Recently, the Cleveland Plain Dealer encountered a commenter on their website- which allows users to post all of their comments anonymously- who made vicious remarks under the user name “lawmiss” about cases involving local judge Shirley Strickland Saffold. It turned out that the commenter was Saffold herself, whom the Plain Dealer in turn exposed for her remarks in an enterprise report by James F. McCarty. Saffold was discovered through a public records request which landed the Plain Dealer her work computer, which showed that someone had logged in to cleveland.com and mad e the very same comments for which she was exposed at the exact time of their publishing.
This heavily implicated Saffold in the act, and she tried to pin it on her daughter so as to avoid further trouble. Now, the judge is suing the Plain Dealer for violating their privacy policy, which she assumed granted her total anonymity under any circumstance. What it actually means, is Saffold attempted to take advantage of her perceived total freedom by making attacks in her comments, and didn’t take the time to read the privacy policy before doing so.
The Plain Dealer’s privacy policy, like most other websites, is not completely private. Younger generations who have grown up with the internet may have an advantage in knowing this almost as common sense, but the internet is a public place. The Plain Dealer’s website has more happening on it than just a group of people delivering news stories. They allow third-party sites access to their database in order to provide them with services, like specialized search engines. This means that your information, once submitted to them, is not only in their hands but in the hands of several other sites that can freely use it. The current privacy policy for cleveland.com states:
“In addition, we reserve the right to use the information we collect about your computer, which may at times be able to identify you, for any lawful business purpose, including without limitation to help diagnose problems with our servers, to gather broad demographic information, and to otherwise administer our Website.”
Needless to say, an investigative report falls under the category of “lawful business purpose.” And this is a story that I am glad came to fruition. Saffold made herself and all judges look bad by abusing her power- or, her power that she believed she had. She didn’t. And now she’s trying to sue the Plain Dealer and someone ought to tell her and her legal team soon that it’s a lost cause.
The situation brings up a debate that is beginning to heat up around the web. Should people be allowed to post comments without giving their real name? Howard Owens of the Batavian wrote an interesting piece about the issue last week, imploring all news websites to begin a new policy that requires real names with comments that are posted. He believes that every reader has a right to know who is saying what about everything.
To an extent, I agree with Mr. Owens. But if everyone began posting with their real name, would we ever get comments from public figures? It makes me question whether there’s even a point to it. Personally, I don’t take comments like the ones Saffold made if they came from an anonymous source. If they are racist, bigoted or simply inappropriate in any way, then the website should simply remove them. If there is a repeated offender, ban the user’s IP address.
That’s not to say those methods would completely eliminate inappropriate comments, but requiring real names might make the well of comments dry up. I’ve always treated the comments section as a form of entertainment, nothing to be taken as serious commentary. Maybe we should call it the “rant and rave” section instead? Either way, eliminating anonymous comments may stop people like Saffold from abusing their preconceived freedoms, but people who already understand their lack of privacy on the internet likely wouldn’t change their behavior.
April 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm
For my final extended blog post project, I wish to do a profile piece on HollywoodEastConnection.com, a news, career and entertainment website devoted to delivering the most up-to-date news and career information on the film and television industries in the New England area.
The website has made great strides in the past year and since its inception, and creator Christine Tello-Lorenz manages the website while simultaneously working as a career coach in Boston. The site currently has a staff of four writers and a webmaster, and operates on several social networks including Facebook and Twitter.
I plan to interview each member of the staff and, if possible, pay a visit to the headquarters and get some photos and/or video. I believe the site is one of the leading places to visit for their niche and will only grow in popularity as the film and television industries continue to grow in New England. They make for a great profile.
March 22, 2010 at 11:07 am
On Anonymous Comments at News Websites and Blogs
Recently, the Cleveland Plain Dealer encountered a commenter on their website- which allows users to post all of their comments anonymously- who made vicious remarks under the user name “lawmiss” about cases involving local judge Shirley Strickland Saffold. It turned out that the commenter was Saffold herself, whom the Plain Dealer in turn exposed for her remarks in an enterprise report by James F. McCarty. Saffold was discovered through a public records request which landed the Plain Dealer her work computer, which showed that someone had logged in to cleveland.com and mad e the very same comments for which she was exposed at the exact time of their publishing.
This heavily implicated Saffold in the act, and she tried to pin it on her daughter so as to avoid further trouble. Now, the judge is suing the Plain Dealer for violating their privacy policy, which she assumed granted her total anonymity under any circumstance. What it actually means, is Saffold attempted to take advantage of her perceived total freedom by making attacks in her comments, and didn’t take the time to read the privacy policy before doing so.
The Plain Dealer’s privacy policy, like most other websites, is not completely private. Younger generations who have grown up with the internet may have an advantage in knowing this almost as common sense, but the internet is a public place. The Plain Dealer’s website has more happening on it than just a group of people delivering news stories. They allow third-party sites access to their database in order to provide them with services, like specialized search engines. This means that your information, once submitted to them, is not only in their hands but in the hands of several other sites that can freely use it. The current privacy policy for cleveland.com states:
Needless to say, an investigative report falls under the category of “lawful business purpose.” And this is a story that I am glad came to fruition. Saffold made herself and all judges look bad by abusing her power- or, her power that she believed she had. She didn’t. And now she’s trying to sue the Plain Dealer and someone ought to tell her and her legal team soon that it’s a lost cause.
The situation brings up a debate that is beginning to heat up around the web. Should people be allowed to post comments without giving their real name? Howard Owens of the Batavian wrote an interesting piece about the issue last week, imploring all news websites to begin a new policy that requires real names with comments that are posted. He believes that every reader has a right to know who is saying what about everything.
To an extent, I agree with Mr. Owens. But if everyone began posting with their real name, would we ever get comments from public figures? It makes me question whether there’s even a point to it. Personally, I don’t take comments like the ones Saffold made if they came from an anonymous source. If they are racist, bigoted or simply inappropriate in any way, then the website should simply remove them. If there is a repeated offender, ban the user’s IP address.
That’s not to say those methods would completely eliminate inappropriate comments, but requiring real names might make the well of comments dry up. I’ve always treated the comments section as a form of entertainment, nothing to be taken as serious commentary. Maybe we should call it the “rant and rave” section instead? Either way, eliminating anonymous comments may stop people like Saffold from abusing their preconceived freedoms, but people who already understand their lack of privacy on the internet likely wouldn’t change their behavior.
April 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm Leave a comment