she'd gone directly to the station and responded to those posts on camera....well, what then? She availed herself of their forum and they have no obligation to provide complete anonymity to persons wanting to do so. In fact, they have no obligation to provide any anonymity at all based on their TOS...which was available for TH to read and consider before posting.

 

[wondering1]

I agree with you completely. I guess there are still people out there who think they are truly anonymous when they post online.

That being said, I think it's crappy of any site to give up their users' identities, except to law enforcement when requested.

I suppose. But, in a way, she's using their website as a conduit for her version of the facts and in her defense. If she'd gone directly to the station and responded to those posts on camera....well, what then? She availed herself of their forum and they have no obligation to provide complete anonymity to persons wanting to do so. In fact, they have no obligation to provide any anonymity at all based on their TOS...which was available for TH to read and consider before posting.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

So, in effect, she may have been making statements all along, if these are actually her's. Interesting. That does raise my eyebrow, though, about all the snippets from all the unnamed "friends of Terri," and makes me wonder how else she has been making statements without actually doing so openly, KWIM?

That being said, I don't find it odd that she would do so. Cooped up at home with a computer, I would likely do the same if I saw people maligning me, since I am already an internet fan (or junky, depending on your definition). I see nothing odd about someone who is normally a net user turning to the net in times of distress, really, which makes me something of a minority in discussions of this nature, often.

MOO

 

[RubyRed]

There's a link in that katu article that has a cached list of her posts, by all means she was "not quite the poster", but it was more than enough while your child is missing.

Seeing this/it for what it is...

Could you provide the link for the cached list of posts. I looked and for some reason can't see it in the article. Thanks

 

[Lavender]

I think this is unethical, no matter what their privacy policy/TOS is. Did they do a trace on ALL of their commenters? Were they looking for posts by any and all family members or did they just single out TH? I'm pretty sure it's the latter. It's biased and sleazy, IMO.

 

[butterfly1978]

Well if she is responsible for Kyron's disappearance, this helps ease my mind that she will get away with it. If she cant keep her ID secret online how can she fool LE and pull off such a crime and not get caught. Just sayin.