September 28, 2006

11:41 AM

Lately, we seem to do a lot of googling-and-posting of whatever personal info we can find. It's publicly available stuff, but it's proven to be a pretty powerful tool for getting to people, and it seems like using that power often might lead us down a certain road we might not want to take. Should there be some kind of guidelines or boundaries?
posted by koeselitz to etiquette/policy at 11:41 AM (65 comments total)

First of all lets not bring other web communities into this. Secondly, I agree. Dont get into the personal online affairs of people.
posted by wheelieman at 11:47 AM on September 28, 2006

I can't think of guidelines or boundaries that wouldn't be (a) overly restrictive to the point of prohibiting harmless and/or beneficial googling; and (b) impossible to practically police without Matt & Jessamyn combing through every single post on the site.

My only suggestion is that there be some sort of warning on the signup page (or perhaps on the AskMe posting page), that reminds people that their MeFi account is only as private as they make it, and that any info linked to them on the WWW is fair game.
posted by googly at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2006

all the funny images posted on MeTa are stolen from SA anyway, we might as well become MetaAwful
posted by matteo at 11:51 AM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I completely agree with the sentiment that people go too far and reveal information that isn't kosher. Unfortunately, the people who often engage in this activity are very small in number and either don't understand or don't care about the consequences. Personally, I think that publicly banning these types of people and making an example of them would be the best course of action to deter future transgressions. Unfortunately, I think you'd have a hard time trying to convince management of this course of action.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:55 AM on September 28, 2006

It is both extremely lame and potentially very useful, sort of like torture. Anyone who does it is an asshole and usually the result will just be a pile of useless shit, but occasionally you get to an important piece of info. Can't find a link right now, but there was that guy in California who kept asking questions -- in a roundabout way -- about how to rip people off on EBay by selling them laptops and never delivering. He was outed and now anyone who does a careful Google for the guy will come upon that thread and be warned.

I would still condemn the person who did the search and posted his personal info, though. Y'dig?
posted by solid-one-love at 11:55 AM on September 28, 2006

This reminds me of the thread where someone said that if someone was dumb enough to smoke meth, then they were better of dead anyway.

Anyone foolish enough to post really personal questions to AskMe without doing their due diligence first (I mean, would you go ask strangers on the subway these questions?) gets what they deserve.

Which is to say, no one deserves this, but then again, no one should post these kinds of highly personal questions on AskMe in the first place.
posted by GuyZero at 12:04 PM on September 28, 2006

I almost always remove personal info when I see it and I feel it is unwarranted, or when the subject of the "outing" requests it.

I just think in the heat of the moment people get into a mob mentality where they want to attack someone or make them vulnerable and they go too far with this junk. I think we're better than that and I discourage it wherever possible, but I can't think of a way to eliminate it completely.
posted by mathowie at 12:04 PM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

That ebay scammer was airnxtz.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:06 PM on September 28, 2006

matteo writes "all the funny images posted on MeTa are stolen from SA anyway, we might as well become MetaAwful"

SA had a brand new day too?
posted by Mitheral at 12:10 PM on September 28, 2006

That ebay scammer was airnxtz.

See that's the point. We get email from people who get targeted in MetaTalk like that, who want mathowie and I to remove threads, delete comments, etc. Often they're self-linkers and we usually don't remove stuff, but sometimes they're just random mefites gone astray and people go after them or their families (the rinkjustice episode comes to mind). Now I'm not saying that airnxtz wasn't a drain on the community and a Bad Man, but hyperlinking people specifically in that way just seems goonlike and tacky.
posted by jessamyn at 12:18 PM on September 28, 2006

With things like Zabasearch available nowadays, pretty much anybody can get your personal info. of course, the quality of that info is often suspect, but the uses to which this info is put is something we're going to have to have a big talk about at some point, so it might as well be now. We being pretty much the entire nation.

I think if it's online, it's fair game, but this doesn't absolve you from the duty to not be an asshole.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 12:21 PM on September 28, 2006

posted by interrobang at 12:23 PM on September 28, 2006 [7 favorites]

I can't think of a way to eliminate it completely

I suppose you can't eliminate anything completely — but as SeizeTheDay suggests, the solution is, instead of just removing the comments, you ban anyone who posts them and make a public example. The fact that you don't, makes it look like you believe the site is harmed more by self-link FPPs or jokey AskMe threads than antics that can actually affect people.

I mean, I thought RustyBottoms was a dipshit, too, but I'd like to think we can remain above a level where we're mailing stuff to his house — and if not, then I don't think anything self-linkers or PrettyGeneric could do will bring us lower.
posted by cribcage at 12:23 PM on September 28, 2006

Yeah, simple, we shouldn't do it, and Matt should delete it when it is done.

Yes, it's "out there", but people ought to be able to put stuff on the net without having to worry it'll tracked down and used against them.

Similarly, yes, it's legal for me to come to your house, go through your trash, and catalogue your used condoms, sanitary napkins, tossed out first drafts, and medicine bottles, but it's not nice or in the spirit of community.
posted by orthogonality at 12:24 PM on September 28, 2006

We being pretty much the entire nation. - Mr. Gunn

Because, you know, all MeFites come from only ONE nation. *cough*
posted by raedyn at 12:37 PM on September 28, 2006

Afraid we'll find out that you're really Peter Gast?
posted by klangklangston at 12:39 PM on September 28, 2006

That would be the Indig Nation, right?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:39 PM on September 28, 2006

"It is both extremely lame and potentially very useful, sort of like torture. "

I condemn using torture to force MeTa posts.
posted by klangklangston at 12:41 PM on September 28, 2006

raedyn: "We being pretty much the entire nation. - Mr. Gunn

Because, you know, all MeFites come from only ONE nation. *cough*"

Hey, I can only speak for myself, you'll have to handle things on your side of the pond. I do think it's something the nation that I'm part of will have to talk about sooner rather than later.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 12:57 PM on September 28, 2006

I'd even go so far as to say that sometimes it's right to google and post somebody's info. But the difference is between the googling and the posting. Once you know something about somebody, there are a host of things you can do about it. If it's potentially dangerous, you can email/call/otherwise talk to whoever's involved, but you don't have to bring it here. In fact, really the only case I can think of where publicizing personal googled info is a great idea is when outing a scammer of some kind.

It's funny; as an internet community, we aim at transparency and responsiveness; we don't really like sock puppets, because they're divisive, and we want a certain degree of honesty. But a certain amount of anonymity is the grease that oils the machine, really.
posted by koeselitz at 12:57 PM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

klangklangston: "Afraid we'll find out that you're really Peter Gast?"

Oh, shit. Matt, please delete this thread.
posted by koeselitz at 1:00 PM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I really don't see what the issue is. The internet is a public place; probably the most public of places. If you can find something just by typing information someone chose to make public in their profile into Google I hardly see that counts as a violation of "privacy".

Anything on any web page that is not protected by some kind of authentication system is public. Livejournal / Myspace / random message boards? Public. The fact that some people just don't get this is purely their problem.

Anywaym, someone who uses such public information to be a jerk is still going to be a jerk without it.
posted by Riemann at 1:31 PM on September 28, 2006

It does seem shitty and tactless, in many cases. More, it seems like dick waving of a particular sort: "See what I can do?" It's distasteful and should be discouraged as a community norm. I don't think it should be legislated.
posted by OmieWise at 1:51 PM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

it seems like dick waving of a particular sort: "See what I can do?" It's distasteful and should be discouraged as a community norm.

Exactly. The fact that something can be ferreted out using Google doesn't mean it should be hyperlinked forever and always to someone's MetaFilter username or to their real name. It's not about violating privacy as much as it's about not being a jerk on MetaFilter. It's bad form and causes us a lot of adminnish headaches when people want things removed/deleted/expurgated.
posted by jessamyn at 2:06 PM on September 28, 2006

Some of us are on the same side of the pond, and yet are part of a different nation. Stick that in your geopolitical awareness organ.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:08 PM on September 28, 2006

I gotcher geopolitical awareness organ... right *here*!

(Just imagine the obscene gesture I made. )
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:34 PM on September 28, 2006

Hmm, weird -- I don't see anything wrong with googling people and finding out stuff, though I guess whether/what one posts would depend upon the context. [I googled and posted something sorta boring about D. Bruce McMahan, the weird rich guy sleeping with his bio-daughter (apparently he's delivering the dream).] I guess I'd be bummed if someone posted my home address or my cell phone number, but if it's already find-able through google is it worse if it's on MetaFilter? OR -- are we talking about information that isn't really findable through google -- but it's people putting together a bunch of facts that they've aquired through hanging out on this site, and using google to get more information?
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 2:35 PM on September 28, 2006

First of all lets not bring other web communities into this.

Well, enlighten me. What awful something happened at that other web community that even makes it relevant to this discussion?
posted by crunchland at 2:51 PM on September 28, 2006

I don't see why people need to post personal information in a thread anyway; other than to say "Look at me, I'm so smart!" If you have a lead on a self-linker, take that shit to e-mail. Srsly, guys, how hard is it to e-mail m/j the information you've found out and recommend for deletion? Yeah, playing detective is fun, and it's neet to share with the community, but all it takes is one false positive to ruin someone's life. Instead of saying, "The site registers to a Richard Cheese at 221 Elm St." say something like "a routine WHOIS lookup shows a match between the poster's info and the site owner." That's not hard to do, and it looks a lot less like a five-year-old holding something up and going "teacher, look what I found" hoping to get a gold star for tattling first.
posted by Eideteker at 3:03 PM on September 28, 2006

more clearly:

"a routine WHOIS lookup shows a match between the poster's info and the site owner, and I've e-mailed matt and jess the info."

And that's if you need to post it in MeTa at all. Which you generally don't.
posted by Eideteker at 3:05 PM on September 28, 2006

1) if the info is out there, it's out there

2) i think people need a damned good reason for doing this, and often they don't

3) i've had it done to me on another forum ... i mocked the person who did this cruelly and mercilessly and he soon slunk away

expect the same if anyone does it here to me
posted by pyramid termite at 3:14 PM on September 28, 2006

Or we could dig up information on absolutely everyone on the site and we'd all be on an equal basis.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:23 PM on September 28, 2006

I was annoyed in my last question on AskMe that someone linked my question to my post on the Consumerist. I knew it could be done easily, but maybe there's a reason I have 2 different screen names and e-mail addresses. It wasn't so much that he knows I'm the same person - it's that he posted it here AND there, and now the entire world knows.
posted by IndigoRain at 4:39 PM on September 28, 2006

Wow. That's (what happened to you) just creepy, IndigoRain. Mr. Gunn went way too far. That's what e-mail is for, people.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:51 PM on September 28, 2006

I dunno. We praise people who out self-linkers, but we condemn people who post "private" information. That's like telling a cat she walk on the desk, but not on the dining room table.
posted by crunchland at 4:53 PM on September 28, 2006

That's like telling a cat she walk on the desk, but not on the dining room table.

Makes sense to me.
posted by sonofsamiam at 5:00 PM on September 28, 2006

I think it's naive to assume that you can use the same handle all over the interwebs & not have people occasionally snoop around looking for details on you.

There would, however, have to be a couple of caveats on this:

1. People may use different sites for different purposes. Online behaviour might be tongue-in-cheek, trolling, etc & the reader may have no way of discerning what is real from what is a mask. This fracturing & falsification of identity is one of the oldest cliches of the interwebs, yet people may get so overexcited about finding person X's behaviour elsewhere that the thrill of this discovery causes them to forget this simple fact.

2. Perhaps the easiest way to cover one's tracks is to engage in identity theft. For example, if I felt like trolling somewhere, I might consider using a googlable handle like "xteraco". 99.9 times out of 100 there would be no kind of identity check preventing this. This would be particularly fun if I had some sort of grudge against this person in real life & wanted to give them a bad name or fill their inbox with hatemail.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:37 PM on September 28, 2006

I take it the personal stuff was removed from the fr0zen thread? How did they even find out who the guy was?
posted by delmoi at 5:50 PM on September 28, 2006

They googled his handle and his e-mail address.
posted by interrobang at 5:57 PM on September 28, 2006

i think the answer delmoi was after is that fr0zen listed xteraco as a contact (and vice versa), with epithets such as, lover, soulmate, muse, partner, etc.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:25 PM on September 28, 2006

Wow that xteraco/fr0zen thread was fascinating. I think people were a little hard on him after he posted, though, I mean most people would be pretty upset if there was a thread full of people trying to get his girlfriend/source of income to dump him.
posted by delmoi at 6:30 PM on September 28, 2006

Wow there seems to be a lot crazy stuff going on ask these days. I need to spend more time over there.
posted by delmoi at 6:37 PM on September 28, 2006

Didn't this happen with realcountrymusic? He was a great guy and poster. Thank god we flushed out that good-for-nothing asset to MetaInc.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:51 PM on September 28, 2006

I find the detective work shit to be fascinating and, frankly, awesome. Then again, the sheer amount of crap that could probably be dug up about me makes me think twice about saying anything more.
posted by Bageena at 7:49 PM on September 28, 2006

Part of the big problem with the google attacks is that it removes all context. When you google someone's screen name, you find stuff where you often don't know how old it is, what the site is about, what sort of discussion or flamewar is going on, etc. It can be used out of context just like using a snippet of a quote can be used creatively to damage someone's character.

And besides, who of us doesn't have embarrassing posts or sites they've been involved with in the past? It just seems petty to bring it up unless its something serious and relevant, like the ebay scammer mentioned above.
posted by rsanheim at 8:01 PM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

koeselitz, thanx much for reminding me of the SA forums. Gritty, but worth the gems, and maybe not down all the friggin' time?
posted by telstar at 8:20 PM on September 28, 2006

Didn't this happen with realcountrymusic?

As the guy who linked out of curiosity the article realcountrymusic had written (I think that's what it was, it's been a while), I feel obligated to point out - again - that realcountrymusic had been outed as a music professor, by name, at MeFi before, and had responded positively to the identification. I didn't realize that he'd, as he later put it, been having conflicting feelings about that in the months since. He also said there were other issues that led to his decision to leave for a while (he's since come back at least once). What I'd taken as a kind of "aw shucks" modesty turned out to be more serious, but I still think it's wrong to use rcm's case as an example of this kind of more mean-spirited "outing."

Anyway, I agree that googling fr0zen's bf's info was irrelevant to that AskMe thread, and shouldn't have happened, and that dick-waving Googling of fellow members is wrong. Googling of self-linkers I'm fine with, though. Fuck self-linkers.
posted by mediareport at 11:12 PM on September 28, 2006

Oh yeah, it was a Wikipedia talk page, which I linked after rcm made some vague attacks on Wikipedia.
posted by mediareport at 11:18 PM on September 28, 2006

Posting personal information on the Something Awful forums is a bannable offense, dumbshit, so what the fuck are you talking about?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:36 PM on September 28, 2006

I use my real name here and so far, I haven't had anyone come to my door any shoot me or beat me up. Keep up, losers.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:24 AM on September 29, 2006

come to by door and shoot me

How's that edit feature coming, btw?
posted by bob sarabia at 12:26 AM on September 29, 2006

I must be in the minority, I think comments like these: [1] [2]
are fucking awesome, although I guess the difference is that there's no malice involved in those.
posted by juv3nal at 12:31 AM on September 29, 2006

juv3nal writes "I must be in the minority, I think comments like these: [1] [2]"

Man, where has thomcatspike been? I wish he came around here more often...



I've only been googled at once, in the middle of some stupid pissing contest or another. I found it pretty creepy; way out of proportion with how I would have expected to feel about it. It just came off as so aggressive....
posted by mr_roboto at 1:01 AM on September 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

dumbshit

Was that directed at me? I do like to keep track.
posted by mediareport at 5:25 AM on September 29, 2006

*coffeeless brain makes obvious connection*

nevermind.
posted by mediareport at 5:33 AM on September 29, 2006

What I'd taken as a kind of "aw shucks" modesty turned out to be more serious, but I still think it's wrong to use rcm's case as an example of this kind of more mean-spirited "outing."

Actually I think it's a great example of the slippery slope of posting what could be construed as personal info. You are the last person in the world that I would believe did so out of malice. I was just responding to the results of such actions regardless of how innocuous it seems.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:59 AM on September 29, 2006

I agree. I think RCM's case is perfect because it illustrates that malice needn't be intended in order for harm to be done — which is why we'd want a specific prohibition against posting other people's information, rather than assuming that it's already covered by, "Don't be a dick."
posted by cribcage at 8:10 AM on September 29, 2006

I'd even go so far as to say that sometimes it's right to google and post somebody's info.

Other than circumstances where a crime is about to be committed or someone is otherwise in danger, I can't think of any justification for this. Explain?

if it's already find-able through google is it worse if it's on MetaFilter

Absolutely- finding someone's info on Google requires work (to a greater or lesser degree). Pointing it out on MeFi is just bad manners.

BTW- You're all welcome to Google the shit out of my name. I share it with (a) a well-known journalist in my NYC borough and (b) that video blogger who got tossed in jail, so I'm fairly well lost in the morass.
posted by mkultra at 9:10 AM on September 29, 2006

"I've only been googled at once, in the middle of some stupid pissing contest or another. I found it pretty creepy; way out of proportion with how I would have expected to feel about it. It just came off as so aggressive...."

I've been googled a couple of times both here and in other forums. I even had someone threaten to come to my house to kick the shit out of me.
He lived a couple of states over, and purported to give me a time to expect him. I wasn't home (sorry, had to work), but I told him he could wait on my stoop until I got home. He obviously got tired of waiting.
(Though I can say that through what I consider not all that inflamatory writing signed with my real name, I've had death threats, including some over a POSITIVE record review that apparently wasn't glowing enough, so I may be a little more blasé).
posted by klangklangston at 9:16 AM on September 29, 2006

Ah. man... I never get death threats. You guys are so lucky!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:20 AM on September 29, 2006

You're all welcome to Google the shit out of my name. I share it with (a) a well-known journalist in my NYC borough and (b) that video blogger who got tossed in jail...

I'm pretty easy to find, 'cause of my show on ESPN.
posted by cribcage at 10:04 AM on September 29, 2006

mkultra: "Other than circumstances where a crime is about to be committed or someone is otherwise in danger, I can't think of any justification for this. Explain?"

Frankly, in the circumstances you list, I don't think it's best to google-and-post. Of course googled information should be used, but posting to MeFi is the absolute worst way to prevent imminent crime or danger. Unless someone starts systematically killing off major mefi personalities. (In which case we'd probably be better off letting the thing run its course, and then selling the film rights.) Otherwise, matt or the cops or somebody could probably use your info better.

No, really, the only situation where it seemed beneficial to me was the airnxtz case, which somebody pointed out upthread. That is: if somebody's a scammer. It helps the community to know who's a scammer, and it prevents other peoples' losses. Of course, self-linkers are included in this.
posted by koeselitz at 10:43 AM on September 29, 2006

See, I think even that is a bad idea. As much of a douchebag the guy seems to be, engaging in this kind of vigilantism is a slippery slope. What if, for whatever reason, there's a misunderstanding and he's done nothing wrong? You can't take back your post.

And to what end are you posting his personal info? It's not going to help the next victim on eBay. His neighbors probably don't care. Although it's not crossing the line, it's certainly taking a turn down the road of incitement to violence that is an accepted limit on free speech. As responsible adults, I think we would do well not to set that example.
posted by mkultra at 11:29 AM on September 29, 2006

I don't see why people need to post personal information in a thread anyway; other than to say "Look at me, I'm so smart!" If you have a lead on a self-linker, take that shit to e-mail.

I wholeheartedly agree, especially in cases like mine where nothing was gained by saying "everyone go look at this Consumerist post!" Mr. Gunn used the excuse that he was excited because it was the first time he'd ever seen someone posting on 2 sites he goes to and using 2 different names. Yet he himself uses 2 different screen names there and here. He should have e-mailed me. Then he posted the AskMe link there, resulting in my having to go clarify my motives. I was simply unsure of my opinions and asked Metafilter... that's all.

The AskMe thread did not profit in any way by "outing" me. I think that in cases like this where it's not a scam or something, and it doesn't contribute anything to the thread, it should be deleted.
posted by IndigoRain at 4:44 PM on September 29, 2006

In my defense, I think it did add context. I gained insight into why you're so cranky when you post at the Consumerist. ;-)

Just kidding - I think you're great, and that you add value to the discussions in which you participate. Honestly, I just happened to come across the two posts one right after the other, and I posted the cross links because I thought it was neat to make the connection. It's only human to want to know more about people which whom you interact, right?

In case you or anyone else is worried, I'll email or refrain from posting next time if I think it'll upset someone.

I didn't mean any harm, so please don't hate me. I'm really a nice guy.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 1:13 PM on September 30, 2006