2010.06.30 - KATU Confirming TH posting in its Comments Section

[Kimster]

It makes a difference to me that they did this when TH has not been arrested or even named a suspect. It seems premature. Now, if she were charged with the crime or named as the prime suspect, I think it would be appropriate to out her identity in their comment section. I would hope that if Tricia discovered that a suspect in a crime was posting here without identifying themselves as such and trying to manipulate the discussion by lying about facts, that she would let members know. (Of course, that would be a difficult decision she'd have to make according to the circumstances, but I believe it has been done before. Maybe in the Abraham Shakespeare thread?)

The only time that a poster is outed here is if they out themselves. And that has happened in a few cases since I've been a member here.

 

[STEADFAST]

Makes ya think twice about posting anywhere, even here!

You've got to look at a site's track record. I don't think KATU is going to be considered "safe" by many after this, unless it turns out they simply looked at TH's profile like anyone else could.
I only post at sites that are rabidly pro-privacy.

 

[Gypsy Road]

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!

 

[wondering1]

The newspaper will never be able to say they wouldn't reveal a source. Not that she was a source, but as you mentioned she hasn't been named a suspect if they won't protect their users identities, they shouldn't be allowed to protect anyone's. Bad move on their part.

well exactly...she wasn't a source. She was a poster on a public forum with full knowledge of the complete lack of confidentiality -- as if posting on the internet weren't enough notice.

She AVAILED herself of their forum subject to their tos. They didn't go to her and ask for information promising anonymity. I really don't get how people think anything on the internet is private.

 

[cypress]

It's stuff like this that, even if Terri's guilty, a good defense attorney will use to prove a bias (read: witchhunt) was created against her, yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Elphaba]

Well... one thing is for sure: I can bet their site viewership just totally rocketed upwards. Cha-ching...

Nothing is safe and secure on the internet... but regardless, they would have served Kyron better had they just reported this ONLY to LE so LE could monitor her comments from here on out. If and when she is ever named a suspect, or is charged, then I would understand exposing her... to a certain degree.

 

[Elphaba]

Hi Terri! :seeya::U There:

Aiming the finger of speculation at other members is a big no-no on WS...

 

[SuziQ]

It's always better to keep someone like this talking. Loose lips sink ships and Give someone enough rope they'll hang themselves.

 

[GrainneDhu]

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

Meh.

Don't most people know that they can be traced through their IP address?

If someone truly needs privacy in posting, then post through Project TOR:

http://www.torproject.org/

It's free and anonymous.

 

[wondering1]

It's stuff like this that, even if Terri's guilty, a good defense attorney will use to prove a bias (read: witchhunt) was created against her, yadda yadda yadda.

ITD....the truth is not biased. She posted and they confirmed it -- just a fact.

 

[butterfly1978]

Aiming the finger of speculation at other members is a big no-no on WS...

I think it was a joke, I got it and thought it was pretty funny, thats why I laughed.

 

[GrainneDhu]

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.

I think it was definitely a low class thing to do.

But to post without taking the effort to conceal her own IP address? That's pretty ignorant.

 

[Lavender]

Et tu, Katu?

 

[Jaxson]

What do we do with the information we collect, and with whom is it shared?

We respect your privacy and do not share personally identifiable information about you or any Site visitor with third parties except within the scope of this Privacy Policy. Here are some of the ways in which your information may be used or shared with other parties:

Statistical and Aggregate Information. Some of the information that we collect is processed and analyzed in the form of aggregated statistics that track the types of websites users visit and the frequency with which they visit those sites. This statistical information does not include any information that personally identifies you or any user of the Site. The information is useful in creating a Site that reflects the preferences of our users, and we reserve the right to share such aggregated information with third parties to serve our business purposes. We also use non-personally identifiable demographic and preference information that we collect to allow targeted advertising and other content on our Site to be served according to the interests of our users.


Related Sites. Some of our services may be offered in connection with other websites that are not owned and/or operated by Fisher Communications, Inc. Information you provide to us may be sent to those sites, and information that you provide to other related sites may be sent to us, in order to deliver the services you request. Any information provided to or in connection with a related site will be governed by that site's privacy policy. You should become familiar with other sites' privacy practices before providing us or them with any personal information for a service that would require us to provide them with any information about you. If you decide to opt out of any services on our Site for which you previously provided personal information to us and another site, you will need to contact any affiliated sites separately to request that they receive your opt out request as well, as it relates to information such affiliated sites retain.


Service Providers. We may have agreements with third party service providers, such as credit card processors, shipping companies and/or fulfillment services. These parties provide services that allow us to offer some of the features of the Site. If you choose to receive these services, information you provide in connection with that service may also be shared with the third party service provider. We require that these providers use the information they obtain solely to provide the service on the Site, unless noted at the time you sign up for the service. However, you should assume that the information provided to these service providers may also be governed by their privacy policies, and you should become familiar with such providers' privacy practices prior to accepting the service and providing the information.


Required by Law. We reserve the right to disclose to law enforcement agencies user submissions or other personally identifiable information as follows:

- We may disclose user submissions or other personally identifiable information in response to legal process, for example, in response to a court order, warrant or a subpoena.

- We also may disclose user submissions or other personally identifiable information in response to a law enforcement agency’s request or inquiry when it is necessary to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding suspected or potential crimes, illegal activities or fraud, situations involving actual or potential threats to the physical safety of any person, to verify or enforce compliance with the policies governing our Site, or as otherwise required or permitted by law.

By reserving these rights, we do not assume any duty or responsibility to so report. We are not responsible or liable to any person or entity whatsoever for any loss, damage (whether actual, consequential, punitive or otherwise), injury claim, liability or other cause of any kind or character based upon the disclosure or nondisclosure of user submissions or other personally identifiable information pursuant to this Policy.


Sale of Company. In the event that we sell our assets to another company or participate in a merger with another company, the information we have collected from you and other users of the Site may be transferred to the successor or purchaser in such transaction and accessible to such purchaser or successor.


Corporate Affiliates. Our corporate affiliates may have access to your information to allow us to improve the services we offer to you and other users to our sites. All of our affiliates who have access to any information you provide to our Site are subject to this Policy.


Consent. If you expressly consent to the release of your information to a particular third party or for a particular purpose, we may disclose your information in accordance and to the extent of your consent.

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

Seems they violated their own privacy policy AND that of Automattic.

Thanks for bringing that here Calliope. It appears Katu may pay her legal fees after she sues them.

 

[Charlie09]

well exactly...she wasn't a source. She was a poster on a public forum with full knowledge of the complete lack of confidentiality -- as if posting on the internet weren't enough notice.

She AVAILED herself of their forum subject to their tos. They didn't go to her and ask for information promising anonymity. I really don't get how people think anything on the internet is private.

Well, I would think by these rules on the site, she was following them and expected them to at least follow their own house rules -

KATU.com encourages users to suggest removal of comments that violate any of the house rules:

1. Keep it clean - This is a public forum, open to civilized people who do not appreciate obscene, vulgar or sexually-oriented language, no matter how creatively spelled.

2. Keep it civil - Don't defame, threaten, abuse or invade the privacy of other readers or the subjects of stories. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person will be tolerated.

3. Keep it truthful and legal - Don't lie, impersonate another individual or post comments that advocate illegal activity.

4. Keep on topic - Stay focused on the subject at hand. Do not post advertisements or solicitations for funds, goods, or services.

5. Be responsible - Comments are the sole responsibility of those who post them.

6. Share your knowledge - Give us your eyewitness accounts, background and observations. If you see a factual error in a story or think there are issues we should follow up on, please e-mail us at webstaff@katu.com or call 503-235-8510.

7. Exercise your authority - Police these comments and suggest removal of those that violate the house rules.

8. And remember - Rules violators may be permanently banned from commenting.

Questions about commenting or other inquiries about this site may be sent to: webstaff@katu.com

*a lot of times "sources" approach the press and are protected.....*

 

[wondering1]

I think it was a joke, I got it and thought it was pretty funny, thats why I laughed.

I thought so, too. Actually, what are the chances that TH is NOT reading here given how often it comes up in google searches.

 

[Jaxson]

I think it was definitely a low class thing to do.

But to post without taking the effort to conceal her own IP address? That's pretty ignorant.

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

 

[Charlie09]

I think it was definitely a low class thing to do.

But to post without taking the effort to conceal her own IP address? That's pretty ignorant.

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?

 

[wondering1]

Well, I would think by these rules on the site, she was following them and expected them to at least follow their own house rules -




*a lot of times "sources" approach the press and are protected.....*

read katu comment section tos (above, from another poster)...no confidentiality whatsover.

 

[Emma Peel]

A good civil attorney gets a hold of this, and she won't have to worry about how she's going to pay for her criminal defense attorney.

well yeah - we'll see tomorrow...

i.e. my other thought was the paper knew this all along (thank you FBI) AND also knows something about tomorrow's presser that makes such a civil suit moot. :angel: :waitasec: :crazy: