galiel

Is it?
I am referring to things like their real name if they use an alias, their spouse and/or children's names, their address, phone number, the school their children go to, their job, their spouse's job, etc., any or all of it.

Is it ethical to, in essence, publish such information to the world, without the individual's consent?

lunachick

In my opinion, galiel - absolutely not!

As far as I can see, there are no circumstances where this would be acceptable, at all.

Has this happened to you?

winstonjen

Only if it's in the best interest of society, for example, the FBI's wanted posters.

galiel

(Actually, it has, in the past, when I was managing an online war game, but that is not the impetus for this post. I use my real name here and everywhere else on the web, and, though I received both death threats and marriage proposals in that game--fortunately not from the same player--I have chosen to take the risk of exposure in order to take responsibility for my own words and not hide behind a pseudonym.)

We were discussing this issue in an unrelated post about an article hosted on SecWeb about a particularly pernicious fundamentalist. In the article, the author posted the fundie's personal family's info. Some of us expressed objection to that, and the offending information was removed from the SecWeb version of the article.

However, many, many people on that thread expressed a sentiment of "well, he had it coming!" or expressed delight that such an obnoxious person would be thus exposed--or, they rationalized that it was ok, since atheists are not inclined to stalk and murder people, only theists, or something to that effect.

All of it struck me as rather hypocritical applying situational ethics rather than adhering to a consistent moral standard, not only when it is convenient. I suspect none of the rationalizers would be confortable with someone taking ownership of their private data and posting it for the whole world to see, and I suspect they would consider it a poor excuse if the person said, "I don't like you and you had it coming."

IMO, the very essence of civilizationin general, and of free society in particular, is that social norms are applied as consistently, equally and evenly as laws are enforced. If it is wrong to do a thing to another human, then it is wrong, whether that human is a nice person or a nasty SOB.

In this case, I believe that it is wrong in every case.

Winstonjen,

I should have clarified that I meant one private individual choosing of their own volition to expose the private information of another individual without that person's permission--not in order to prevent a crime, or in response to a legal demand, or to serve some other urgent social purpose.

winstonjen

That's OK. In that case, I don't think personal information should be spread on a public resource like the Internet.

Amie

I don't think its ethical either galiel...

Toto

Why are you misrepresenting that issue?

The information involved was not "private". It had all been discovered through publicly available records. Turkel's truly private information - credit card number, bank balance, IRS returns, favorite sexual position, etc. - were not posted and not at issue. He at one time had kept his real name secret, but had indicated to a number of people that was no longer an issue with him. He had no claim of privacy; the only real issue was whether posting his address and phone would be an invitation to harrass him. (I assume that his phone number was listed in the public phone directory.)

There are people on this board who post anonymously (I am one), and we have all agreed here that it would be impolite to reveal their identities without their permission, as long as they are not committing deception (e.g., by using a sock puppet to cheer themselves on.) On other boards or lists, anonymous posting is not allowed, and IP addresses are visible, allowing posters to be traced. It's not a question of morality. It's just a question of following the rules of the particular game that you are part of.

galiel

I disagree. It is my opinion that there is a basic set of common sense courtesies and customs that support civilization, which is far more, IMO, than the sum of its laws. Civilization, IMO, is a consensual construct. One of the core principles of any set of values that proport to be "fair", "enlightened" and "civilized" (and let's not get sidetracked into a nitpicking debate about the definition of each term), is that such conventions, like laws, should apply and be applied equally to all.

It is not a matter of "following the rules of whatever game you are a part of." Civilization is not a game (Sid Meier's title notwithstanding).

This is particularly critical with online societies, in which laws have no real power of enforcement behind them. Civilized online community depends almost entirely on consensus.

(Of course, there are structural artifices, like software rules, that can help or hinder that consensus, but that is a separate discussion)

There is much accumulated wisdom about what makes online communities work, what keeps them healthy and sustainable. One of the fundamental principles is a perception of fairness and a consistent set of explicit, clear social conventions.

Living Dead Chipmunk

Toto: I'd be willing to bet that similar information about you is avaliable as a matter of public record for anyone who cares to look hard enough. Should we post it on the front page when we find it?

Toto

I assure you it would be quite boring, even if you found the fourth cousin who has the same name as I do.

The rules of the game on this particular board allow people to be anonymous. The rules of the game in other communities call for full disclosure of identities.

My only point was that the matter is not so simple. Privacy is one value, truth another, and sometimes they conflict. Should persons of homosexual orientation be "outed" without their consent? In general no. But what if they are prominent in conservative circles with anti-gay policies? Is that violating their privacy or exposing their hypocrisy? You could argue endlessly (and people have.)