Real Name: Chris Cobler Address: 311 E. Constitution St. Victoria, TX 77901 Gender: male Member Since: September 16, 2007 Last Signed In: October 11, 2008 Profile Views: 2299 Blog Views: 14340 Who's Got Spirit? We hope our readers are the ultimate winners Can you tell the election is only a month away? Where do you turn for listings about businesses? Crikey, why did we write about alligator hunting? Aggies, butterflies, Pandora radio, and keeping Victoria beautiful What turns regular people into monsters? What is it about stories involving dogs? What new technology will change the world? Be true to your school September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
When should we release a user's IP address?
The Advocate's ethics board had a special meeting after being alerted by a state investigator that we would receive a subpoena for the computer records of someone who posted what could be considered a threat against Victoria District Attorney Stephen Tyler.
As Friday's story notes, we agreed to release this specific record. Our concern rests mainly in protecting the privacy of all of our law-abiding online users. We don't want to release records based on fishing expeditions, but we didn't consider that to be happening here. As I previously posted, our ethics board decided in November that we probably would release the computer record -- an IP address, as we outline in a graphic with Friday's story -- in a criminal investigation or a libel suit. The discussion arose then because someone kept posting the name of the accuser in the Michael Ratcliff investigation. The digital world creates an entirely new set of challenges for newspapers. I outlined some of these issues in a summary of the online ethics training the newsroom received in March. You also may want to review the guidelines we try to follow when moderating online comments. They're covered in an October post soon after we redesigned our site and formed our ethics board. What are your thoughts on how to handle these issues? How do such investigations affect your use of any Web site? 13 comments from 7 users
1
posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Grifter,I'm not the expert on this, but I understand an IP address is assigned to a computer when it receives Internet access. That's fairly simple if you're talking about a single computer at a single home. It gets more complicated when multiple computers are receiving Internet access through a router. In that case, there would be just a single IP address assigned, and you'd have to do some more detective work to figure out which computer was posting. Hope that helps. posted by
Grifter
on Jul 1, 2008 at 03:15 PM
I was wondering how all the IP stuff works. Does an IP address get assigned to a computer or location? Like if someone went to the Hardback Cafe with a laptop and got on line and blogged and then if that same person went and parked outside of Best Buy and got on line and blogged will it show up as two different IP address? Sorry for getting off topic.
posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jun 30, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Thank you, John, for the support.
posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jun 28, 2008 at 06:41 AM
Interesting idea, Ernie. We do use an obscenity filter, which can be entertaining as people come up with creative new words to add to the list.If we started using proper names in the filter, we could run into problem if people with the same first and/or last name make the news for some other reason. But definitely an idea worth considering. For the record, Ernie, I appreciate you and the handful of others who identify themselves on the site. I'm not saying everyone should do that, but those who do deserve extra respect. The anonymous sniping gets old. Is there a filter for that? Most who post anonymously still engage in civil discourse, but the veil of anonymity goes to the head of a few. Our challenge in moderating the forums is to encourage a level of discourse that attracts reasonable readers. If the sniping gets too much, it will drive away much of our audience. It also can be unhealthy for our community. posted by
ErnieCash
on Jun 27, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Yeah, I wanna be anonymous! :-) Obviously it wouldn't work in this recent threat situation, Chris, but you obivously have a filter on the public forums. Otherwise we wouldn't have been asking so often why no one could address STX in a post. In the matter of the poster who kept putting Ratcliff's alleged victim's name in the public domain though it seems it would work. Just as obviously though it'd be difficult to put every victim's name into the filter list - but it's thought. Ernie posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jun 27, 2008 at 09:23 PM
Yes, Rainwater, our graphic with today's story explained how it would be much more difficult to trace someone using a public or pirated wifi. I suspect someone motivated enough could still do it, though. How anonymous are we really these days in the digital age?
posted by
rainwater
on Jun 27, 2008 at 07:05 PM
I know its hard for Victorians to comprehend common sense, but if I were going toh threaten a local official, would I do it from home or would I go somewhere else and bounce off someone elses? my kid bounces off my neighbors everytime I cut her off to punish her. its not rocket science.
posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jun 27, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Thanks, Luminary. And, Toni Anne, I'll have to try that site meter. I'm not familiar with it.I want to add that I received a frantic e-mail and phone call from an online user asking whether law enforcement investigators were seeking any other computer records. She feared she'd be exposed and her employment placed at risk. I assured her that we have received no other requests or subpoenas for users' information. We wouldn't release the information without a subpoena. We want to protect your privacy as much as we can. Of course, we also encourage you to abide by our site's policies and have a civil conversation. If you do that, you shouldn't have anything to worry about from law enforcement. posted by
Luminary
on Jun 27, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I got a hunch this question will be popping up again. Good catch, thinking about it ahead of time. posted by
Luminary
on Jun 27, 2008 at 12:45 PM
This story really does seem to be unfolding in a way that is uncannily reminiscent of Watergate. posted by
ChrisCobler
on Jun 27, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Just my opinion,No, only one poster is being investigated. As an ethics board we discussed the other post, but no law enforcement agency came to us and requested any computer records. We were just preparing for the possibility that could happen. As it turns out, it did. posted by
ToniAnne
on Jun 27, 2008 at 12:21 PM
um... i have a site meter on my page that is hidden for that very reason. I never really cared for one, but after my first "threat" (not on VicAd) - I started using one on all my blogs. They are free some places and I recommend everyone get one. Not only can you see who reads your blog (I have some readers from China, Germany, UK, Canada - to name a few)... but you can see who made that nice or nasty comment. For those interested: just search "free site counter" or go to www.sitemeter.com (free one I use). I don't have an opinion on the Tyler thing - because as I said before - I have ZERO facts of the case (except what I have read on this site). That being said - no one deserves to be threatened. From the way it was described - the video was uncalled for and while I think someone may have just been fooling around - they have to be accountable for what they do and say. Threats are very real and shouldn't be taken lightly. posted by
justmyopinion31
on Jun 27, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Wow,so is there two different posters that are being investigated because the article in the paper today stated that a poster made a threat towards Tyler not Ratcliff ? I remember the poster that posted the the alleged victims name in the Ratcliff case but did not get to view the video where the threat was made towards Tyler so I can't say if it was a threat or not. Regardless,these threats need to be looked into.I do not agree with what Tyler is doing in office but I would never wish bad on him for that is taking things way to far and personal.
1
|