New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
@sortofnewbie, I actually think you're right to raise the points you have, and I think the provider is just being risk averse, or sees the issue as a time-suck.
What I've learned from hosting is that the provider doesn't have to be rational or fair to provide hosting, and in that respect it's sometimes not worth trying to 'educate' or elaborate on the point you're trying to make. Perhaps moving host and the (usual) couple of hours work involved is the path of least resistance.
@OkieDoke yes, thank you.
Before I posted the link to the blog post, most of the people on this site said the only circumstances where a VPS provider should order people to remove content is if it's illegal (child porn etc).
My post is just a simple blog post, a bit trollish (as I warned) but there's nothing extraordinary about it. I simply republished with commentary statements that this guy made in a public forum, and then if it was him who made the complaint, he tried to bolster it by accusing me of having harassed and stalked him when he previously said he had no idea who i was
I didn't see anything too alarming in this blog post. Nothing that warrants taking it down according to me.
You chose to name him, that could not be considered anything less than embarrassing and you agreed to these terms on sign up:
So refer to my earlier post:
Rules to live by when buying hosting:
1) If you don't like it don't sign up.
2) If you did not read it don't complain.
3) If you have to wonder if something is OK you should probably ask first.
You either read the term and ignored it or did not read it and decided to complain afterwards in either even it is your fault.
Morals and legal stand points don't really come in to it, you agreed to that term which you yourself quoted before you had to hand over a penny so all DO did was enforce what was agreed to well in advance.
I don't see any problem here.
If you read the terms, it says "or to harass AND embarrass." Harassment is quite serious, and usually involves a repetitive cycle (i.e. re-posting the same information); it's on the extreme side of things to accuse the OP of harassment in my opinion. Furthermore, in society, people will often attempt to "cover-up" situations that cause them embarrassment.
TL;DR: http://thedirty.com/
@AnthonySmith
How did the OP violate the privacy of that guy when the details were in the public domain and posted by the "victim" himself?
There was nothing defamatory either, as far as I could tell. The only valid point I can see from their TOS would be the "embarass"-point.
DO has a very weird TOS. I have never seen a host with a TOS like this
You're right, though, that it is very important to read these documents before buying their service.
Well playing on words is a bit of a weak argument.
When you play in the park you can play on the swings and the slide.
That does not mean at the same time or both have to be true.
Again bottom line is the terms state what they state, they were agreed to and then broken, all DO asked was that the OP complied. I don't see a problem with that.
The only valid point I can see from their TOS would be the "embarass"-point.
That it in a nut shell, you don't need multiple violations in order to act, just that.
It's public source. Hardly called invasion of privacy, defamation or harrasment. Imagine, I quote your post above, comment it and then I am in pretty much in the same situation as OP.
My argument does not play on words, but rather logic. Here's how I see it:
AND - Both A and B must be true
OR - A or B can be true, or both
Furthermore, I stated that I felt he did not harass anybody; regardless of timing, which is irrelevant as he was only suspended once AFAIK, he still did not "play on the slide."
Well, I'm going to be moving away from DO. I haven't had a problem with them about anything yet, but I mostly run IRCDs, and a bunch of other stuff, nothing important. However, if somebody feels embarrassed while chatting on the IRCD and it just so happens to be at the IRCD located on a DigitalOcean VPS, that guy can get me in trouble? At least that's how I interpret it.
A troll could have a field day with a TOS like theirs :]
In the abuse complaint, the person who filed the complaint claimed that I had been following him and harassing him online before I even wrote the blog post, yet when I was chatting with him on Meatspace he admitted he didn't know me. In my view, he clearly embellished when filing the complaint because he wanted the statements removed, or in fact it wasn't even him who made the complaint.
Imagine someone for Google making that type of false complaint? claiming that I had been harassing him online, when the evidence clearly shows that he had no idea who he was speaking with.
I'm surprised more people don't find that to be disturbing behavior
If i understand correctly, you have posted something on your blog that 3rd person consider disturbing and DO have suspended your account due abuse or breaking of AUP / TOS ?
Fair enough, I don't agree with you and clearly DO did not either and it is there terms that they are more qualifies to interoperate than any one else so there we have it.
Bottom line, the person had the right to file a complaint, DO had the right to act.
EDIT: Just for the record so no one thinks otherwise, I think the term itself is a little silly but anyone should have the right to request information about them be removed.
No one said you couldn't report on public tweets, chat logs, forums, etc. Harassment charges are orthogonal to free speech and privacy laws. If you're planning on being an 'reporter' then you ought to know those three (not two) areas of pertinent law.
I don't disagree with the removal of defamatory personal information at all. Before doing such, I would investigate the situation.
I also agree with you on the customer agreeing to terms, but the customer agreed to something other than what was followed when taking recourse against his account.
most internet companies, which includes ISPs and hosting providers, will want to avoid trouble. if you cause them trouble, they won't want your business. cheaper to dump you than investigate the problem.
TOS might not ban something, but that doesn't mean they will like something.
The point is, no laws or ToS have been broken.
The ToS has an anti-harassment clause like most places. The OP's website has only a single post which paints the victim in an malicious and offending light. Looking at the 'reporting' it's a bit cheesy how all surrounding context has been clipped out replaced by the authors own exposition. Is it real harassment? Who knows and no one decides other than the criminal justice department, but as an ISP or host - being dragged into that sort of mess is messy hence why such things are in the ToS in the first place.
At the end of the day, it's their house - their call. They even suggested anonymity to push the thing into a blog post about a public figure (i.e. Google) which is covered by civil laws and grants them immunity. The OP declined and thus we end up here.
The TL;DR point is, the NY penal laws have been triggered by the victims abuse report. Regardless of whether there's any real teeth to cyber enforcement, this played out the way it has to.
If you aren't breaking any laws/ToS, then isn't your provider doing something illegal by limiting your freedom of speech?
"I don't like what you wrote so I'm going to take your money away"
Just a follow up post for education purposes, a harassment charge isn't removed because the quote was from a public source. Private or public it doesn't matter. If you want to write a commentary blog, my advice is to stick with public figures. But even then, make sure you have a good history of reporting on other people before dishing out the good stuff. History and pattern of conduct matters a lot in their ability to establish intent of malice. If they can't bring a civil suit, then your risk of a criminal filing of harassment is greatly reduced. Private individuals (legal definition, not where they're standing or posting) have a much lower bar to hurdle in order to initiate either claim. Tread with caution.
How it doesn't matter? Lets say that @AnthonySmith (I picked him as example because he use real name here) post something at LET and I quote his public statement (properly with source url of course) at my own blog and comment parts I don't agree with. And he doesn't appreciate my views of things I quoted. Do I have a legal problem? In scientific sphere people do this all the time.
It depends on so many factors. Depends on what you quoted and how you used it.
It also depends on where it is hosted and that countries laws.
Well If I wrote it verbatim online and publicly and you put it somewhere else then yeah that's my problem and no one should/could make you remove that.
If I had a PM conversation with you and you then took it and posted it and it made me look bad or I was embarrassed by it then sure I think I have a right to ask for it to be removed.
Just my thoughts on it, I honestly think that anyone has a right to remove any personal information from a website they want, I am not sure an abuse report is the right way though, personally I would contact the publisher and request removal give them the reasons why and if they refused without good reason that would be when I would attempt other methods.
Sort of like a twist on the idea of free speech in my eyes, if I don't like something online that is about me and I did not give my permission for it to be there and it is fair to say it could cause some embarrassment then why would anyone refuse to remove it?
I don't know, perhaps the mister nice guy in me takes over on this topic, not saying that I am legally or morally 100% right, that is just how I feel and what I feel is decent.
As @MikHo says, it depends on many factors. But private or public source material typically isn't one of those factors. I see too many erroneous "Oh it was a public quote hence its not harassment" posts that I figured it was worth it to bother correcting.
Using your example, I'll split it into the major types of risks you have:
1) Defamation (usually civil)
If you were to create a website, call it something benign as VPS Hosting Thoughts, then pick those quotes, snip them so that most readers who don't bother reading sources wouldn't know any better, you do risk defamation suits. Out of context is serious enough to let cases proceed as shown by the Shirley Sherrod case. You can claim it was true, or that it was a fair comment, but that doesn't protect you from having the suit in the first place.
2) Criminal Harassment
If you were to create a website, call it something benign as VPS Hosting Thoughts, and then only post about AnthonySmith and all the stupid things he says (just going with the example), then you'll get the privilege of dealing with harassment charges regardless of whether he actually said those things or not. It falls under "intended to cause distress". Bonus points when the victim goes through the proper channels (i.e. ISP and local police - although he doesn't have to contact you) You can try to argue that your blog falls under "free speech" but if it's the only thing on it, then it'll be an uphill battle for you. (ref N.Y. Penal Law § 240.26)
3) Cyberstalking (criminal)
If you were to create a website, call it something benign as VPS Hosting Thoughts, and then post AnthonySmith's family address, maybe pictures of him, his wife, and children then you'll get into first-degree criminal territory (N.Y. Penal Law § 240.25). To be clear, the OP's site is not of this nature. I just post it to show the escalating nature and how this is distinct from the other two despite it being typically thought of as the same.
4) Free Speech
If you were to create a website, call it something benign as VPS Hosting Thoughts, and then post AnthonySmith's comments along side jbiloh's, and a variety of other characters on this board for a year or more, then you'll typically be clear of cyberharassment criminal charges as long as you don't do stupid things like post their family info. The bar becomes higher when you have a history of legitimate purpose. That is, here's wording specifically from NY penal code second-degree harassment "He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no legitimate purpose". You are still open to civil defamation suits if you break sourcing/quoting best practices.
[*] I've used the NY Penal Law only as an example since that is DO's jurisdiction. Yours obviously may be different but typically most places do break down in loose terms to something similar. NY uses first/second degree distinctions instead of cyberharassment/cyberstalking.