Limiting Forum Visibility (Split from: Bedford man faces espionage charges)

[Jarnhamar]

Media is now mining internet forums for blurbs to put into stories.

I remind everyone again to watch what they say and who they PM with.

Scott

Staff

Scott, I for one find myself contributing less and less to debates here for fear of the media boogyman coming by and taking my quotes and splashing it all over the news.

Is it at all possible for army.ca to (consider) setting something up where as all users need to register with the site before reading a single line where upon during registration they read a user agreement and it can state something along the lines that no comments on army.ca can be republished without the expressed consent of the author?

 

[Jimmy_D]

I'd like to second that motion.

 

[Scott]

Scott, I for one find myself contributing less and less to debates here for fear of the media boogyman coming by and taking my quotes and splashing it all over the news.

Is it at all possible for army.ca to (consider) setting something up where as all users need to register with the site before reading a single line where upon during registration they read a user agreement and it can state something along the lines that no comments on army.ca can be republished without the expressed consent of the author?

Grimaldus,

Not my department but I will pass it along to the boss.

I don't think anyone need worry if they follow the established guidelines and report anything that is outside of those. We have been doing this a while but we have also had (somewhat of) a lull since the winding down in Afghanistan. Another difference is the completely understandable lack of commentary from DND on this, unlike incidents in Aghanistan.

I wouldn't feel muzzled or neutered as far as conversation goes. I would, however, have a read of our guidelines again and be crystal clear on what should and should not get posted.

For the very most part we get nothing but proactive cooperation from everyone and I do not foresee any issues...but I fell it prudent to issue the reminder given how much of a storm I think we'll see as this develops.

 

[GAP]

We post articles and the links from those articles under the copywrite act. This forum is a public entity, thus posts can be quoted, providing proper attrition is given.

So...........yeah, I think Scott is right in forwarning everyone

my  :2c:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Grimaldus:  As Scott said, your idea's been passed up.  Thanks for that.

I'm with Scott here - even when there's NOT a hot story on the go, one should think before hitting send anytime.  Think about what you're sharing, and think about the fact that, in this case, we have court proceedings in play.

Let's also remember that (and I may be naive in thinking this) the info we share here can, in the long run, help Canadians (and not just reporters) learn more about what the CF does.  I really hope folks continue to feel comfortable sharing SME info that can be shared in the public domain.

 

[Scott]

Grimaldus:  As Scott said, your idea's been passed up.  Thanks for that.

I'm with Scott here - even when there's NOT a hot story on the go, one should think before hitting send anytime.  Think about what you're sharing, and think about the fact that, in this case, we have court proceedings in play.

Let's also remember that (and I may be naive in thinking this) the info we share here can, in the long run, help Canadians (and not just reporters) learn more about what the CF does.  I really hope folks continue to feel comfortable sharing SME info that can be shared in the public domain.

Bang on.

And think of it this way? How many stories did we see about the MND's office renos while we had a hell of a lot more going on in Afg?

So this story, at a time when they are filing ATI's in order to get the next story, literally out of left field has to be golden. And while I realize and accept that media has a job to do I also do not think we need to help them any by creating more news. I might have the tinfoil on to tight but I do think it was worthy of mention.

Also, a good healthy read of "Killing with Keyboards" should be requisite now more than ever, IMO.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... I realize and accept that media has a job to do I also do not think we need to help them any by creating more news ....

I think we're in violent agreement here.

.... I might have the tinfoil on to tight ....

I think others who've been burned by the few reporters out there quoting people out of context or incorrectly wouldn't think so.

 

[ballz]

Let's also remember that (and I may be naive in thinking this) the info we share here can, in the long run, help Canadians (and not just reporters) learn more about what the CF does.  I really hope folks continue to feel comfortable sharing SME info that can be shared in the public domain.

Good point, but I also wonder if the provisions that Grimaldus has suggested would encourage journalists to join the site and be more transparent about who they are, and then have more two-way conversations with SMEs on what it is they are wondering about / seeking to report on.

I'm not a lawyer obviously, but I think the legal framework of what Grimaldus has suggested is possible. A discussion could be had on whether it's better or worse for the website, for Mr. Bobbit, and the members. I'd be interesting in hearing the pros and cons for sure.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good point, but I also wonder if the provisions that Grimaldus has suggested would encourage journalists to join the site and be more transparent about who they are, and then have more two-way conversations with SMEs on what it is they are wondering about.

Under the current system, journalists can have two-way conversations with SME's in the public fora, but I don't see it happening all that much now, so I don't think closing things off will make that more likely to happen.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Cool guys, thanks for passing it up.

Here is my feelings on the matter.

Currently anyone can view the army.ca message forum without registering.  One can argue that "forcing" someone to register may stop people from benefiting from this site- that could very well be the case.

I figured if we make wanna be reads register first we can have some level of accountability by adding a clause that, like I said above, comments within the site will not be reproduced sans the authors explicit consent.

I'm not sure how much of an issue that is or even if it is one, it's been under a handful of times something here has been said that's been brought to the news. I can think of maybe one or two examples which is pretty good considering some of the comments that self identified CF members have "gone on the record" to say- myself very much included.

I belong to a few message forms that require all members to get a simple account to access. There doesn't seem to be any problems because of it. Mind you I am like 99% of the population and just scroll through the user agreement and hit okay without reading it.

  I suggested the idea to maybe give some accountability or for all the legal stuff which i have no idea about.  I planted the bug now I'm jetting 

 

[ballz]

Under the current system, journalists can have two-way conversations with SME's in the public fora, but I don't see it happening all that much now, so I don't think closing things off will make that more likely to happen.

What I meant was, since they would have to approach a member and ask for permission in order to use something that the member had said, it may create more two-way conversations out of necessity. As of now, they don't need to speak to anybody in order to do that, so there's less chance of a member actually expanding on what they said for the journalist or explaining the context of what they said, etc.

Predicting the future is all a guessing game of course.

 

[The Bread Guy]

What I meant was, since they would have to approach a member and ask for permission in order to use something that the member had said, it may create more two-way conversations out of necessity. As of now, they don't need to speak to anybody in order to do that, so there's less chance of a member actually expanding on what they said for the journalist or explaining the context of what they said, etc.

Seen - you seem to be thinking more one-on-one than over the forums?

Predicting the future is all a guessing game of course.

Indeed.

 

[ballz]

Seen - you seem to be thinking more one-on-one than over the forums?

Yes, because they would PM them to ask for permission, and then that would progress... I guess we would have to remind members not to do any kind of interviews without following proper procedure as well, but ultimately that leaves more and more in the hands of the member and the CF as opposed to an anonymous journalist.

 

[a_majoor]

The downside is regardless of what you say or do, it is the journalist and the editorial staff who will decide what is published in the end.

Many posters have seen/heard/commented on this across multiple threads, the only thing I can think to add is that if we make it too hard for the journalist to get what they want, they will go to more accommodating sources (people who's names we well know since they are on the air as "experts" commenting on military matters).

So while I can applaude the intent, I suspect the execution will backfire as journalists won't seek out the knowledge of real Subject Matter Experts but the 30 second quote. The "Sensational 30 second quote" is the holy grail of modern journalism, so you know who they are going to first anyway, right?

 

[Jarnhamar]

The downside is regardless of what you say or do, it is the journalist and the editorial staff who will decide what is published in the end.

Can they do that if they sign an acknowledgement upon registering stating they will not reproduce anything from the website without permission?

 

[larry Strong]

Can they do that if they sign an acknowledgement upon registering stating they will not reproduce anything from the website without permission?

Can that be truly enforced?

 

[ballz]

Can that be truly enforced?

*Again, not a lawyer here, but my understanding is*

If it's set up that you need "expressed permission" to use an individual's comments, but you didn't get that permission, then the individual would have to file a claim in a small claims court... So yes, it could be enforced... although it depends on the member whether they would or not (I'm not sure the small financial gain would be very much worth the hassle...). The possibility of that happening is the deterrent.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think we are barking up the wrong tree. Rather than trying to restrict what others can do with what we say it would be better if we thought a bit before posting. If what you say is likely to be used or even misused in a way that reflects poorly on you, this site or the CF then, I suggest you ought not to have said it in the first place.

Most journalsist come here looking for insights ... ideas about what we think so that they can make their stories better and more interesting. For better or worse they read what we say and they draw their own conclusions.

 

[Hurricane]

I am reminded of this:

CANFORGEN 136/06 CDS 050/06 011318Z SEP 06
GUIDANCE ON BLOGS AND OTHER INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS - CF OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES
UNCLASSIFIED

in the Admin section.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Besides, Mike doesn't have the means to take on a news agency and it's battery of lawyers. Small claims or any other court.

What Edward said.