Privacy expectations in discussion groups (not CC)

[HF2300]

Quick straw poll.

In another life I volunteer. I don't want to give too many clues but crucially the role requires separation and privacy from those we come into contact with and there is a safeguarding aspect. It's not mental health or suchlike, though.

The organisation that runs us has set up a discussion group - a small part of a larger site - to enable the volunteers to share methods, experience, best practice, etc.

Am I naive to expect that the group, member user names and profiles should not be accessible by the public? And I don't just mean logged in site users, I mean anyone with access to the internet.

 

[mjr]

Yes. Even if the operator claims it will be private, mistakes happen all too often.

 

[ufkacbln]

Some professional forums use unique IDs like membership numbers or similar

However as above, it depends on the forum to restrict that access and mistakes can happen

 

[HF2300]

Yes. Even if the operator claims it will be private, mistakes happen all too often.

The operator is claiming nothing of the sort. It is all public - open to anyone with internet access, and the operator seems quite happy with that; indeed, does not seem to see an issue.

 

[mjr]

The operator is claiming nothing of the sort. It is all public - open to anyone with internet access, and the operator seems quite happy with that; indeed, does not seem to see an issue.

Well, what is the issue with it? It seems like a good idea to make it obvious you should all use pseudonyms and avoid discussing others and places by name, plus it shares the knowledge with the widestpossible audience who could benefit.

 

[growingvegetables]

Am I naive to expect that the group, member user names and profiles should not be accessible by the public?

No.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Depending on the nature of it, if people use screen names that aren't identifiable. Then having the discussion forum public, may help those suffering with the same issues.

People who may not be ready to reach out, and ask for help, but are just browsing.

 

[growingvegetables]

I'm a bit baffled by contributors feeling easy about the forum being public, given

... crucially the role requires separation and privacy from those we come into contact with and there is a safeguarding aspect.

An open access forum provides neither separation nor privacy. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding?

 

[HF2300]

I'm a bit baffled by contributors feeling easy about the forum being public ... an open access forum provides neither separation nor privacy. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding?

I thought that. Perhaps in my efforts to be discreet I'm being too obscure.

For clarity, this is not a situation where we are dealing with people who "have issues" or are suffering in any way (I hope!); it is for practitioners only to share ideas, not for those they come into contact with; there are, or I think there are, reasons why those participating might want to maintain privacy.

I can't really find a way of describing it, but think of, for example, teachers wanting to discuss teaching practice, issues, problems, share lesson ideas etc. There's no great secret but there are reasons you might want privacy and might not want students finding those discussions or your personal contact details.

I think part of the issue is that I didn't initially realise that there was no privacy, and others may not either. When I signed up the groups and CPD could only be accessed via a link that wasn't visible unless you were logged in, so I thought it was behind a login wall. It turns out that's not - or not now - the case. When you register the only comment about privacy is that your user name "may be seen by other users of the website", which I took - wrongly, it turns out - to mean other logged in users.

Looking at profiles, many people are using real world names, putting emails and real world contact details in their profiles, and so on. Whether that's because they're naive to the issues or think their profiles are private I don't know.

Of course, there is an irony to discussing this in an open public forum, but that's why I'm trying not to say too much. I can't decide whether there is an issue here or not and I hoped to get a reality check from a cross-section of aware but everyday users.

 

[classic33]

How long are you looking at remaining "private"?

 

[marinyork]

I think it probably needs looking at - number IDs, don't post personal information. Or if you do it is limited.

Depending on how many people are involved could you not have a whatsapp group instead?

I agree it is difficult because it is difficult sharing between volunteers.

 

[GuyBoden]

Every internet site's log show each poster's IP address, from this IP you can find the registered IP information, location, ISP provider etc...............

Using anonymous usernames is not really that secure.

Simple example:
http://www.iptrackeronline.com/

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Every internet site's log show each poster's IP address, from this IP you can find the registered IP information, location, ISP provider etc...............

Using anonymous usernames is not really that secure.

Simple example:
http://www.iptrackeronline.com/

But that information should only be accessible to the administrators/moderators (at times) of the site.

 

[mjr]

Every internet site's log show each poster's IP address, from this IP you can find the registered IP information, location, ISP provider etc...............

It varies. There's not always much reason for IP address allocations so most of the location databases contain some things that are hilariously wrong - at the moment, I'm getting shown location-targetted adverts for two counties away and I'm doing my best not to correct it by letting slip my location to a snitching website

Using anonymous usernames is not really that secure.

Nothing short of strong encryption is worth regarding as not publicly-viewable and even then, there's always a chance that someone else with a shared decryption key will leave a clear copy around by mistake. Even if the forum was behind a login and HTTPS, people should act as if it may become public one day.

The suggestion of whatsapp above suggests maybe people still don't realise that it's insecure and owner Facebook still hasn't fixed the vulnerability months after being told, as explained in https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/16/whatsapp-vulnerability-facebook - avoid it.

 

[mjr]

But that information should only be accessible to the administrators/moderators (at times) of the site.

Not really - it's pretty simple to put some image tag in your posts pointing at a picture on your own server, thereby gathering the IP addresses of readers, and make a reasonable guess at which IP is which poster by correlating the posting times of later comments with your logs. CC also makes it possible to confirm for some target users by checking the "last seen" information on their profile pages. I suspect there's many other options, too, but those are some obvious ones.