Suggestion for Deleted User Accounts

[Kami]

Aug 5, 2020 14:19:46 GMT -8 jcarter said:

Aug 5, 2020 13:44:33 GMT -8 Kami said:

Respectfully I would disagree with this perspective on spammers and the like.

It's doubtful that retaining any of that information is actually particularly helpful. You still have access to the IP address, and assuming you banned the account prior to deleting it the email should still be on the ban list in the event you need to cross reference to see if a spammer has returned or if it's a new instance.

The percentage of spammers to legitimate users is overall very small, so the convenience of this is not superseding the need from users. The only benefit here is really trying to cross reference the data, but in practicality all you need to do is ban & delete.

If you are aggregating this data separately, that's a violation of the TOS, which I am very sure you are not doing, of course. ;x

If "Joe" has more than one account on my forum and posts porn with one of them, I will ban Joe, not just that one account of his. Furthermore, I will reject any subsequent registrations from him. There is a reason no two accounts on the same forum can have the same username. It would be helpful to be able to differentiate one "Deleted" from another without even more cross-referencing. A randomly generated username would not identify an already un-identified user.

To be clear, when I say randomly generated username, I'm not talking about drawing a legit name out of the hat. I'm talking more like a randomly generated password. You know, like F6s09mG@;h&!f. It would also help the members, not just the admins.

In particular, a 'randomly generated username would not identify an already unidentified user'

Yes, it would. Even if Deleted User A got the username 3897dkjgku38*847, they would need all posts to associate that for the function you want, right?

That means all posts associated with 3897dkjgku38*847 would be discoverable, and would create an identity with them.

What this is doing is aggregating user information after they have removed themselves from the forum, which is a problem because the idea of "personally identifiable" is a broad definition which *can* include posts made on social media. Whether or not you consider those posts to be identifiable is irrelevant.

Because of this definition's broadness, decoupling any solid identity from a single user's content is necessary to preserve our abilities as admins to keep the forum's chronology.

Simply put, would you rather lose the posts entirely, or have a hard time identifying what post was made by whom?

Unless your point is that each individual post gets a different randomly generated name or ID, in which case that would work but also defeats the purpose of identification.

The thing that is being fixated on here is having a way to identify what post belonged to what user. That is inherently an antithesis to the point of the law. Your goals here are mutually exclusive with the requirements for compliance.

Disclaimer: at least, to my non-legal understanding.

There may be a way to work around this, in theory, but I personally can't see how you can both group posts by a specific user ID (whether or not the ID is randomly generated or that actual user's ID) while at the same time complying with the need for anything personal to be removed without losing posts.

[Former Member]

Aug 5, 2020 14:27:28 GMT -8 Kami said:

Aug 5, 2020 14:19:46 GMT -8 jcarter said:

If "Joe" has more than one account on my forum and posts porn with one of them, I will ban Joe, not just that one account of his. Furthermore, I will reject any subsequent registrations from him. There is a reason no two accounts on the same forum can have the same username. It would be helpful to be able to differentiate one "Deleted" from another without even more cross-referencing. A randomly generated username would not identify an already un-identified user.

To be clear, when I say randomly generated username, I'm not talking about drawing a legit name out of the hat. I'm talking more like a randomly generated password. You know, like F6s09mG@;h&!f. It would also help the members, not just the admins.

In particular, a 'randomly generated username would not identify an already unidentified user'

Yes, it would. Even if Deleted User A got the username 3897dkjgku38*847, they would need all posts to associate that for the function you want, right?

That means all posts associated with 3897dkjgku38*847 would be discoverable, and would create an identity with them.

What this is doing is aggregating user information after they have removed themselves from the forum, which is a problem because the idea of "personally identifiable" is a broad definition which *can* include posts made on social media. Whether or not you consider those posts to be identifiable is irrelevant.

Because of this definition's broadness, decoupling any solid identity from a single user's content is necessary to preserve our abilities as admins to keep the forum's chronology.

Simply put, would you rather lose the posts entirely, or have a hard time identifying what post was made by whom?

Unless your point is that each individual post gets a different randomly generated name or ID, in which case that would work but also defeats the purpose of identification.

The thing that is being fixated on here is having a way to identify what post belonged to what user. That is inherently an antithesis to the point of the law. Your goals here are mutually exclusive with the requirements for compliance.

It's not so much about identifying the author of any particular post as is it about being able to bring up a user's post history and any other account that user may have (or is trying register) on your forum, regardless of whether or not the account has been deleted.

As for wiping post histories to avoid infringing upon 'intellectual property rights', doesn't ProBoards retain rights and ownership of everything posted on their platform? As far as I understand, that's just standard ToS fare.

[Kami]

Aug 5, 2020 14:39:20 GMT -8 jcarter said:

Aug 5, 2020 14:27:28 GMT -8 Kami said:

In particular, a 'randomly generated username would not identify an already unidentified user'

Yes, it would. Even if Deleted User A got the username 3897dkjgku38*847, they would need all posts to associate that for the function you want, right?

That means all posts associated with 3897dkjgku38*847 would be discoverable, and would create an identity with them.

What this is doing is aggregating user information after they have removed themselves from the forum, which is a problem because the idea of "personally identifiable" is a broad definition which *can* include posts made on social media. Whether or not you consider those posts to be identifiable is irrelevant.

Because of this definition's broadness, decoupling any solid identity from a single user's content is necessary to preserve our abilities as admins to keep the forum's chronology.

Simply put, would you rather lose the posts entirely, or have a hard time identifying what post was made by whom?

Unless your point is that each individual post gets a different randomly generated name or ID, in which case that would work but also defeats the purpose of identification.

The thing that is being fixated on here is having a way to identify what post belonged to what user. That is inherently an antithesis to the point of the law. Your goals here are mutually exclusive with the requirements for compliance.

It's not so much about identifying the author of any particular post as is it about being able to bring up a user's post history and any other account that user may have (or is trying register) on your forum, regardless of whether or not the account has been deleted.

As for wiping post histories to avoid infringing upon 'intellectual property rights', doesn't ProBoards retain rights and ownership of everything posted on their platform? As far as I understand, that's just standard ToS fare.

(numbering to keep thoughts in order)

1. Right, but doing so requires identification. Does that make sense?That's why it's inherently an antithesis to the spirit of the law's requirements. In order to be able to bring up the post history, you have to identify which posts belong to whom. Even if the identification is "random" it still assigns a specific singular ID to a set of posts which could be considered a privacy violation even if the individual isn't specifically named in a singular instance since the history provides their identity. From a logistics standpoint, this would basically mean that if PB enacted something like this, a user could attempt to argue from a reasonable legal perspective that ALL their posts must be removed to comply with the law.

2. No. You're misunderstanding the TOS. You retain the rights to all your posts, you simply give PB the license to use it in conjunction to their service. PB does not own your content.

At the end of the day though, debating this is probably a moot point. PB made these decisions to comply with US law and GDPR. If there are other options that will still act in the best interests of all users (admins and non admins alike) while maintaining their compliance, they will probably enact them as soon as they're able to do so. Otherwise, they've probably explored all current avenues as limited by current PB software.

[Former Member]

Aug 5, 2020 14:52:21 GMT -8 Kami said:

Aug 5, 2020 14:39:20 GMT -8 jcarter said:

It's not so much about identifying the author of any particular post as is it about being able to bring up a user's post history and any other account that user may have (or is trying register) on your forum, regardless of whether or not the account has been deleted.

As for wiping post histories to avoid infringing upon 'intellectual property rights', doesn't ProBoards retain rights and ownership of everything posted on their platform? As far as I understand, that's just standard ToS fare.

(numbering to keep thoughts in order)

1. Right, but doing so requires identification. Does that make sense?That's why it's inherently an antithesis to the spirit of the law's requirements. In order to be able to bring up the post history, you have to identify which posts belong to whom. Even if the identification is "random" it still assigns a specific singular ID to a set of posts which could be considered a privacy violation even if the individual isn't specifically named in a singular instance since the history provides their identity.

2. No. You're misunderstanding the TOS. You retain the rights to all your posts, you simply give PB the license to use it in conjunction to their service. PB does not own your content.

1. Yes, that makes sense, but we're talking about identifying an account, not a person. Replacing the username with either randomly generated characters or the account number that was sequentially assigned upon registration doesn't identify anything but the account even if the original username was the member's RL name. I guess I just don't understand how retaining the username of a deleted forum account is considered an exposure of their true identity.

2. Fair enough. Thanks.

[Kami]

Aug 5, 2020 15:02:47 GMT -8 jcarter said:

Aug 5, 2020 14:52:21 GMT -8 Kami said:

(numbering to keep thoughts in order)

1. Right, but doing so requires identification. Does that make sense?That's why it's inherently an antithesis to the spirit of the law's requirements. In order to be able to bring up the post history, you have to identify which posts belong to whom. Even if the identification is "random" it still assigns a specific singular ID to a set of posts which could be considered a privacy violation even if the individual isn't specifically named in a singular instance since the history provides their identity.

2. No. You're misunderstanding the TOS. You retain the rights to all your posts, you simply give PB the license to use it in conjunction to their service. PB does not own your content.

1. Yes, that makes sense, but we're talking about identifying an account, not a person. Replacing the username with either randomly generated characters or the account number that was sequentially assigned upon registration doesn't identify anything but the account even if the original username was the member's RL name. I guess I just don't understand how retaining the username of a deleted forum account is considered an exposure of their true identity.

2. Fair enough. Thanks.

1. Perhaps you're viewing it a little differently from where I'm coming from. You're viewing it as [account] versus [person], whereas in context of the requirements, what's being looked at is [is this data identifiable]. On it's own, if I said, "I work at Place" and then I deleted my account, working at Place won't immediately identify me. But if you gather all my posts "anonymously", then "I work at Place" becomes riskier for my privacy because even anonymously, depending on the context of my other posts, that might lead to who I am specifically, even if the ID is randomised. By de-associating all posts with their original creators, it becomes impossible to to associate "I work at Place" with anything else I might have said that could lead back to me. This doesn't inherently mean that all posts will be identifiable, just that the RISK to privacy is higher which skirts the line of legal compliance.

2. No worries

[Former Member]

Aug 5, 2020 15:14:16 GMT -8 Kami said:

Aug 5, 2020 15:02:47 GMT -8 jcarter said:

1. Yes, that makes sense, but we're talking about identifying an account, not a person. Replacing the username with either randomly generated characters or the account number that was sequentially assigned upon registration doesn't identify anything but the account even if the original username was the member's RL name. I guess I just don't understand how retaining the username of a deleted forum account is considered an exposure of their true identity.

2. Fair enough. Thanks.

1. Perhaps you're viewing it a little differently from where I'm coming from. You're viewing it as [account] versus [person], whereas in context of the requirements, what's being looked at is [is this data identifiable]. On it's own, if I said, "I work at Place" and then I deleted my account, working at Place won't immediately identify me. But if you gather all my posts "anonymously", then "I work at Place" becomes riskier for my privacy because even anonymously, depending on the context of my other posts, that might lead to who I am specifically, even if the ID is randomised. By de-associating all posts with their original creators, it becomes impossible to to associate "I work at Place" with anything else I might have said that could lead back to me. This doesn't inherently mean that all posts will be identifiable, just that the RISK to privacy is higher which skirts the line of legal compliance.

2. No worries

That sounds more like an argument for post deletions, not against.

Doxxers and stalkers can indeed be clever, but if someone is hell-bent on finding *you*, and the posts of your deleted account can help them to do that, then preserving the flow and context of discussions with someone who isn't even there anymore should take a back seat. And so it does: PB Support has made it clear time and time again that they will only delete posts that A) violate the ToS, and B) personally identify the user.

[Scott]

jcarter, while your thoughts on this matter are appreciated, the bottom line is that we are doing what is required by the various laws. I'm sorry this may not be ideal for some forums. And though our goal is for minimal detriment to our forum communities, in the end we still must be compliant with the law.

[Former Member]

Aug 5, 2020 15:39:30 GMT -8 Scott said:

jcarter, while your thoughts on this matter are appreciated, the bottom line is that we are doing what is required by the various laws. I'm sorry this may not be ideal for some forums. And though our goal is for minimal detriment to our forum communities, in the end we still must be compliant with the law.

Oh, I know that, Scott. It's all good. I'm just trying to understand the logic in a way that doesn't make my head spin.

[Scott]

Aug 5, 2020 15:48:42 GMT -8 jcarter said:

Aug 5, 2020 15:39:30 GMT -8 Scott said:

jcarter , while your thoughts on this matter are appreciated, the bottom line is that we are doing what is required by the various laws. I'm sorry this may not be ideal for some forums. And though our goal is for minimal detriment to our forum communities, in the end we still must be compliant with the law.

Oh, I know that, Scott. It's all good. I'm just trying to understand the logic in a way that doesn't make my head spin.

Sometimes this isn't possible and you just have to have the serenity to accept the things you cannot change; the courage to change the things you can; and the wisdom to know the difference. 

[Kami]

Aug 5, 2020 15:28:14 GMT -8 jcarter said:

Aug 5, 2020 15:14:16 GMT -8 Kami said:

1. Perhaps you're viewing it a little differently from where I'm coming from. You're viewing it as [account] versus [person], whereas in context of the requirements, what's being looked at is [is this data identifiable]. On it's own, if I said, "I work at Place" and then I deleted my account, working at Place won't immediately identify me. But if you gather all my posts "anonymously", then "I work at Place" becomes riskier for my privacy because even anonymously, depending on the context of my other posts, that might lead to who I am specifically, even if the ID is randomised. By de-associating all posts with their original creators, it becomes impossible to to associate "I work at Place" with anything else I might have said that could lead back to me. This doesn't inherently mean that all posts will be identifiable, just that the RISK to privacy is higher which skirts the line of legal compliance.

2. No worries

That sounds more like an argument for post deletions, not against.

Doxxers and stalkers can indeed be clever, but if someone is hell-bent on finding *you*, and the posts of your deleted account can help them to do that, then preserving the flow and context of discussions with someone who isn't even there anymore should take a back seat. And so it does: PB Support has made it clear time and time again that they will only delete posts that A) violate the ToS, and B) personally identify the user.

I'm gonna PM ya if you don't mind? It's a good conversation to have but may be more appropriate privately.

(And sorry to PB admins ._. )

[VanWoman84]

Is everybody quoting in case somebody deletes?
That's a lot of scrolling on mobile....

[:~:Sarapha:~:]

The problems listed here aren't exactly something new, and were problems even before usernames were changed to 'Deleted'. If Joe has multiple accounts and uses one to post porn, you ban him based on IP Address and Global ID. That effectively bans all of his accounts without worrying about his individual usernames. However, like you said, people typically use multiple IP addresses, and creating a new email takes 4 seconds, so there's truly nothing to stop Joe from coming back and circumventing your ban. This is an entirely separate issue than the usernames defaulting to 'Deleted'.

While I do wish the usernames could instead default to the Display Name (since I run an RPG where it's kind of important to know what character posted what), I also know that it is not Proboards purposefully making life difficult; they are following the laws of privacy.

[Former Member]

Aug 5, 2020 11:41:58 GMT -8 jcarter said:

Aug 5, 2020 11:31:58 GMT -8 Scott said:

jcarter , current laws state that a user has a right to have their account deleted. If the user is unable to delete their account due to it being banned or disabled, then by request we must delete their account for them.

The problem isn’t the deletion of the account; it’s the deletion of its name. The post history is still there, but damn near impossible to reference when needed. Ditto for security logs.

I just wanted to add that it will get confusing if more than one person has been deleted, and the posts that are left are all made by "Deleted".

Isn't it possible that the name of the deleted poster can remain with the word "deleted", in brackets perhaps, behind the name?

[Scott]

Aug 6, 2020 4:36:58 GMT -8 Valdy said:

Aug 5, 2020 11:41:58 GMT -8 jcarter said:

The problem isn’t the deletion of the account; it’s the deletion of its name. The post history is still there, but damn near impossible to reference when needed. Ditto for security logs.

I just wanted to add that it will get confusing if more than one person has been deleted, and the posts that are left are all made by "Deleted".

Isn't it possible that the name of the deleted poster can remain with the word "deleted", in brackets perhaps, behind the name?

Sorry this would not be possible. It's not about indicating that an account was deleted, but removing that which could identify the user - hence the name of the deleted posted cannot remain.

[Former Member]

Aug 5, 2020 15:56:02 GMT -8 Scott said:

Aug 5, 2020 15:48:42 GMT -8 jcarter said:

Oh, I know that, Scott. It's all good. I'm just trying to understand the logic in a way that doesn't make my head spin.

Sometimes this isn't possible and you just have to have the serenity to accept the things you cannot change; the courage to change the things you can; and the wisdom to know the difference. 

Hi Scott. Sorry to bring this up again, but I had a few afterthoughts...

As the policy currently stands, are we obligated to wipe a member's entire post history by request? Does it matter if the account has been deleted? And if it has, will the Forum Cleanup tool still function? How are we to locate the posts to be removed from any given account if we can't find them?