Important: SFN Privacy Policy Update

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Recently it has come to our attention that SFN has not had an official privacy policy for several years, which we think is generally unwise with the current legal climate. Thus, we've gotten together and drafted a new policy that should address any concerns. This policy is available as part of the SFN Forum Rules:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=51&a=14

 

While updating the rules, I have also changed them to reflect the fact that SFN is now hosted in the United Kingdom, and is thus subject to the UK's laws.

 

For your convenience, our new policy is also printed here:

 

To facilitate normal operation and administration of the forum, ScienceForums.net keeps the IP addresses and email addresses used by forum members, as well as whatever personal information they choose to enter in their member profile. Member profiles are public and are not protected by this policy.

 

ScienceForums.net staff will neither release email or IP addresses, nor read or make public private messages, unless one or more of the following conditions applies:

• ScienceForums.net is ordered to do so by a court of law or required to do so by law
  
• Explicit consent is given by the users in question
  
• The data is necessary to protect ScienceForums.net or its staff from legal action
  
• The data is necessary to aid legal or administrative action wherein the user has violated ScienceForums.net policy, the policy of their Internet Service Provider, or applicable law.
  

 

ScienceForums.net will never release or sell private information to other companies or organizations except in the above cases.

 

If you have any questions regarding the privacy policy, you can post here. If you have particular legal concerns or requests, it is best if you direct them to an administrator via private message or to our staff email, staff at scienceforums dot net.

[Genecks]

Does this mean we can continue discussing things, such as guns, energetic chemistry, hacking, Linux, and so on?

 

Will having a server in another country ever present blockades in discussing certain subjects?

[Sayonara]

There is no change to what you can and cannot discuss.

The rule that you cannot have discussions which are prohibited by law (such as planning a bank robbery, which would be conspiracy) still applies, and to be honest the differences between US law and UK law are pretty small insofar as they pertain to that.

 

The reason that the privacy policy is needed is because the Data Protection Act in the UK is very specific about what one can and can't do as a data collecting organisation. We are not entirely convinced that the data we store on users makes the Act applicable to us (for example we don't collect real names and tie them to other identifiable information), but we are complying with it anyway so as to avoid problems if it turns out that's an error of judgement.

[CaptainPanic]

I don't understand point #3:

 

# The data is necessary to protect ScienceForums.net or its staff from legal action

If any organization sues you, even if they cannot ever win it and the reason is silly - will you give up privacy data to avoid the lawsuit, or will you only give the data stored if the continuity of LFN is at risk?

 

To me, it sounds like a very easy way to get info: just sue the forum, and get the info.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's listed because I noticed it in the Data Protection Act as one of the occasions in which we could disclose information. It's really only necessary if, say, someone sues us for libel over claims posted on SFN, so we deflect it by revealing the identity of the person who made the libelous comments.

 

I think in most cases we would defer to the first point, and wait for a court to order us. These conditions all apply under our discretion, of course.

[Genecks]

As such, would the person suing over libel have to reside in the UK?

 

I suspect unless I'm talking trash about someone in the UK (I have no one in mind), a person in the U.S. doesn't have the ability to sue me, because that person would continue to work under U.S. jurisdiction, right?

 

So, that ordeal with that one person 'supposedly' acting like a University of Idaho (right state?) professor couldn't have caused SFN to be sued for libel, because the issue and persons (assuming the supposed impostor resides in the U.S.) are in the U.S.? As such, no information would have been released?

 

Had the defendant resided in the UK, then the information would have to be given up?

 

Also, would there have been a loophole for a defendant residing in the U.S. to use the UK legal system to release user information?

 

I'm suspecting that admins and mods will take a good look at something to determine whether or not it is is libel and worthy of release, right?

 

It seems like any UK SFN member could sue anyone, claim libel, and get our IPs. I doubt without a serious legal case they could get Internet Service Providers to release names of those using the IP and service.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's some interesting legal precedent for this.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/2375.html

 

In that case, a forum owner was sued for the identities of posters who had posted libelous material. The forum owner deferred to the court, letting a judge decide what identities should be released. The judge ruled that only a few identities should be released, since most of the libel wasn't really libelous, and said:

 

The jurisdiction to make such an order was first established by the case of Norwich Pharmacal v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. Lord Reid described the principle as follows (p175): "....if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing, he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. I do not think that it matters whether he became so mixed up by voluntary action on his part or because it was his duty to do what he did. It may be that if this causes him expense the person seeking the information ought to reimburse him. But justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration".

 

If we act in good faith in running the site, we are not liable for libel posted here, but we are obligated to help find the people writing the libel. However, this must be done through court, not just through a threatening legal letter.

 

Libel laws in the UK are very annoying, since the defendant is essentially presumed guilty. I'm not sure about the legal aspect of which country the plaintiff and defendant must reside within, however.

 

The Data Protection Act also prevents us from releasing information to countries outside of the European Economic Area unless appropriate restrictions on its use are made, so we cannot easily release information to the US. This is partly why we created this policy; it spells out the cases in which we will release such information, such as "to tell your ISP you're abusing the system, even if you live in another country."

 

We will not take information release lightly, and will always respect privacy unless we believe we have a genuine legal obligation not to.

[Zolar V]

1. ScienceForums.net is ordered to do so by a court of law or required to do so by law

2. Explicit consent is given by the users in question

The data is necessary to protect ScienceForums.net or its staff from legal action

3. The data is necessary to aid legal or administrative action wherein the user has violated ScienceForums.net policy, the policy of their Internet Service Provider, or applicable law.

 

ScienceForums.net will never release or sell private information to other companies or organizations except in the above cases.

 

Yar! they be makin millions off of id sales