brighid

But it wasn't entirely bad either and what one would prefer to do in the situation doesn't negate or make the other choice "bad."

I think this discussion is a valuable learning experience for everyone. I personally feel that some of the negative reactions people have had are in part motivated by their perhaps ... sudden realization that this forum isn't as anonymous as we might like to think.

I also don't think discomfort is always an accurate measure as to what is right or wrong. Plenty of people are very uncomfortable with atheism, but is atheism wrong because people are uncomfortable because of it?

I can't recall off the top of my head, but perhaps in the forum rules or at registration time it can be stated that if you don't wish personal information to be made available (that could be used against you at a later date) don't provide it. We all do have a constitutional right against self-incrimination

Perhaps in a different situation, where little or no advice was given to the "deceiver" I would favor Ion's proposal. But I think BM was given ample opportunity to do the right thing and continually demonstrated she wasn't willing to accept any redeeming amount of responsibility. Maybe in a situation with a more narrow scope that would be feasible ... I don't know.

Brighid

pz

For now, yes, I agree. I for one certainly don't plan to meddle in their lives, in particular because I don't care that much about them.
No, that's precisely what they are. They are hiding out of fear. That fear is justified -- I know that the theist majority can hurt people economically, socially, and politically -- but the hiding isn't.

I'm not saying that because I'm more secure in my position than the weeblers. I've always been forthright about what I think. I imagine it has shaped the way my life has gone, but that's good. Even where it causes discomfort in the short run, it can only lead to long term satisfaction.

brighid

Liv,

I am basically in agreement with you and I do understand your points. Thank you for indulging my questions and responding so well.

I'll be sure to read the *that* thread and take your educated advice into consideration We know what a very bad girl you are!! But hey ... that's why I like you so much



Ohhhh ... that sounds good ... yummm ... if it weren't so damned cold outside right now, I would be taking a ride over to the local ice cream shop at lunch ... See ... you really are bad! Talk about diet food PLEASE ... must .... resist .... temptation!!

NOw - back on topic please

Brighid

Gurdur

Really ? Please show how I was wrong.
Pardon me, but you mischaracterized one of my posts (absolutely/absolutism), and as far as I can see, you have no reason at all to claim I haven't read your posts --- especially since I've answered them point-by-point. Respect should be a mutual thing, no ?

Rusting Car Bumper

Actually I didn't. You said,

My reply was that the two named conditions (Absolute and Automatic) create a trivial conclusion. That is, almost *ANY* action is not both automatically and absolutely wrong.

That's all I said.

You countered by saying that racism is a case. I countered by saying what counts as racism requires examination which precludes the condition of "automatic."

As I said, the thread begans bury itself in repitition.

DC

Autonemesis

If Sakpo's action had resulted in a reward, benefit or accomodation for Blue_Metal, this debate would not be taking place. Mostly for that reason, but also for others, I am unconvinced by arguments invoking breach of implied confidentiality. What people seem to be most upset about is that the Support Forum is not actually the private confessional they imagined it was. Welcome to reality.

Another reason is that there is no agreement, implied or otherwise, that messages posted to a public forum are somehow confidential. In a couple of weeks, Google will come along and index everything Blue_Metal posted, and so her "confession" would have been readily available anyway. Finally, Sakpo's action had no effect on the outcome of Blue_Metal's predicament. She was caught because the plagiarism was obvious and easily detected, and the college officials did not use Sakpo's information against her. They didn't need to, it was superfluous.

Sakpo's action was no more or less reprehensible than if he had forwarded links to threads that showed Blue_Metal in a favorable light. The fact of the matter is that she posted to a public forum. Reporting that fact to another individual is no more or less morally charged than reporting the weather, or reporting that Bush said so-and-so at a news conference.

If Sakpo had been contacted privately by Blue_Metal, the situation would be completely different.

Gurdur

And I disagreed, by pointing out whether the word "absolute" is used inside or outside a moral system --- with its consequent two different meanings.
Then you could help along by perhaps answering my points ?
After all, I put in a lot of work here to summarize as many ethical points needing consideration as occured to me.

I'ld still like to see your justification for your statement one cannot judge intentions from inferences.

Just interested.

livius drusus

Upset? Odd characterization, and somewhat belittling considering the level of discourse in this thread.

As I have stated above more than once, the issue is not the expectation of privacy. There is none. The issue is Sakpo's ethical obligation to at least make an effort to conceal Blue's (or anyone else's) atheism given the potential consequences of the outing and its irrelevance to the plagiarism charges. I know that from my perspective I would have the exact same reaction to Sakpo's revelation of her username regardless of whether the result was a tiara or the stocks.

And how exactly would the dean have known to search google for Blue_Metal's posts? Sakpo's choice to send links instead of expurgated text provided the information connecting Jane Doe, Agnes Scott plagiarist and Blue_Metal, atheist and IIDB poster. This is a key distinction, and I believe should be of some import within Sakpo's own ethical framework.

The weighing of potential consequences needs to happen before action is taken and the outcome is known. That's the way ethics work.

I agree.

There is a difference: pseudonyms. No key, no cracking the code. Sakpo provided the key.

Gurdur

As a person who can make the forthright pz look exceptionally shy, I must confess I'm really unhappy with this argument.
I'm always in favour of forthrightness; yet even I would hesitate before branding all closet atheists as weeblers (despite this being a word I have stored away in my vocab as a new and interesting one), and I would hesitate before saying they all live in fear.

There can be a great number of reasons for staying in the closet; one being, just for example, kindness and politeness to those around.

For example, there was a 91-year-old woman here in Germany where I live who was of the very firm opinion I was a Catholic sheepshearer.

The reason why she thought I was Catholic was because all good people were Catholics to her;
and the reason why she was sure I was a sheepshearer was because I am Australian, and all Australians to her were sheepshearers.

My atheism was already problematic to many around me; I am not joking when I say that I was asked by several people,
"But are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist ?"

And sheepshearing is one of the very few manual jobs I have not done.
After a few arguments, I gave up; forcing the 91-yo woman to recognition of my stance and employment history would have been impossible, impolite and completley pointless.

And futhermore, there's the hypothetical question --- but very acute --- of what other personal information Blue Metal or anyone else hypothetically similar revealed on this board, anything from buying vibrators to strongly criticizing USA foreign policy, or revealing unnatural lusts for sheepshearers.

As a general rule of thumb, I'm always suspicious of making personal strong moral judgments that cost me little.
_______________

EDITED TO ADD:

I've opened up a new thread here, entitled "SecWeb Community: ethics thereof ?", surveying people as to what they think their moral obligations to the putative SecWeb Community are, and that community's obligations to them are, if any.

brighid

Liv,

My question is if someone provides another with a key, does that person have to open the door and then search about the house? What responsibility should one have with regard to the logical conclusions that COULD happen if said person took a tour of the house?

I would like to know if Sakpo was aware of her atheism because not all people who post here are in fact atheists. And is it reasonable to demand that Sakpo had read all of her posts at ii, (some of which turn out to be potentially damaging to personal relationships) before taking further action? And does her expectation to privacy (which doesn't actually exist in this venue) supersede all else?

Do we really have an obligation to take extra or extraordinary measures to protect privacy in a public forum?

I am not sure if Sakpo could have reported her admissions of guilt on this forum without also providing her username. What steps could he have taken to protect an identity she did not personally guard, and at the same time provide anything more then heresay from an Internet Discussion Board?

Sakpo gave this Dean the direct key to specific information regarding BM. That key also gave the Dean indirect ability to further research BM's other claims, activities and thoughts in this public forum. The ethical and proper choice for the Dean is not to read any information not relevant to the plaigirism issue, and if the Dean did read more then the ethical breach is the responsibility of the Dean.

So were do we place the value for ethical action when weighing the possibilities (if all are even known) in this situation. She has no right to privacy on when discussing matters openly and publicly. She would have no more expectation to privacy if she posted her quandry on her dorm room bulletin board. Someone could easily drop that piece of paper in the Deans box and let the Dean do with it as he/she wishes. If that information also led the Dean to look further and find other publicly declared statements that might hurt BM, the fault is on the shoulders of BM AND the Dean for seeking information not relevant to the matter at hand. It is not on the shoulders of the person providing specific information that knowingly, or unknowingly could cause any personal issues for the poster.

I did not get her claims about her atheism, her feelings about her family, or her desire to learn more about vibrators within the context of the original information provided. I had to ask, and I certainly could have looked further but frankly all of that is irrelevant.

It also seems the Dean did not out her to her parents, and it doesn't seem clear that the information from ii has been used to discredit her in any manner. Do we know if the Dean actually LOOKED further into her posts? I agree that the potential for further embarassment of BM's part IS there, but if it never comes to fruition has she actually been harmed? After all, she willingly discussed these things.

Unfortunately, we do have to be careful what we say and especially careful of information we provided publicly and in a searchable and archived electronic venue. We can have no expectation to privacy and we certainly have no right to it here. We want it and I think the vast majority of people here observe those ethical principles.

The Dean could not have known Blue_Metal was the student in question without Sakpos links, but Sakpo (and rest of the world) could not know Blue_Metal is a student named Megan, at Agnes Scott University, writing a paper about Voltaire, who was under the suspicion of plaigirism if not for her own actions. A logical conclusion in this day and age, is that one COULD find out this information through an Internet search given the very specific nature of her postings. If she used a University Internet connection, on a University computer to post here they could easily track her and find the same information.

Even with the potential consequences in THIS situation, I cannot agree that his actions were entirely wrong. No private messages were shared. No fiduciary relationship was breached. No ii rules were broken. The only thing I see is that unfavorable information was provided, that upon a deeper inquiry could discover further information that some might find disfavorable: such as her atheism or her desire to purchase a vibrator. Although I doubt a Dean at an all girls college is naive enough to think girls there aren't in possession of such things

Can there be an ethical breach based on possibilities and not on actualities? If the Dean didn't read further, if she was not outed to her parents or others prematurely, if her academic punishment wasn't any harsher because of this additional information ... what is the real time violation here?

At the same time ... I do understand the discomfort and the reasoning behind your position. It makes me uncomfortable and at a certain level I would hope that what I have posted here isn't ever used against me in some way. It surely could be. However, I am aware of the risk, I attempt to take reasonable precautions and at the same time I sure as shit don't want people to know MORE about me then I have willing provided in other venues. It sure is an ethical quandry we find ourselves in. Ugghhhh .... sigh .... I think I need some icecream.

Brighid