I understand you are posting your opinions/concerns with the way things are done here. I commend you on your efforts to litigate these as practice for your future in law. But I ask you in return to come up with an alternative to these practices, which have worked very well in the past.
Second, or "B".....since I didn't have a "First" or "A"....if the user whose name and address are being displayed is truely offended, then they have every right to consult legal advice. First consultation is usually free....especially over the phone.
Off topic - but do you know that first consultation fees really have become truly absurd sometimes? You'd think they'd be free, but some lawyers I know charge $100 over the phone, or $250 in person. And these are just run of the mill folks who haven't ever made it big.
An alternative? I'd be happy to try to help - in fact, as a long time former trader, that's really my motivation from the start. I think that idea Annorax proposed of keeping private information in cases that are under review in a special storage area is an excellent one, and would be fair to both parties until the case is resolved.
If the case is resolved, and no one is found to be at fault, then there is no reason to release the information. If one person is found to be a ripper, then there is no reason for his victim to have their information posted.
HOWEVER- as I mentioned earlier, it may, much like the available sexual predator lists online, fall under the catagory of 'public service' to have the information of confirmed rippers posted online in a Bad Trader List or so on. This is a controversial issue, of course, still being argued.
However, in my own personal opinion, it would certainly be just; in order to prevent those who ripped before from doing it again.
Except in that case, it would be harrassment. You can't really proclaim the horridness of one act while trying to intimidate with another crime, it doesn't work.
Now, I'm sure you're much more well-versed in law that I am, so I'll ask you a question. Isn't this entire forum considered the private property of Hannes? Wouldn't that make what occurs on these boards entirely up to his, and by extension the moderator's, discretion?
I completely agree with your first statement - my own was simply to make a point.
To call this forum private property is probably not going to hold water, I would argue, because, again, anyone in the world can access it and/or join. If the forum was a business, like a physical game store where the mods were employees and the members just players, then I'm not sure what the law would say. But as an internet site, especially one as accessible as this, that's not really going to work.
this has gone on way too long. Even if the servers are based state-side, tp is a canadian citizen as far as can be determined, and the law does not apply outside of US boundaries. it's a closed forum that requires identification to access, which is no way public.
/thread.
Ah - but as I said, since the servers are located on United States territory (or at least I'm operating under that assumption until someone corrects me), and the trading system is run through and policed through this site, it falls under US law. It's on US 'digital territory', if you will, like eBay. Also, what 'closed forum'? What 'identification'? I could create 3 accounts in three minutes on three different computers for this forum and wind up with equal access; without any money or real information required.
Let me give you another example. If I was a U.S. citizen and traveled to Canada, and I attempted to purchase some items with counterfeit United States currency, would I be charged under U.S. or Canadian counterfeiting laws?
Why don't we just lst the addresses of both parties, not just the accused, until the trade is resolved? Then, if the offeneder ripped, they're added to the list, and the rippee gets his information hidden.
So you're saying that until someone is confirmed to be a ripper, their address should remain private? I understand the point, but the system isn't broken, so why bother fixing it? we've already pulled enough info to show that this is perfectly legal, or at least as legal as the rest of the US government...
as a long time former trader
not here, at least. you have an iTrader of 0, meaning even I have more credibility than you in the trading forums. It's not an attack, it's simply the facts of how we work.
Post proof or retract.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
So you're saying that until someone is confirmed to be a ripper, their address should remain private? I understand the point, but the system isn't broken, so why bother fixing it? we've already pulled enough info to show that this is perfectly legal, or at least as legal as the rest of the US government...
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. Take the Patriot Act for instance. Or take the fact that in the city I live in, several years ago, maybe 10, racial profiling was made illegal, then about 5 years ago, you know, around the time of 9/11, it was made legal once again. And last, but DEFINITELY not least, just think about Guantanamo Bay.
Anyways, my initial point, which is still what remains, is that just because something is LEGAL, does not make it RIGHT, or even HUMANE.
Why don't we just lst the addresses of both parties, not just the accused, until the trade is resolved? Then, if the offeneder ripped, they're added to the list, and the rippee gets his information hidden.
Wouldn't that be legal?
Posting both might be reciprocally fair. However, if you make both of them private until one or both is confirmed ripping, you avoid the situation like the one I'm discussing where someone's offended by their info being posted. If they're confirmed to be a ripper, then the situation changes and their rights certainly get altered, no?
So you're saying that until someone is confirmed to be a ripper, their address should remain private? I understand the point, but the system isn't broken, so why bother fixing it? we've already pulled enough info to show that this is perfectly legal, or at least as legal as the rest of the US government...
not here, at least. you have an iTrader of 0, meaning even I have more credibility than you in the trading forums. It's not an attack, it's simply the facts of how we work.
Post proof or retract.
The fix might help solve future problems and it might also help contribute to a policy that I find is always beneficial - C.Y.A. - Cover Your Ass.
Regarding my own personal qualifications as a trader, which I've been asked about more than once recently -
I can't argue with you that I don't have any trading references here. I've never done any trading on this site. I stopped trading physical Magic cards in August 2003 when I started attending a military college. I sold most of them to Shawn Regnier. Before that, however, I traded and sold online Star Wars, Star Trek, Magic, and Lord of the Rings (which I sold on eBay recently.) The remainder of my physical Magic cards were traded away in a local playgroup or sold on eBay. Now all I have left is Star Trek. :-(
I cannot prove any of this, of course, but I am not a liar, so I will not retract. However, I can tell you that most of my business was done on (if I remember correctly) the Decipher.com trade forums, now long dead, and a forum called G.A.B. Traders which was wayyyy back when I had an email address at xena.com. I don't think I've traded on there in at least 6 years. Does anyone know if it still exists?
I think we are losing sight of this argument. Let me see if I can paraphrase what's going on.
tp13 has requested that his personal information be removed from the website.
Annorax refuses to remove the information with the support of his moderation team so that tp13, the accused ripper has his personal information up until AT LEAST the end of his case.
Anarki has posted a law that allows tp13, a Canadian Citizen to have his information removed from the site based on US Law.
The interpretation of the law suggests that IF the servers and website are hosted on US Soil, they are then considered to be US "digital" property and therefore subjected to US Law.
Caselogik is arguing that since tp13 is a Canadian Citizen, the law posted would not protect his privacy. Also, the moderation team would fit the piece of law that allows such information to be disclosed in order to perform their regular duties.
Anarki has posted an interpretation that protects tp13's rights.
Everyone else has posted on both sides of this argument, reiterating the same arguments for the most part.
Coldsteel would like to add that because something is Legal, does not make it right or humane (i.e. Racial Profiling, the Patriot Act, etc . . . ).
Caselogik now wonders if tp13 is protected under US Law, how does he get passed the Law's definition of Individual? Even if we agreed that tp13 is subjected to US laws in this case, he is not a US Citizen or Legal Alien, I think in this case - if it ever went to court, I actually believe they would take this case back over to Canada. (I don't think Swiss law would have any bearing as in both parties do not belong, nor have any affiliation to Switzerland).
I think we are losing sight of this argument. Let me see if I can paraphrase what's going on.
tp13 has requested that his personal information be removed from the website.
Annorax refuses to remove the information with the support of his moderation team so that tp13, the accused ripper has his personal information up until AT LEAST the end of his case.
Anarki has posted a law that allows tp13, a Canadian Citizen to have his information removed from the site based on US Law.
The interpretation of the law suggests that IF the servers and website are hosted on US Soil, they are then considered to be US "digital" property and therefore subjected to US Law.
Casetok is arguing that since tp13 is a Canadian Citizen, the law posted would not protect his privacy. Also, the moderation team would fit the piece of law that allows such information to be disclosed in order to perform their regular duties.
Anarki has posted an interpretation that protects tp13's rights.
Everyone else has posted on both sides of this argument, reiterating the same arguments for the most part.
Coldsteel would like to add that because something is Legal, does not make it right or humane (i.e. Racial Profiling, the Patriot Act, etc . . . ).
Casetok now wonders if tp13 is protected under US Law, how does he get passed the Law's definition of Individual? Even if we agreed that tp13 is subjected to US laws in this case, he is not a US Citizen or Legal Alien, I think in this case - if it ever went to court, I actually believe they would take this case back over to Canada. (I don't think Swiss law would have any bearing as in both parties do not belong, nor have any affiliation to Switzerland).
I applaud your summary. Thanks very much. I was losing track of this myself.
This will be my last post for the evening, as I need to go to seminar. *checks watch*
tp13 falls under the U.S. law, even as a non-citizen or legal alien, because the crime he is accused of committing took place, as you put it, on U.S. 'digital property'. Therefore, as a captive of our legal system (I feel like I'm teaching a class here ) he is entitled to all of the same rights and privileges that a U.S. citizen would be... unless you want to term him an enemy combatant, of course.
But, essentially, it boils down to this, and I will provide another example: If a Saudi man came to the United States and committed capital murder, carrying the death penalty, he would be sentenced here, correct? Yet we would not execute him by public beheading, would we? Simply because he is the citizen of another nation does not cause their laws to automatically apply to him in this country.
Yes. I lived in Manchester, N. H. for some time and was a frequent visitor to Hammer's Comics, which was his store there. Nice venue. I heard it closed down. He gave me a pretty fair price; nice guy. I liked him.
I've performed hundreds of trades in online trading organizations and through eBay. Would you like to talk out of your ass some more? You decided to harp on me when I expressed my concern about JayC and I think I remember how that turned out.
I'm responding to a concern of mine with legal facts and you're responding with a personal attack. Why? Do you consider 'whining' laying out a calm, intelligent, grounded argument?
And gee, if this is a U.S. based site then I would think it would operate under U.S. law, no? And what does U.S. law say? (Hint: I posted it above).
OK where to begin, first off i was not talking out of my ass, as i apologized/said in PM i misread what you had stated in your last thread complaining about how the market forums are ran, for that i do apologize.
Your next thing about me harping on you about criticizing the Jc thing, i was not harping on you i was defending mod positions. Do you know what happened thanks to the mods following the correct course? Moose man at least got his money back and that trade was concluded. More than likely if JayC had been banned moose man would have been SOL. Now want to talk out of your ass some more? Yeah jayc ripped two other members but thanks to the moderators actions at least one member walked away without being screwed.
Your next thing about legal points... if you will look at posting times you will notice that i posted 6 minutes after you posted your legal information. Before that you were talking without any data to speak of. So at the time of my post and to my knowledge you hadnt posted any legal facts.
You can't add a term to the UToS that violates any kind of laws. It simply doesn't hold up.
I'm inclined to agree with Anarki on this. I fail to see what is actually accomplished by posting a person's address publicly. I feel like fearmongering is in full effect here, with the 'if it's not public then rippers will make new accounts and rip more' argument. When the concern is protecting the privacy of an individual vs. the perceived/possible risk of being ripped, everyone should always, always err on the side of protecting someone's privacy. In particular, when someone directly requests that information be removed, then it should be done. Saying 'it will be taken down if the situation is resolved' is meaningless, because the information is still available to anyone that wants it in the mean time. And let's face it, people are judgmental and malicious. The negatives of this outweigh the positives by a large margin, IMO.
Posting both might be reciprocally fair. However, if you make both of them private until one or both is confirmed ripping, you avoid the situation like the one I'm discussing where someone's offended by their info being posted. If they're confirmed to be a ripper, then the situation changes and their rights certainly get altered, no?
The fix might help solve future problems and it might also help contribute to a policy that I find is always beneficial - C.Y.A. - Cover Your Ass.
Regarding my own personal qualifications as a trader, which I've been asked about more than once recently -
I can't argue with you that I don't have any trading references here. I've never done any trading on this site. I stopped trading physical Magic cards in August 2003 when I started attending a military college. I sold most of them to Shawn Regnier. Before that, however, I traded and sold online Star Wars, Star Trek, Magic, and Lord of the Rings (which I sold on eBay recently.) The remainder of my physical Magic cards were traded away in a local playgroup or sold on eBay. Now all I have left is Star Trek. :-(
I cannot prove any of this, of course, but I am not a liar, so I will not retract. However, I can tell you that most of my business was done on (if I remember correctly) the Decipher.com trade forums, now long dead, and a forum called G.A.B. Traders which was wayyyy back when I had an email address at xena.com. I don't think I've traded on there in at least 6 years. Does anyone know if it still exists?
So in short, if we don't actually post the accused's address until they're banned for ripping, there's no problem according to your interpretation of the Privacy Act? disclaimer: I'm not endorsing or proposing actual implementation of this policy, I just want your opinion of it...
Decipher and GAB both still exist... I have refs on both and still get refchecks and trade offers from both.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
I'm inclined to agree with Anarki on this. I fail to see what is actually accomplished by posting a person's address publicly. I feel like fearmongering is in full effect here, with the 'if it's not public then rippers will make new accounts and rip more' argument. When the concern is protecting the privacy of an individual vs. the perceived/possible risk of being ripped, everyone should always, always err on the side of protecting someone's privacy. In particular, when someone directly requests that information be removed, then it should be done. Saying 'it will be taken down if the situation is resolved' is meaningless, because the information is still available to anyone that wants it in the mean time. And let's face it, people are judgmental and malicious. The negatives of this outweigh the positives by a large margin, IMO.
Every BTA thread started has the person who is being ACUSED of Bad Trading Pratices. They are not guilty at all thats the purpose of the moderators to resolve it . The addresses are always left there its not this one case for the purpose of it may be easy like it was stated to get 10 email addresses and 10 accounts here your mailing address is not going to change .
As I stated before so many of the BTAs can be resolved by reading and following the steps followed. If you dont have delivery confirmation you more than likely not winning your case.
I might sound a bit like an ass here but I feel the need to question something. Does any of this matter until tp13 or another of his ilk takes legal action? That could be very costly for him and it seems unlikely. I understand that there's a question of legality but the point seems moot if nobody does anything about it. If I were MTGS I would continue to do things the way they are being done until the illegality of the situation is proven by actual lawyers (no offense to Anarki meant in any way).
You can't add a term to the UToS that violates any kind of laws. It simply doesn't hold up.
I'm inclined to agree with Anarki on this. I fail to see what is actually accomplished by posting a person's address publicly. I feel like fearmongering is in full effect here, with the 'if it's not public then rippers will make new accounts and rip more' argument. When the concern is protecting the privacy of an individual vs. the perceived/possible risk of being ripped, everyone should always, always err on the side of protecting someone's privacy. In particular, when someone directly requests that information be removed, then it should be done. Saying 'it will be taken down if the situation is resolved' is meaningless, because the information is still available to anyone that wants it in the mean time. And let's face it, people are judgmental and malicious. The negatives of this outweigh the positives by a large margin, IMO.
Actually it only violates the law if you want to call this web site public. Also as the law states,
"This provision shall not be construed to require the withholding of names and addresses otherwise permitted by their owners to be made public."
*cough*
I am waiting for an actual lawyer that knows how internet privacy works to post.
The only precedent I can think of that this is comparable to is the 'great craigslist experiment' where someone made a fake craigslist posting, collected many nude pictures of men, as well as some of their email addresses and full names, and then released them to the public. This gained media notoriety and other things, but none of the men had any ground in their case against the accused troll, RFjason. (Some tried to sue, but they lost miserably) They gave him the information, he put it for all to see on the internet.
It takes QUITE A BIT for something to be against internet privacy law, etc.
And people who get all uptight about things really do not understand that the internet is not full of inalienable rights. It depends where you are, what you did, and how you did it really.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I am waiting for an actual lawyer that knows how internet privacy works to post.
The only precedent I can think of that this is comparable to is the 'great craigslist experiment' where someone made a fake craigslist posting, collected many nude pictures of men, as well as some of their email addresses and full names, and then released them to the public. This gained media notoriety and other things, but none of the men had any ground in their case against the accused troll, RFjason. (Some tried to sue, but they lost miserably) They gave him the information, he put it for all to see on the internet.
This is actually one of the first things I thought of.
Quoting a law is one thing. Applying it, especially to instances of privacy on the internet (emphasis mine) is another entirely. I'd prefer a real lawyer's input ITT before we go off rewriting the oft rewritten MTGS rules because one bad trader is worried about forfeiting his privacy after committing mail fraud.
This is actually one of the first things I thought of.
Quoting a law is one thing. Applying it, especially to instances of privacy on the internet (emphasis mine) is another entirely. I'd prefer a real lawyer's input ITT before we go off rewriting the oft rewritten MTGS rules because one bad trader is worried about forfeiting his privacy after committing mail fraud.
Just a note TP13 is not a bad trader as of right now he simply has a case open against him. I would hate for his name(probably good) to be hurt over this discussion.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Out of seminar early tonight! A pleasant surprise. British imperialism is a boring subject, I must say. I have a few minutes to kill before my ride shows up.
So in short, if we don't actually post the accused's address until they're banned for ripping, there's no problem according to your interpretation of the Privacy Act? disclaimer: I'm not endorsing or proposing actual implementation of this policy, I just want your opinion of it...
Decipher and GAB both still exist... I have refs on both and still get refchecks and trade offers from both.
First of all, that's pretty cool that G.A.B. is still around - and I know the Decipher boards still exist, but the crummy old school message boards they had that I used to trade on got shut down ages ago.
And yes, you have interpreted my interpretation perfectly.
I might sound a bit like an ass here but I feel the need to question something. Does any of this matter until tp13 or another of his ilk takes legal action? That could be very costly for him and it seems unlikely. I understand that there's a question of legality but the point seems moot if nobody does anything about it. If I were MTGS I would continue to do things the way they are being done until the illegality of the situation is proven by actual lawyers (no offense to Anarki meant in any way).
*cough*
I am waiting for an actual lawyer that knows how internet privacy works to post.
The only precedent I can think of that this is comparable to is the 'great craigslist experiment' where someone made a fake craigslist posting, collected many nude pictures of men, as well as some of their email addresses and full names, and then released them to the public. This gained media notoriety and other things, but none of the men had any ground in their case against the accused troll, RFjason. (Some tried to sue, but they lost miserably) They gave him the information, he put it for all to see on the internet.
It takes QUITE A BIT for something to be against internet privacy law, etc.
And people who get all uptight about things really do not understand that the internet is not full of inalienable rights. It depends where you are, what you did, and how you did it really.
First off, no offense taken, Abominae.
Just an FYI for you both... I'm currently studying to pass the bar - so while it's not wrong to say I'm not a lawyer (because it's true! ) I'd be a bit insulted if you were to say I don't know what I'm talking about. If you'd like to postpone this discussion and wait about 6 months for me to become an 'official' lawyer, that's fine with me. However, to be fair to everyone who questions my qualifications here, I will ask my law professor his opinion tomorrow. And I am studying Government and International Law, so I'm not trying to switch over from Estate and Trust law or something. History is a good companion to this, and that's what I'm getting my other degree in.
I can't help but notice, 'Seds', that you can't actually seem to refute my argument besides posting a cartoon and making other little swipes at me.
I can't help but notice, 'Seds', that you can't actually seem to refute my argument besides posting a cartoon and making other little swipes at me.
I was just going to ignore this whole issue, but this statement really pissed me off. Go back to the post you quoted before claiming Seds was just posting a cartoon and making little swipes at you:
The only precedent I can think of that this is comparable to is the 'great craigslist experiment' where someone made a fake craigslist posting, collected many nude pictures of men, as well as some of their email addresses and full names, and then released them to the public. This gained media notoriety and other things, but none of the men had any ground in their case against the accused troll, RFjason. (Some tried to sue, but they lost miserably) They gave him the information, he put it for all to see on the internet.
Look at that, a relevant precedent. I haven't seen you post any yet (despite the fact that you claimed early on that you had...), and yet you completely ignore it because it doesn't help your case.
Really, if there was actually anything illegal going on here I'm sure someone would have put a stop to it a long time ago. People from all walks of life play Magic and trade online (including real lawyers) and there haven't been any problems.
I don't think attacking Anarki's credibility is in question here. Whether or not he's a real lawyer means very little. He posted a US law that is relevant to the issue and has made a solid argument with it. Please don't assume I am siding with or against Anarki for no matter the outcome of the discussion on the boards, our policy is still to post addresses until we are either A. forced to change or B. come up with a better policy to protect our members.
I think a lot of people are failing to see what we are doing. In fact, only Anarki and I believe, one other member recognize publicly that what we are doing is trying to protect our trading members. Some of you are attacking each other in a not so direct sort of way and it's getting old.
Seds makes a good point with his example of the craigslist guy. The legal ramifications that RFJason (Jason Fortuny) has faced is almost nil. The explanation rolled the idea around that the information was FIRST given freely with the expectation of reciprication (as is our info) and that the person in question is not a public figure (Which tp13 is not). One idea that was brought up was whether or not the posts were damaging. Is the posting of tp13's address damaging in any way? In the other case, nude photos and contact informaiton were distributed. In this case, his contact information in conjunction with an accusation exist. I would rule that both situations are potentially damaging, however, the address still stands for the "greater good." I would further argue that by leaving the contact information, we may be deterring other members for engaging in transactions with tp13 or making other people aware that may have engaged in a transaction with him at the same time. If we use the idea that the board is "public" then couldn't this be considered a "public service" in deterring a potential financial loss? However, I am curious on what Anarki's professor says - the idea of public vs. private in regards to the privacy act is very very gray and I think that even though Anarki has made a very good point, the fact still stands that tp13 has given his information to another person willingly.
Also, under the exchange of addresses I think it is assumed by all of the active and formerly active traders that their information is kept confidential except when a potential or current dispute/issue is present.
So overall, I think Anarki makes valid points and that we need to address what is being argued. RFjason is a good example of whether or not privacy laws can be applied to "internet" cases and so far - this is not promising. However, it is yet to be determined on whether or not Jason Fortuny's case is similar enough to draw the same conclusions. But in the end, the policy that is being used is an attempt that most, if not all trading sites use to protect their traders. Remeber, our community and this "business" is completely based on trust. We've all seen what happens when this trust is broken (JayC, Adrian, etc).
I was just going to ignore this whole issue, but this statement really pissed me off. Go back to the post you quoted before claiming Seds was just posting a cartoon and making little swipes at you:
Look at that, a relevant precedent. I haven't seen you post any yet (despite the fact that you claimed early on that you had...), and yet you completely ignore it because it doesn't help your case.
Really, if there was actually anything illegal going on here I'm sure someone would have put a stop to it a long time ago. People from all walks of life play Magic and trade online (including real lawyers) and there haven't been any problems.
I owe a small apology to Seds. I read his post in a hurry, focused on the 'real lawyer' bit and the accompanying cartoon, which frankly annoyed me a little bit, and glossed over the Craigslist example in my haste.
I have heard of that case, but I don't know all the details and don't want to talk out of my ass about it. The primary detail I'm not noticing mentioned here is whether or not the information was actually posted on Craigslist by someone who knew the information offline, or whether the information was re-posted (as in this case) by a third party online. The distinction is very important! Third party posting is a privacy issue. If the information was posted as a prank/harassment by a real-life person who knew (in real life or online) the other people, then it becomes an entirely different issue.
Does anyone have any further details on this case? (the Craigslist one)
Am I making sense? It's hard to type when you're laughing while listening to Playboy Radio.
I like your approach, by the way, Caselogik. I honestly just want to help and I am not simply trying to start anything to be malicious.
This is an interesting issue. My biggest question, which was already asked but not answered, is whether the information in question constitutes a "record". It would appear that the privacy law only applies to information collected and maintained as part of the normal operation of the agency, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
For example, the White Pages may publish your phone number without permission, but must remove it at your request. But if someone pays for a classified ad in the New York Times and posts your number, the NY Times is not required to remove it if you request.
Would that be accurate?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
This is an interesting issue. My biggest question, which was already asked but not answered, is whether the information in question constitutes a "record". It would appear that the privacy law only applies to information collected and maintained as part of the normal operation of the agency, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
For example, the White Pages may publish your phone number without permission, but must remove it at your request. But if someone pays for a classified ad in the New York Times and posts your number, the NY Times is not required to remove it if you request.
Would that be accurate?
My understanding is that since the information has come into the possession of an 'agency' acting in an official capacity (in this case, a mod of the MTGSalvation forums), through means not accessible to the public (in other words, the info was sent to him by another member via PM) the agency is obligated not to release that information if the individual requests it.
The White Pages example is correct. The Times is not required (I think) but I suspect they probably would if a fuss was raised.
A 'record' of information is a hazy thing, to be honest. I'm going to look up the definition tomorrow, because I've seen 3-4 different definitions for it in legalese. That way, we can be more precise in our discussion.
Just a note here, I think you are possibly the dumbest person to ever post. You are making a big deal about this yet, 90% of the people on this post probably had no idea this was happening and to bring it up just makes a cause for your information to be broadcast all over the forum. How many ppl here actually went and looked at the thread for the first time after seeing this rediculous rant?
Edit: The bold is my reasoning...and by having to put this gives further proof that my main sentence is true...
Flame warning. Calling people names gets nothing solved.
As far as I know if the person in question has requested that his private information be taken down it must be done. Reguardless of what people think. It is a right to privacy.
If the servers fall on US soil then those are the laws that this falls under as well. He gave his address in confidence to a person in a private trade. Not to have it spammed on a public message board.
Internet laws are still shaky because it is still relativly new.
I just checked there is nothing on your registration that requires someone giving their address. which means that someones address is a private matter according to this site. Which in turn means if requested that persons address must be taken down and their right to privacy protected in accordance with US law since that is what this site is under.
message boards are even more hairy because certain things do not exsist since it is a private site.
however giving out someones private information without there knowledge and ingoring their request to have it taken down is not a good thing.
I do believe it would be better as long as the mods received the addresses that they are made private until the case is closed and a resolution has been made.
I think pretty much anyone here would be pretty ticked off to see thier address and everything posted without there permission. which is essentially what is happening.
Yea and you can't threaten someone not to take their information down either. doesn't matter what is thought right or wrong it is with in his right not to have his information displayed publicly when until now everything is kept private.
now if you had it so that people had to enter an address then that is a different story altogether they are willingly giving up their right to privacy. however you do not so it remains private.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Off topic - but do you know that first consultation fees really have become truly absurd sometimes? You'd think they'd be free, but some lawyers I know charge $100 over the phone, or $250 in person. And these are just run of the mill folks who haven't ever made it big.
An alternative? I'd be happy to try to help - in fact, as a long time former trader, that's really my motivation from the start. I think that idea Annorax proposed of keeping private information in cases that are under review in a special storage area is an excellent one, and would be fair to both parties until the case is resolved.
If the case is resolved, and no one is found to be at fault, then there is no reason to release the information. If one person is found to be a ripper, then there is no reason for his victim to have their information posted.
HOWEVER- as I mentioned earlier, it may, much like the available sexual predator lists online, fall under the catagory of 'public service' to have the information of confirmed rippers posted online in a Bad Trader List or so on. This is a controversial issue, of course, still being argued.
However, in my own personal opinion, it would certainly be just; in order to prevent those who ripped before from doing it again.
Feel free to comment.
I completely agree with your first statement - my own was simply to make a point.
To call this forum private property is probably not going to hold water, I would argue, because, again, anyone in the world can access it and/or join. If the forum was a business, like a physical game store where the mods were employees and the members just players, then I'm not sure what the law would say. But as an internet site, especially one as accessible as this, that's not really going to work.
Ah - but as I said, since the servers are located on United States territory (or at least I'm operating under that assumption until someone corrects me), and the trading system is run through and policed through this site, it falls under US law. It's on US 'digital territory', if you will, like eBay. Also, what 'closed forum'? What 'identification'? I could create 3 accounts in three minutes on three different computers for this forum and wind up with equal access; without any money or real information required.
Let me give you another example. If I was a U.S. citizen and traveled to Canada, and I attempted to purchase some items with counterfeit United States currency, would I be charged under U.S. or Canadian counterfeiting laws?
Wouldn't that be legal?
not here, at least. you have an iTrader of 0, meaning even I have more credibility than you in the trading forums. It's not an attack, it's simply the facts of how we work.
Post proof or retract.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. Take the Patriot Act for instance. Or take the fact that in the city I live in, several years ago, maybe 10, racial profiling was made illegal, then about 5 years ago, you know, around the time of 9/11, it was made legal once again. And last, but DEFINITELY not least, just think about Guantanamo Bay.
Anyways, my initial point, which is still what remains, is that just because something is LEGAL, does not make it RIGHT, or even HUMANE.
Posting both might be reciprocally fair. However, if you make both of them private until one or both is confirmed ripping, you avoid the situation like the one I'm discussing where someone's offended by their info being posted. If they're confirmed to be a ripper, then the situation changes and their rights certainly get altered, no?
The fix might help solve future problems and it might also help contribute to a policy that I find is always beneficial - C.Y.A. - Cover Your Ass.
Regarding my own personal qualifications as a trader, which I've been asked about more than once recently -
I can't argue with you that I don't have any trading references here. I've never done any trading on this site. I stopped trading physical Magic cards in August 2003 when I started attending a military college. I sold most of them to Shawn Regnier. Before that, however, I traded and sold online Star Wars, Star Trek, Magic, and Lord of the Rings (which I sold on eBay recently.) The remainder of my physical Magic cards were traded away in a local playgroup or sold on eBay. Now all I have left is Star Trek. :-(
I cannot prove any of this, of course, but I am not a liar, so I will not retract. However, I can tell you that most of my business was done on (if I remember correctly) the Decipher.com trade forums, now long dead, and a forum called G.A.B. Traders which was wayyyy back when I had an email address at xena.com. I don't think I've traded on there in at least 6 years. Does anyone know if it still exists?
tp13 has requested that his personal information be removed from the website.
Annorax refuses to remove the information with the support of his moderation team so that tp13, the accused ripper has his personal information up until AT LEAST the end of his case.
Anarki has posted a law that allows tp13, a Canadian Citizen to have his information removed from the site based on US Law.
The interpretation of the law suggests that IF the servers and website are hosted on US Soil, they are then considered to be US "digital" property and therefore subjected to US Law.
Caselogik is arguing that since tp13 is a Canadian Citizen, the law posted would not protect his privacy. Also, the moderation team would fit the piece of law that allows such information to be disclosed in order to perform their regular duties.
Anarki has posted an interpretation that protects tp13's rights.
Everyone else has posted on both sides of this argument, reiterating the same arguments for the most part.
Coldsteel would like to add that because something is Legal, does not make it right or humane (i.e. Racial Profiling, the Patriot Act, etc . . . ).
Caselogik now wonders if tp13 is protected under US Law, how does he get passed the Law's definition of Individual? Even if we agreed that tp13 is subjected to US laws in this case, he is not a US Citizen or Legal Alien, I think in this case - if it ever went to court, I actually believe they would take this case back over to Canada. (I don't think Swiss law would have any bearing as in both parties do not belong, nor have any affiliation to Switzerland).
EDIT: Also, are you refering to this person: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/gpbos03/fm8a ?
I applaud your summary. Thanks very much. I was losing track of this myself.
This will be my last post for the evening, as I need to go to seminar. *checks watch*
tp13 falls under the U.S. law, even as a non-citizen or legal alien, because the crime he is accused of committing took place, as you put it, on U.S. 'digital property'. Therefore, as a captive of our legal system (I feel like I'm teaching a class here ) he is entitled to all of the same rights and privileges that a U.S. citizen would be... unless you want to term him an enemy combatant, of course.
But, essentially, it boils down to this, and I will provide another example: If a Saudi man came to the United States and committed capital murder, carrying the death penalty, he would be sentenced here, correct? Yet we would not execute him by public beheading, would we? Simply because he is the citizen of another nation does not cause their laws to automatically apply to him in this country.
Good night, all.
EDIT:
Yes. I lived in Manchester, N. H. for some time and was a frequent visitor to Hammer's Comics, which was his store there. Nice venue. I heard it closed down. He gave me a pretty fair price; nice guy. I liked him.
OK where to begin, first off i was not talking out of my ass, as i apologized/said in PM i misread what you had stated in your last thread complaining about how the market forums are ran, for that i do apologize.
Your next thing about me harping on you about criticizing the Jc thing, i was not harping on you i was defending mod positions. Do you know what happened thanks to the mods following the correct course? Moose man at least got his money back and that trade was concluded. More than likely if JayC had been banned moose man would have been SOL. Now want to talk out of your ass some more? Yeah jayc ripped two other members but thanks to the moderators actions at least one member walked away without being screwed.
Your next thing about legal points... if you will look at posting times you will notice that i posted 6 minutes after you posted your legal information. Before that you were talking without any data to speak of. So at the time of my post and to my knowledge you hadnt posted any legal facts.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
I'm inclined to agree with Anarki on this. I fail to see what is actually accomplished by posting a person's address publicly. I feel like fearmongering is in full effect here, with the 'if it's not public then rippers will make new accounts and rip more' argument. When the concern is protecting the privacy of an individual vs. the perceived/possible risk of being ripped, everyone should always, always err on the side of protecting someone's privacy. In particular, when someone directly requests that information be removed, then it should be done. Saying 'it will be taken down if the situation is resolved' is meaningless, because the information is still available to anyone that wants it in the mean time. And let's face it, people are judgmental and malicious. The negatives of this outweigh the positives by a large margin, IMO.
So in short, if we don't actually post the accused's address until they're banned for ripping, there's no problem according to your interpretation of the Privacy Act? disclaimer: I'm not endorsing or proposing actual implementation of this policy, I just want your opinion of it...
Decipher and GAB both still exist... I have refs on both and still get refchecks and trade offers from both.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
Every BTA thread started has the person who is being ACUSED of Bad Trading Pratices. They are not guilty at all thats the purpose of the moderators to resolve it . The addresses are always left there its not this one case for the purpose of it may be easy like it was stated to get 10 email addresses and 10 accounts here your mailing address is not going to change .
As I stated before so many of the BTAs can be resolved by reading and following the steps followed. If you dont have delivery confirmation you more than likely not winning your case.
Actually it only violates the law if you want to call this web site public. Also as the law states,
"This provision shall not be construed to require the withholding of names and addresses otherwise permitted by their owners to be made public."
It would be legal to include it in the UToS.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
*cough*
I am waiting for an actual lawyer that knows how internet privacy works to post.
The only precedent I can think of that this is comparable to is the 'great craigslist experiment' where someone made a fake craigslist posting, collected many nude pictures of men, as well as some of their email addresses and full names, and then released them to the public. This gained media notoriety and other things, but none of the men had any ground in their case against the accused troll, RFjason. (Some tried to sue, but they lost miserably) They gave him the information, he put it for all to see on the internet.
It takes QUITE A BIT for something to be against internet privacy law, etc.
And people who get all uptight about things really do not understand that the internet is not full of inalienable rights. It depends where you are, what you did, and how you did it really.
Twitter
This is actually one of the first things I thought of.
Quoting a law is one thing. Applying it, especially to instances of privacy on the internet (emphasis mine) is another entirely. I'd prefer a real lawyer's input ITT before we go off rewriting the oft rewritten MTGS rules because one bad trader is worried about forfeiting his privacy after committing mail fraud.
Buy from me on TCGPlayer::Twitter::Flickr
Just a note TP13 is not a bad trader as of right now he simply has a case open against him. I would hate for his name(probably good) to be hurt over this discussion.
Yes i am the same guy who trades/sells on MOTL AND Wizards of the Coast and i trade on POJO.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
First of all, that's pretty cool that G.A.B. is still around - and I know the Decipher boards still exist, but the crummy old school message boards they had that I used to trade on got shut down ages ago.
And yes, you have interpreted my interpretation perfectly.
Regarding the next two quotes...
First off, no offense taken, Abominae.
Just an FYI for you both... I'm currently studying to pass the bar - so while it's not wrong to say I'm not a lawyer (because it's true! ) I'd be a bit insulted if you were to say I don't know what I'm talking about. If you'd like to postpone this discussion and wait about 6 months for me to become an 'official' lawyer, that's fine with me. However, to be fair to everyone who questions my qualifications here, I will ask my law professor his opinion tomorrow. And I am studying Government and International Law, so I'm not trying to switch over from Estate and Trust law or something. History is a good companion to this, and that's what I'm getting my other degree in.
I can't help but notice, 'Seds', that you can't actually seem to refute my argument besides posting a cartoon and making other little swipes at me.
Be back later, all. Regards.
I was just going to ignore this whole issue, but this statement really pissed me off. Go back to the post you quoted before claiming Seds was just posting a cartoon and making little swipes at you:
Look at that, a relevant precedent. I haven't seen you post any yet (despite the fact that you claimed early on that you had...), and yet you completely ignore it because it doesn't help your case.
Really, if there was actually anything illegal going on here I'm sure someone would have put a stop to it a long time ago. People from all walks of life play Magic and trade online (including real lawyers) and there haven't been any problems.
I think a lot of people are failing to see what we are doing. In fact, only Anarki and I believe, one other member recognize publicly that what we are doing is trying to protect our trading members. Some of you are attacking each other in a not so direct sort of way and it's getting old.
Seds makes a good point with his example of the craigslist guy. The legal ramifications that RFJason (Jason Fortuny) has faced is almost nil. The explanation rolled the idea around that the information was FIRST given freely with the expectation of reciprication (as is our info) and that the person in question is not a public figure (Which tp13 is not). One idea that was brought up was whether or not the posts were damaging. Is the posting of tp13's address damaging in any way? In the other case, nude photos and contact informaiton were distributed. In this case, his contact information in conjunction with an accusation exist. I would rule that both situations are potentially damaging, however, the address still stands for the "greater good." I would further argue that by leaving the contact information, we may be deterring other members for engaging in transactions with tp13 or making other people aware that may have engaged in a transaction with him at the same time. If we use the idea that the board is "public" then couldn't this be considered a "public service" in deterring a potential financial loss? However, I am curious on what Anarki's professor says - the idea of public vs. private in regards to the privacy act is very very gray and I think that even though Anarki has made a very good point, the fact still stands that tp13 has given his information to another person willingly.
Also, under the exchange of addresses I think it is assumed by all of the active and formerly active traders that their information is kept confidential except when a potential or current dispute/issue is present.
So overall, I think Anarki makes valid points and that we need to address what is being argued. RFjason is a good example of whether or not privacy laws can be applied to "internet" cases and so far - this is not promising. However, it is yet to be determined on whether or not Jason Fortuny's case is similar enough to draw the same conclusions. But in the end, the policy that is being used is an attempt that most, if not all trading sites use to protect their traders. Remeber, our community and this "business" is completely based on trust. We've all seen what happens when this trust is broken (JayC, Adrian, etc).
I owe a small apology to Seds. I read his post in a hurry, focused on the 'real lawyer' bit and the accompanying cartoon, which frankly annoyed me a little bit, and glossed over the Craigslist example in my haste.
I have heard of that case, but I don't know all the details and don't want to talk out of my ass about it. The primary detail I'm not noticing mentioned here is whether or not the information was actually posted on Craigslist by someone who knew the information offline, or whether the information was re-posted (as in this case) by a third party online. The distinction is very important! Third party posting is a privacy issue. If the information was posted as a prank/harassment by a real-life person who knew (in real life or online) the other people, then it becomes an entirely different issue.
Does anyone have any further details on this case? (the Craigslist one)
Am I making sense? It's hard to type when you're laughing while listening to Playboy Radio.
I like your approach, by the way, Caselogik. I honestly just want to help and I am not simply trying to start anything to be malicious.
For example, the White Pages may publish your phone number without permission, but must remove it at your request. But if someone pays for a classified ad in the New York Times and posts your number, the NY Times is not required to remove it if you request.
Would that be accurate?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
My understanding is that since the information has come into the possession of an 'agency' acting in an official capacity (in this case, a mod of the MTGSalvation forums), through means not accessible to the public (in other words, the info was sent to him by another member via PM) the agency is obligated not to release that information if the individual requests it.
The White Pages example is correct. The Times is not required (I think) but I suspect they probably would if a fuss was raised.
A 'record' of information is a hazy thing, to be honest. I'm going to look up the definition tomorrow, because I've seen 3-4 different definitions for it in legalese. That way, we can be more precise in our discussion.
Edit: The bold is my reasoning...and by having to put this gives further proof that my main sentence is true...
Flame warning. Calling people names gets nothing solved.
If the servers fall on US soil then those are the laws that this falls under as well. He gave his address in confidence to a person in a private trade. Not to have it spammed on a public message board.
Internet laws are still shaky because it is still relativly new.
I just checked there is nothing on your registration that requires someone giving their address. which means that someones address is a private matter according to this site. Which in turn means if requested that persons address must be taken down and their right to privacy protected in accordance with US law since that is what this site is under.
message boards are even more hairy because certain things do not exsist since it is a private site.
however giving out someones private information without there knowledge and ingoring their request to have it taken down is not a good thing.
I do believe it would be better as long as the mods received the addresses that they are made private until the case is closed and a resolution has been made.
I think pretty much anyone here would be pretty ticked off to see thier address and everything posted without there permission. which is essentially what is happening.
Yea and you can't threaten someone not to take their information down either. doesn't matter what is thought right or wrong it is with in his right not to have his information displayed publicly when until now everything is kept private.
now if you had it so that people had to enter an address then that is a different story altogether they are willingly giving up their right to privacy. however you do not so it remains private.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum