Slashdot Mirror
Vulgar Comment On Newspaper Site Costs Man His Job
DeeFresh writes "ReadWriteWeb has an article up today discussing an incident in which a school employee lost his job after leaving a comment on the website of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper. After the school employee responded to the newspaper's poll of 'the strangest thing you've ever eaten' with a feline-inspired vulgarity, Kurt Greenbaum, the site's director of social media, tracked down the commenter's identity through his IP address and reported him to school officials. When confronted, the school employee resigned from his job."
RTFA
he did delete the comment and the guy from the school kept posting the same thing multiple times
Now consider the following (bold text by me):
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-editors-desk/the-editors-desk/2009/11/post-a-vulgar-comment-while-youre-at-work-lose-your-job/all-comments/
By mid-morning, a number of folks had commented about their experiences with Bird’s Nest Soup, octopus, cow brains and rattlesnake. Then, while I was in our 10 a.m. news meeting, someone posted in reply a single word, a vulgar expression for a part of a woman’s anatomy. It was there only a minute before a colleague deleted it.
A few minutes later, the same guy posted the same single-word comment again. I deleted it, but noticed in the WordPress e-mail alert that his comment had come from an IP address at a local school. So I called the school. They were happy to have me forward the e-mail, though I wasn’t sure what they’d be able to do with the meager information it included. About six hours later, I heard from the school’s headmaster. The school’s IT director took a shine to the challenge. Long story short: Using the time-frame of the comments, our website location and the IP addresses in the WordPress e-mail, he tracked it back to a specific computer. The headmaster confronted the employee, who resigned on the spot.
So we have an individual who was using work assets to make not one, but two vulgar posts. It kinda makes you wonder how intent was this guy in checking that web page over and over (like many slashdoters do), re-posting the vulgarity as many times as needed... not the type of activity you are supposed to be doing while on the clock (after all, they give you a paycheck for work, not because you are pretty or something.)
The school was in the right in asking the guy "what are you doing, ON THE CLOCK, with OUR COMPUTER ASSETS, posting the same profanity several times?
It is also worth noting that the school didn't fire him, but that he quit on the spot... or so says the story, but that's irrelevant anyways. The guy had it coming.
Now I can't way to see the juvenile posters making this a case of libertarian freedom of speech vs 1984'esque police control and the war on terror.
According to TFA, it happened...twice.
Not a stretch, no, but an abuse of power.
It's not a stretch that someone in the law enforcement would randomly want to run a background check on Barak Obama, but don't try it.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Also following excerpts are from their privacy policy:
Our web servers automatically collect limited information about your computer's connection to the Internet, including your IP address (but not the e-mail address), when you visit our sites. Your IP address does not contain personally identifiable information, nor does it identify you personally.
We will not share individual user information with third parties unless the user has specifically approved the release of that information. In some cases, however, we may provide information to legal officials as described in “Compliance with Legal Process” below.
Greenbaum is the social media editor at the newspaper. A while back he posted the results of a survey which showed that:
61% of his readers did not want the editors deciding what comments were offensive
Given his response to the comments on the article, I don't think he's any closer to understanding what he was told the first time.
That sort of "pay back" would be just as bad as the thing that he did. Better if his employer simply reprimands him for violating the anonymity inherent in the poll he administrated.
Just because he could did not mean he was justified in doing so. The correct action would have been to delete the offensive content, then either (A) remove the anonymity, so that the anonymous user couldn't continue to post or (B) ban that IP for the rest of the poll (or permanently, it's your decision).
Since Kurt evidently violated the site's privacy policy by his actions, and that violation resulted in the wronged party losing his job, it seems to me that Kurt should be out on the street too. A reprimand seems too generous.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
No! There is no reason to do a reverse DNS lookup in order to ban a single IP. Ban the IP and be done with it.
If you find yourself banning multiple IPs that appear to come from the same subnet, then it would be justified to do a reverse DNS lookup for the purposes of banning the whole range. Releasing that data would still be an abuse of power, unless you state in your privacy policy that you reserve the right to do so. They didn't.
Just doing the reverse lookup was a minor abuse of power. Releasing the information, IMHO, was most certainly a punishable abuse of power. He should be at least reprimanded on-the-record (just doing the lookup could perhaps be handled with a friendly hey-you're-doing-it-wrong, I'm-not-writing-you-up-for-it-this-time-but-please-don't-do-that-again).
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
On the very same page!
We may disclose personal information if we or one of our affiliated companies is required by law to disclose personal information, or if we believe in good faith that such action is necessary to comply with a law or some legal process, to protect or defend our rights and property, to protect against misuse or unauthorized use of our web sites or to protect the personal safety or property of our users or the public.