Personalities, honor, and such

While I can see the benefits and risks associated with the use of this code, it seems rather pointless; harsh but to the point. I would define how I see the blogisphere in terms of this topic but such is irrelevant. My point simply is to say that blogs are like encyclopedias at best: they are meant as reference points from which to conduct further research. However, they should not be used as a definitive for anything except a blogger's opinion; and even that is subject to questioning.

This seal of approval might help separate the wheat from the caff but any blog is more subject to erroneous errors and misquotes than a given text book. Regardless of who gives their nod or what code governs, blogs are only as good as their reference material (and poster). Works cited are often the best criteria for judging the validity of its content. The readership must remember to uphold their end to this relation with the blog and its authors as well. In this, they hold the true key to a successful blog.

What do you think about ratings like W3C? I know that Mercola (9/15/2008) is really fuming about such a system being imposed (funded by Big Pharma, no less) upon the "freedom" of the internet.

Overreaction Pal.

Honcode has to do with information handling based on what we get from people who might share confidential information about themselves. Neither Chris nor I nor you will release comment information.

Honcode does not restrict us from revealing anonymity of anyone else on the internet - not that I think this issue will come up - just our commentors. And my disagreement on principle that there is nothing wrong with exposing a pseudo who is misbehaving doesn't mean I have any plans to do so.

OK, here's the HONcode specifics on privacy:

Confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors to a medical/health Web site, including their identity, is respected by this Web site. The Web site owners undertake to honour or exceed the legal requirements of medical/health information privacy that apply in the country and state where the Web site and mirror sites are located.

Principle 3 - Confidentiality

This principle is applicable to all sites, even if your site does not host patient records or store any medical or personal data.

Your site must describe its privacy policy regarding how you treat confidential, private or semi-private information such as email addresses and the content of emails received from or sent to your visitors.

You must inform your visitors whether their data will be recorded in your own database, who can access this database (others, only you, nobody), if this information is used for your own statistics (anonymous or not), or if these statistics are used by third party or other companies. You must also declare if your site uses cookies.

Even if one or more of these points are not relevant to your site, you must state how you handle the following information sent to you by your visitors: (email addresses or/and contact information, names, personal or medical data).
Note:
-In the section describing your privacy policy, mention for which countries the site undertakes to honour or exceed the legal requirements for medical/health information privacy.

This is, of necessity, a bit vague, but I think for the HONcode to be meaningful we should strive to do it well. Many sites display the banner and flagrantly disregard any principle they wish.

As part of our compliance with HONcode, we have a posted policy on privacy:

Confidentiality and Privacy

Confidentiality is more important than any other principle in medical writing. I always change significant data about clinical cases, which can include gender, place, temporal relationships, and other potentially identifying data. Cases are often amalgams of different patients' stories.

Please remember that any information you submit through comments or email are inherently un-secure. If you wouldn't shout it from the rooftops, don't send it to me or post it in a comment. That being said, I will never intentionally divulge personal information or contact information.

Type whatever you will, but your email or comment may become the subject of a new post, and that isn't always a good thing for the commenter.

Additionally, Seed Media Group has its own privacy policy here.

So, while there is wiggle room in these statements, it would seem reasonable to avoid "outing" commenters publicly, otherwise discussion may be inhibited. I'd be in favor of censoring over outing, both of which are not particularly attractive options.

I'd like to emphasize that I do not think anyone on this blog has ever violated any of the principles. But it would be in the interest of maintaining the system's integrity to be as clear as possible. In fact the biggest flame war was not about outing a commenter as such but another blogger---still not a good idea, but different.

Honcode has to do with information handling based on what we get from people who might share confidential information about themselves. Neither Chris nor I nor you will release comment information.

Honcode does not restrict us from revealing anonymity of anyone else on the internet - not that I think this issue will come up - just our commentors. And my disagreement on principle that there is nothing wrong with exposing a pseudo who is misbehaving doesn't mean I have any plans to do so.

Somehow I'm skeptical of the possibility of keeping a firewall between these two areas. Say a pseud says something on their own blog that you have deemed an "outable" offense. I'm having a hard time imagining that your outing of them doesn't require the information they left at via commenting at denialism (either because you needed the comment to know that the did something in your view outable, or because the action of outing itself needed that info).

I have to say that if I were a pseudonymous person on the internet, for whatever my personal reasons are, there is not a chance that I would spend my time here. The simple threat that outing someone is possible, and the absence of any satisfactory explanation of what constitutes an outable offense, is chilling.

Perhaps that's not something the blog authors care about though.

Whoops, the second paragraph should be italicized, as it was quoting MarkH.

I've made a small tweak to our privacy policy, and reviewed HONcode requirements. I'm going to put the badge back up.

I think there is a line between internet flame wars and divulging personal information of visitors to a (largely) medical site. While I'm not fond of flame wars, and I don't wish anyone to feel a "chilling" effect, I think the rest of this issue can be worked out. Most of the disagreement has been outside of the realm of what is covered by HONcode.

As a site that deals with very controversial issues, we will attract controversy. Since no one has been outed, hopefully people will feel free to continue to come here and duke it out. If, FSM forbid, a flame war degenerates into someone being outed against their desires, that would be very unfortunate.

If a visitor's personal information is explicitly and intentionally revealed, I would feel that we are in violation of our promise to the HONcode system, and I'd say a number of mea culpas.

@Nat. I think these realizations should be chilling but they shouldn't be a turn off to this site. We have a policy that we will not use our database in a way that harms the privacy of individuals. We can look at it, and take info from it (which we due for statistics, curiosity etc.), but we won't then use that to out a commentor.

You're better off here than most places that won't make such a promise. This is quite separate from my philosophy (and not PAL or my brother) that pseudonymity is not a free pass for people to misbehave on their own blogs. If you comment here, Honcode means I won't use our database. However, even so, google defeats most anonymity on the internet with minimal skill. This is a separate issue from how we have chosen to handle information here.

It's still two separate issues. The Honcode exists so that if someone comes here to talk about some growth on their penis, we won't publish their name under flashing lights saying "this guy has genital warts". If you're going to have a medical website in which people want to discuss potentially embarassing medical information, that information really must be kept private. It doesn't exist so that people can put up their pseudonymity shield on their websites, then proceed to attack others with impunity - which is what some do.

I think these realizations should be chilling but they shouldn't be a turn off to this site. We have a policy that we will not use our database in a way that harms the privacy of individuals.

The policy is all well and good, and I applaud it. But you have also made comments on this blog and others which leave me with the impression that you would stop at nothing to out someone who had crossed the line in your view. I find that chilling.

So, how many comments made on your blog are sufficient to "immunize" a person from a potential retaliatory strike from you? Does it make the immunization stronger if the commenter also divulges a piece of personal medical information?

You're better off here than most places that won't make such a promise.

Sure, but here I'm more concerned with a place that makes a promise, but offers what appears to be lukewarm support for that promise.

This is quite separate from my philosophy (and not PAL or my brother) that pseudonymity is not a free pass for people to misbehave on their own blogs.

I agree with that. I guess it's just my view that asshattery behind a pseudonym can be dealt with by without resort to threats of outing. Internet communities have dealt with trolls since time immemorial.

If you comment here, Honcode means I won't use our database. However, even so, google defeats most anonymity on the internet with minimal skill.

But the pseuds I know are worried about exactly that: that 'outing' them enables an easy Google search to turn up their real life identities. So how can threats of outing have any strength behind them if it's already so easy to defeat?

It's still two separate issues. The Honcode exists so that if someone comes here to talk about...potentially embarassing medical information, that information really must be kept private. It doesn't exist so that people can put up their pseudonymity shield on their websites, then proceed to attack others with impunity - which is what some do.

Ok, so maybe you need to really strongly clarify the code. Make it absolutely crystal clear what type of comments trigger the Honcode protection, and what kinds do not. Perhaps you could label your posts to warn the commenters.

I think you may be reading entirely too much into this post, Nat. Perhaps it's triggering something in you, but I don't think PalMD and MarkH are saying what you think they are saying. Take a deep breath, and read through it fresh. I think you may be overreacting.

If you comment here, Honcode means I won't use our database. However, even so, google defeats most anonymity on the internet with minimal skill. This is a separate issue from how we have chosen to handle information here.

Just so we're very clear on your position, are you saying that--while HONcode forbids you from using your database to out someone who comments here--you consider yourself free to use Google in combination with any publicly accessible information such a commenter has posted here in order to identify such a commenter and then attack them using any means necessary, so long as you have made the determination for yourself that they have engaged in something you consider to be "misbehavior"?

This is where the unknown and developing ethics of the blogosphere come in. It's not an "HONcode thing". Is there anything unethical about google-fu? I don't know. I do know that commenters have and will continue to google-fu each other and the authors. It's going to be a topic at SciOnline09 i think, as this is a funny area. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of people googling with malice, but...

Is there *ever* an expectation of privacy on the internet? Outside of certain secure (ha!) communities, everything on the 'net is public. Public information carries no expectation of privacy. The issue with HONCode is whether medical information should be considered confidential. Anything else on the 'net can and will be found. Generally, don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in public.

This is where the unknown and developing ethics of the blogosphere come in.

Absolutely. MarkH is a front-runner in this area, and seems to be taking a very specific and definitive ethical position concerning the range of appropriate responses to speech that occurs in the blogosphere. For that reason, I think it is very important for his position to be rendered absolutely clear.

As far as I can tell, that position is that if one encounters speech in the blogosphere that one deems to be lies, shitty, or otherwise "misbehavior", then one should consider oneself free, or maybe even obligated, to launch an attack using any means necessary on whoever promulgated that speech, including outing, Dooceing, letter-writing campaigns, nuclear options, etc.

I guess this is kind of like the Wild-Wild-West vision of the blogosphere, analogous to the idea that everyone is very polite in public in places where concealed carry handguns are prevalent, because you never know whether the next person you encounter is gonna be the one to blow your motherfucking head off for a perceived slight. If this is the vision of the blogosphere that MarkH is supporting, then I think it is important that we all be very clear on it.

CPP, since you continue to insist on making this personal, I'd like to note one thing. I've seen Mark's ethics in action, under stress. I've seen just how blazingly angry he can be without needing to out anyone. The fact that he has said he won't take the option off the table doesn't change that.

Neither will your Faux News-type "But Mark hasn't said exactly what he'll do in some vague but ridiculously simplified scenario; where is the bright line?" prodding. Seriously, dude, you sound like like a wingnut going after Obama.

I have a fair amount of trust in Mark's ethics because he's demonstrated them. I don't know that I'd agree with him in all situations, but I at least believe he's not going to go in for petty attacks because he doesn't like someone. I'd be much more worried if he did go in for the kind of hard-and-fast rule you're pushing for.

Ok, my response got pretty long, so I broke it into two parts. Here's the first part.

Pal said: If a visitor's personal information is explicitly and intentionally revealed, I would feel that we are in violation of our promise to the HONcode system, and I'd say a number of mea culpas.

Then why not be more proactive about it, and explicitly disavow the practice?

LanceR, JSG said: I think you may be reading entirely too much into this post, Nat. Perhaps it's triggering something in you, but I don't think PalMD and MarkH are saying what you think they are saying. Take a deep breath, and read through it fresh. I think you may be overreacting.

Perhaps I am reading too much into this point, which is why I am asking for clarification (but as I stated, my concerns do not arise solely from this post). I consider this type of discussion to be critical to fostering the climate in the science blogosphere I think will be most beneficial for us all.

Furthermore any hypothetical scenario I propose is to aimed at exactly the same clarification as well. It is not petty lawyering. It is a series of thought experiments to force us all to consider how we would apply our principles into actions. These questions are hard and annoying, but to just say essentially "trust me" is not enough. The HONCode is there to do that, but as I said, the commitment to that code is in doubt in my mind.

Thus, I still would like people to answer this hypothetical:

Assume that MarkH gets in a fracas (man, I love that word) with a pseudonymous blogger, which consists of each making comments on the other site. Thus, MarkH is now in possession of information regarding that pseud.

Next, the pseud in some way crosses MarkH's line and acts in a way that MarkH deems sufficient to justify outing the pseud's real life identity (but not something illegal). How will he proceed?

Does your answer change depending on how many comments the pseud made on MarkH's blog?

Does it change if in some comment on MarkH's blog, the pseud revealed some piece of medical information?

LanceR, JSG said:Is there *ever* an expectation of privacy on the internet? Outside of certain secure (ha!) communities, everything on the 'net is public. Public information carries no expectation of privacy.

This question of whether a reasonable expectation of anonymity on the internet actually exists is an interesting one, but in my view somewhat beside the point.

It seems obvious to me that as has been discussed elsewhere, there are varying levels of anonymity, depending on the ease of breaking through that veil, if you will. Of course no one can stop the sophisticated detective who is intent on finding out a pseud's real life identity.

But below that, there is a set of searches which a pseudonym can protect a real life identity. That this level of protection, and the expection of such, actually exists seems hard to deny, or else the threat to out someone would be completely empty.

My analogy to it is locking your car doors. Sure, locked doors can't stop a determined theif, nor are they meant to. But they will stop a whole host of knuckleheads from stealing or trashing your car. In my view, a person who outs a pseud is essentially equivalent to a person who goes around unlocking people's cars, while leaving the doors closed. Sure, they might not actually invite another person to act badly, but in some way they have made it significantly easier.

LanceR, JSG said: ...The issue with HONCode is whether medical information should be considered confidential.

This is simply wrong by my reading of the HONCode privacy statement:

"Confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors to a medical/health Web site, including their identity, is respected by this Web site. The Web site owners undertake to honour or exceed the legal requirements of medical/health information privacy that apply in the country and state where the Web site and mirror sites are located." (emphasis added).

Is this really a discussion about how one or two bloggers, who are OTT in taking the piss out of whoever (seemingly) disagrees, wants everyone to promise no retribution or revenge no matter how bad it gets?

Advice: If you don't want to get someone's foot jammed up your bum, do not turn around, bend over, point to the nether region and say "Kiss my ass, fuckhead."

To us (in the UK) the entirety of the US is the Wild Wild West. But what I see here is an out of control arsehole or two playing bully on the playground rules.

These people should be outed by the first chap with the cobblers to do it.

Is this really a discussion about how one or two bloggers, who are OTT in taking the piss out of whoever (seemingly) disagrees, wants everyone to promise no retribution or revenge no matter how bad it gets?

This is a boring canard in this debate. No one is saying that actions on the internet don't have consequences. The question is how far are other people willing to go in retaliating against other people they don't agree with. Should that include threats of outing a pseudonymous identity?

Advice: If you don't want to get someone's foot jammed up your bum, do not turn around, bend over, point to the nether region and say "Kiss my ass, fuckhead."

Wow, a stunning take on speech and civil society. Forgive me if I don't share your take on it. In fact, I'd say that the person spouting the "kiss my ass" is the one needing protection.

To us (in the UK) the entirety of the US is the Wild Wild West. But what I see here is an out of control arsehole or two playing bully on the playground rules.

Well, if you're including me in the (I'm not sure, it's not completely clear from what you wrote), then I hardly see how I'm bullying. I'm not saying anyone should be forced to stop blogging, I'm not even advocating that people stay away from this blog. Hell, I'm here interacting with it. What I want to do is make everyone clearer on what the basic understanding is. THen people who are pseudonymous can make their own decision on whether to interact with the bloggers and commenters here.

These people should be outed by the first chap with the cobblers to do it.
I dunno, I've been in my cobbler's shop recently to get my shoes repaired, and somehow I don't think he's the one with the skillz of Google-fu to out somebody.

I'm hoping that PalMD and MarkH will respond, and continue the discussion. Especially regarding the hypothetical regarding outing someone who comments on denialism.