
BBC Says It May Contact Your Boss If You Post Comments It Finds Problematic - breitling
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170517/15232937397/bbc-says-it-may-contact-your-boss-if-you-post-comments-it-finds-problematic.shtml
======
heisenbit
BBC may want to rethink that. Either it is illegal and then the police and
courts are the place or it is legal and then it is none of their business.
What they are threatening is when they perceive their TOS are violated that
they use personal information and interfere in other relationships. This
exposes the BBC to liability e.g. if the person is fired they may ask the BBC
to pay up. See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference)

~~~
Veen
Anything you choose to publish on the BBC's website is their business. It's
not as though they're going around looking for naughty posts on third-party
websites and tattling about it.

There is no automatic right to anonymity when posting on someone else's
website. If you post something publicly, surely the expectation is that you're
fine with anyone seeing it. If the BBC chooses to share that with your boss,
why is it different to anyone else choosing to share it with a member of the
public.

If you don't want everyone to know that you're a dick, don't be a dick in
public.

~~~
nsnick
It doesn't matter whose business it is, the BBC still can't use communication
between you and the BBC to interfere in a relationship you have with your
employer that is illegal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference)

~~~
Veen
An analogy I have in mind might help. Say I write book arguing that a
marginalized group are in fact responsible for all the evils in society. A
publisher chooses to publish that book. Someone decides to send my boss a copy
of the book and I get fired. Do I have cause to sue the sender for tortious
interference?

I don't know what the status of private communications with the BBC would be
in this regard, but if you're using their platform to publish, then I think
that my argument holds.

~~~
npiazza83
The court treats the actions of individuals on a case by case basis. Your
analogy breaks down when codified into a business contract. By stipulating a
course of action that may cause real financial harm. Even if they were to
stipulate fines or other remedies in response to perceived financial harm on
their part the enforcement of such penalties is not their responsibility. They
have taken enforcement powers away from the government.

Think of it like this: If I'm a web developer and I haven't received payment
for my services I can withhold those services or even retain control of the
product I am providing or use the courts to enforce the contract, but if I
used the client's credit card info to enforce fines and pay myself I have
broken the law regardless of whether I put it in the contract.

------
matt4077
I'm no fan of the 'employer' part, because it places companies in a position
as arbitrators of behaviour that they don't deserve.

BUT: Considering the stuff I see people posting online, I do think it's such a
cesspool of hatred, ill-will and really bad arguments that I am concerned how
societies will continue to function, if these interactions become a routine
part of civic society.

In the past, your opinions, and statements were moderated by your peers, i. e.
friends, family, or even strangers (but face-to-face). Sure, that meant a
certain degree of self-censorship in some cases. But apart from some
anarchists notion of "free speech", I have yet to see anything good emerging
from the cauldron of freedom (see /r/the_donald for reference).

Anonymously posting hate-filled comments or fake conspiracies is probably
legal, but that doesn't mean it's good. It has real costs, both in how it may
hurt those it wants to hurt, as well as the toll it has taken on the political
narrative. There needs to be a mechanism to include the author in the fallout
from his comments.

The best I can think of would be connecting posts to the author's Facebook
profile. If your friends all see the stuff you write at bbc.co.uk, you'll be a
bit more circumspect in what you say.

Generally, posts that the author would be ashamed of if their mother read them
are probably something we can do without.

Ideally, we should come up with a mechanism that respects the idea that we all
have multiple public personas, i. e. it's completely legitimate to ask a
question on a sexual health forum but you still don't want your family to see
it. But these 'personas' shouldn't be license to act without taking
responsibility for the consequences.

~~~
interfixus
And who gets to decide what's comme il faut and what is not?

~~~
matt4077
That's kinda the point, thank you very much.

There is a grey area of behaviour that cannot be pinned down with a blunt
instrument like criminal law. These behaviours have traditionally been handled
by the people witnessing them, and with an equally large spectrum of
instruments from just a frown to social exclusion, etc.

So, to directly answer your question: nobody and everybody. By letting the
people you actually interact with on a day-to-day basis know what you're
writing online, the mechanisms of social control continue to function as they
always have.

------
kijeda
Seems like this is just a clumsy way of simply saying they are going to
contact the administrator of the domain your account is associated with (which
may be your employer, school, etc.)

~~~
blowski
Exactly. We may block your account, and send an email to something like
webmaster@yourdomain.com. If that happens to be your boss's email address,
that's your problem.

~~~
bostonpete
The article says:

 _" the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties
such as your employer, school email/internet provider"_

If your comment was what they intended, they would have just referred to
"e-mail provider".

~~~
dismantlethesun
They are clarifying that they'll talk to everyone in the chain, so you don't
think that only Google will hear about it just because your office email is
hosted with Gmail.

------
CaliforniaKarl
Wow, that's confusing.

I know that I know very little about U.K. law, so I would appreciate if
someone there could answer:

\- Do employers typically have law-enforcement duties?

\- Is there a legal presumption of innocence---until proven otherwise---as
there is in the U.S.?

\- Besides TV Licenses, is the BBC a judicial entity?

I'm just trying to understand why the BBC may notify a non-law-enforcement
agency about a possible violation of law.

~~~
dboreham
Some aspects of UK and US culture are quite different and I suspect this is
one. It has been a while since I lived there but I think the general idea is
that it is silly to waste law enforcement resources on absolutely everything.
Some things can be dealt with outside of the police and courts. Even the US
has this with the RIAA/MPAA able to "tattle" on people who are file sharing
directly to their ISP without a police report being filed.

~~~
DanBC
Also, a bit of what the BBC is talking about is either defamation (not
something the police get involved with) or "misuse of company resources" \-
and BBC only wants to use this stick to prevent some of the vile trolling some
of their employees have to put up with.

------
cafard
"Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any
applicable laws (e.g. because content you have posted may be defamatory), the
BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as
your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement, [etc....]"

"in breach of any applicable laws" is not quite the same as "problematic",
even under the modern sense of "a problem" or "something we don't like".

~~~
MichaelGG
They should be turning comments over to the police if they think it's a legal
issue. Which makes me think they don't _really_ think it's about illegal
comments.

------
adamnemecek
Is this another TV detector van?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van)

~~~
JdeBP
No, it is _a WWW site privacy policy_. YCombinator's is at
[http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/](http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/) .
Others have been mentioned on this page.

You can compare to other privacy policies, and note the somewhat ironic fact
that other privacy policies are quite woolly and vague about whom personal
information will be disclosed to for the purposes of protecting the site,
protecting its users, and enforcing terms and conditions of service. For all
users know, these companies and organizations could be disclosing it to some
randomly selected stranger in a faraway country. The U.K. Information
Commissioner has some guidelines for privacy policies, and making it clear
what sort of people personal information will be disclosed to is actually a
good thing, even though the BBC has been somewhat inept about it.

* [https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/privacy-notices-transparency-and-control/)

Rather than the vague "we may disclose information" of Apple, Reddit, and
their ilk, the BBC is trying to point out that the people that it may disclose
information to are going to be the people discoverable from things like
looking up one's IP addresses, which is going to include employers if one
posts to the BBC site from company computers, schools if one does so from
school computers, and so forth.

------
orbitingpluto
Given BBC's coverage as of late, I assume BBC will contact your boss if you
make a pro-Corbyn statement.

This story reminded me of Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen trying to get an anti-
Trumper fired from her position at a bank by outing her to her boss.
([https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/5/15/15640534/r...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/5/15/15640534/rodney-frelinghuysen-bank-employee))

------
threatofrain
Is it problematic if you espouse beliefs about Brexit on BBC's website? Uh oh.
Careful, your boss might know you have unsavory political beliefs.

If a person speaks illegally on a forum, then the right move would be to
contact law enforcement. But if the action falls below law enforcement, then
apparently the BBC has its own enforcement wing when it encounters unsavory
speech. The oversight? BBC's cold cultural calculations and political acumen.
The consequences? Getting someone fired or harassed at work.

------
theandrewbailey
If so, I have a feeling that all those disclaimers stating "my opinions do not
represent my employer's views" are going to have a very different meaning.

------
stubadub
This sounds like it would be a breach of the UK Data Protection Act

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents)

Information shared with third party without consent Providing personal details
to a family member without consent

Any organisation that stores and uses personal data relating to identifiable
living individuals, either on a computer or in a paper filing system, is a
"data controller" for the purposes of the DPA. Data controllers are obliged to
handle personal data in accordance with the eight data-protection principles
set out in schedule 1 to the DPA unless a specific exemption applies. The
first principle is that data must be processed fairly and lawfully, which
requires any processing (including disclosure) to be done either with the
consent of the individual or in order to fulfil legal obligations such as
contractual obligations. This disclosure would be a serious breach of privacy.

~~~
JdeBP
Now see the Information Commissioner guidance for privacy policies that I
hyperlinked at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14370384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14370384)
.

Whilst most privacy policies do not say whom the data are shared with when it
comes to enforcing terms and conditions and protecting the site/its users, the
BBC's privacy policy here _is_. The UKICO guidelines point out that part of
fairness is telling people whom data are going to be disclosed to; which the
BBC is doing.

If one has a gripe against that, then one has a gripe against _everyone_ ,
from Reddit to Amazon. Because _all_ of their privacy policies have clauses
that say, in one form or another, that personal information is disclosed in
order to enforce terms and conditions, and to protect the site/its users.
Reddit's and several others' are elsewhere on this page. Here is Amazon's:

> _We release account and other personal information when we believe release
> is appropriate to comply with the law; enforce or apply our Conditions of
> Use and other agreements; or protect the rights, property or safety of
> Amazon.co.uk, our users or others._

Ironically, the BBC is actually attempting to be the best of the bunch. Other
people actually do not comply with the UKICO guidelines and make no mention of
whom the data are disclosed _to_ in such cases. They just make vague "we
disclose data" statements.

------
LinuxBender
Unless my post is related to my workplace, I am certain my employer would just
tell them to play hide and go f themselves and to stop wasting their time.

This seems to me an attempt to get folks spun up talking about the BBC. Are
they hurting for money?

------
merpnderp
Then I'm glad I'm in the US and work for an organization far more interested
in preserving our fragile and shrinking individual rights than policing
naughty thoughts on the interwebs.

------
mnm1
Simply don't comment on any site/app that has your real information. Imagine
that. Problems solved. Lots of them.

------
ghostDancer
If you don't behave , BBC will tell your parents. No dessert this week.

------
killjoywashere
"BBC Rule 9" is going to be a meme with a history similar to using "cuil" as a
unit of measure, and "Wadsworth constant". Interesting, possibly even valid,
but no one cares.

------
leephillips
Wow, I haven't heard of anyone doing this since Dave Winer.

------
MichaelGG
So if someone's BBC account gets hacked, or an attacker otherwise forges a
comment, how's that going to play out when someone gets incorrectly dismissed?

------
knorker
I'll just contact them with a complaint.

Oh, error 504 gateway timeout. Maybe this article crashed their complaints
department.

------
arjie
Dude. It just means that if you abuse from email@example.com, then example.com
is going to be informed that you're spamming from them or whatever.

------
Fifer82
Ahh UK State Media. I swiftly cancelled my Licence after the Scottish Indy
Ref. I say let the licence fee collapse.

~~~
CommanderData
So it becomes funded by the UK tax system? They are already contemplating
scrapping the fee and increasing taxes to pay for BBC.

~~~
Fifer82
Hopefully we will bail from UK this time and it won't be a problem.

~~~
CommanderData
I doubt Scotland will be leaving the UK, its pretty clear Tories can't risk
loosing Scotland.

------
s73ver
If you post harassing comments, this probably should happen. People are going
to be concerned about free speech, but harassment isn't free speech, and I
honestly don't believe it's a "slippery slope".

~~~
maxpblum
What do you mean when you say you don't believe it's a "slippery slope"? That
the proper boundaries are obvious to everyone?

I think the reason this is okay is that notifying a school or employer of your
behavior is not the same as persecution.

~~~
subway
I see no problem with giving someone a heads up that they've employed an
asshole.

~~~
chrshawkes
Who's your employer?

~~~
subway
It's readily available if you google my name and usernames; available in my
profile.

