- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Edit: Image description for Brits:
Dragon Rider (drag) being banned from the following communities for sharing DMs:
Edit: Image description for Brits:
Dragon Rider (drag) being banned from the following communities for sharing DMs:
No. Admins can read any mail. And everyone has access to their own mail?! And I mean everyone can disclose anything in their posession. It’s just not allowed and unethical. Though in most cases you’re allowed to publish what you wrote yourself. You just may not publish other people’s secrets or info publicly.
Almost everything you said isn’t true. Point to the rule that says someone can’t disclose a DM they were part of? Unethical? Sure.
Make up your mind.
Also Drag is a troll. Has suggested that several people commit suicide. Drag doesn’t get a pass. Drag is a piece of shit. Don’t be Drag.
Killing it with this one…
Also, drag didn’t feel genuine and that’s a deal breaker for me
You’re a shitposter, and I’ve told you I disagree with you more often than I agree. But fuck me, Drag is verifiably a piece of shit. When you don’t, and i say this with love, have your head up your ass…I’ll have your back.
I’m being catty. Hoping you vibe with the teasing. Work drinks, last joke before bed. Hope I nailed it… Just like I nailed your mum!
OK, I’ll stop for real.
I think the best I am do is 30%, take it or leave it!
NO MUM
God damnit. See this is what I mean. I see a moronic comment, I look over and see it’s your username. No need to follow your “content” or watch your history when you’re stupid all over the place.
👀
Whatever you do, it’s not working properly. You seem to be mentioning me? All I get is a notification bell and your eyes emoji here. But I’m lacking context. So… You need to repeat your question or info, if this isn’t just a technical/federation error.
I think it is some error since I responded to the comment above by jokediety
Since your mum and I bumped uglies, that de-facto makes me your dad. I’m a responsible parent, and I love unconditionally. 30% is the best you can do, and that’s enough.
You will be pinged in the time of need!
✊❤️
Not sure where you live, and I don’t know much about US law, but for me, it’s §203 and §206 StGB. Get’s you either fined, or up to a maximum of 1 or 5 years in jail. And especially §206 is super clear and specifically mentions electronic letters. I can assure you, I’m 100% correct on that.
I’m from Canada and live in the UK. You’re allowed to, barring some very specific circumstances, record or repeat any conversation you are party to. If you were posting a DM convo that your friend was having, taking pictures of their screen while they were out of the room and then putting it online. You’re fucked. If you are an active participant of a conversation/DM chain then as party to said communication you have the legal right to tell anyone, record it for reporting to the news, or the cops, or your gf.
The internet seems to suggest it’s illegal in the UK, for example to share recorded phone calls. According to the first page of Google, recording itself is fine, while sharing or making them public isn’t. But I haven’t looked up the specifics.
I’m not a lawyer. I am quite drunk. One might look up “unreliable narrator” and see me. I’m also not so up my own ass I can’t admit I was wrong. Touché internet person, touché.
Have a nice one. 🍷
🫡
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html
If this is an accurate translation of the laws, 203 is about doctors, lawyers, government officials, etc. sharing priveledged information they had access to because of their jobs and 206 only applies to owners/employees of telecommunications or delivery services.
Edit: and to go one step further, Section 201: Violation of Privacy of Spoken Word means you can’t record phone calls without everyone’s permission, but Section 202: Violation of Privacy of Correspondence is about opening other people’s letters.
Uh, yes. I messed up the numbers. It’s §201 for audio recordings, §201a for private pictures, §202 for documents and letters with added paragraphs for “data” and electronic data and §206 specific for communication. Idk why I wrote §203, that’s for officials and doctors as you said. I meant §202. But yeah, the translation seems pretty accurate. Thanks for the link, I didn’t know we had that available. 😊
I included §206 since that’s likely what an admin is concerned with. And we mixed that in earlier in the argument. But I believe that paragraph is just a specialized and more harsh version of §202, to increase the maximum penalty from 1 year to 5 years, if it’s your job to handle other people’s communication. Which might apply to Fediverse admins, but it’ll fall back to the other paragraph anyway.
And by the way, there are some interesting quirks baked into those paragraphs. For example the one with pictures and videos is a lot more specific than the one with audio. So we get cases where it’s okay to record a video, but it has to be without sound.
Again, 202 is about opening other people’s mail/messages, with the electronic subsection being about accessing their digital messages when you aren’t supposed to. And section 206 wouldn’t apply to Drag at all, since they aren’t even an admin. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing legally wrong with sharing “private” messages that are sent to you.
Uh, I’m getting confused by this lengthy discussion with that many sideshows. Now I get it. You’re perfectly right with that. What happened in this case by the user is not really(*) covered by those paragraphs. This is about “Persönlichkeitsrecht” (personal/privacy rights), maybe including a sideshow with copyright. But this is way more nuanced and requires looking at the details. People have a right not to be doxxed or their secrets or private stuff being publicised. But as you said, there isn’t a general rule to prohibit sharing documents itself, without fail (like we have for audio recordings). With written text, a court needs to look at the actual content and see whether that’s protected or private in some way. Because privacy is protected in itself, and in that case it’s not about the form of a document.
Edit: And to add to this: I think §201a still applies. Someones Inbox or DMs count as a private/protected space. Now if you take screenshots from that, that’s an “other images”. And the fifth subsection says these can’t be shared with a third party.
It depends on the state. My state is a one party state, meaning any person that is party to a private conversation can legally reveal everything in it to the public.
Yeah, I figured we’d need to track the criminal down to a specific contry and state and then ask a lawyer to make sure. We’re super strict here. If someone uses the voice recorder app or takes a video with sound in a private conversation, that’s already a serious thing. Of course similar restrictions apply to phone calls, letters and electronic conversation.
Reading US law isn’t easy for me, I mean there’s always a lot involved and then there are laws on two or three levels plus exemptions and additional rules… I wonder if such a freedom in a one party state applies to people like whistleblowers and other unruly people as well…
I am sure US mega corps are complying and the law is enforced against them
Not sure, I’ve never worked for an US mega corp. And those really don’t seem to like the law, or worker unions who start complaining and blow it up once someone gets mistreated/surveilled by their employer… Honestly, I’m not sure where we’re at, overall. I’ve read about both things happen, corporations getting sued / fined and getting away with exploiting their employees.
On paper, whistleblowers have federal protection from prosecution. In reality, however, if you blow the whistle on a rich person, a corporation, or the government, the government will go out of its way to punish you and make an example. See Edward Snowden, who is still wanted by the government, despite having revealed the government was engaged in what was then highly illegal espionage against their own citizens. The government responded by making that invasion of privacy legal.