POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: milker on April 20, 2007, 12:25:11 am
-
In relation to another thread
I am offended that someone decided to disclose after a specific request no to disclose. I understand his motivations though. It's difficult. What are your thoughts?
Milker.
edited to remove thread and naming.
-
I think it inherently required that people make an effort to make sure that the 'goal' is one they really want and that their reasons are justified (subjective) and not just depression.
Some times it is appropriate (in my estimation, pain and no prognosis for improvement, though there are certainly other cases)
Sometimes it is not (like depression or temporary imbalance).
It's ultimately up to that person what they do and is a difficult issue to address.
For a movie dealing with this, check this link: http://www.outfilms.com/film_detail.cfm?film_id=1125 (http://www.outfilms.com/film_detail.cfm?film_id=1125)
It's for the movie "It's my party" dealing with an hiv person ending their life.
edit to add: I think I was thinking about a different film after watching the trailer at that site... it was more of a newyork loft party, but along the same them anyways. Maybe I'm just blonde tho
-
As tight knit as this group is, I would say disclose. It helps if you accept the discloser if you know the person that the information is being disclosed about.
-
In relation to another thread
I am offended that someone decided to disclose after a specific request no to disclose. I understand his motivations though. It's difficult. What are your thoughts?
Well I might as well stay true to my current blabbermouth style and reinsert said names and thread.
You are, of course, referring to my decision to post publicly a PM I received from Siang (WaterDuck) regarding Herman (heartforyou) and suggestions that he may do himself some sort of harm.
MIlkie, I've gotta say that the fear of offending you wasn't foremost in my mind when I posted that thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=11506.0) in Living With and obviously I wasn't overly concerned about such tea-party nicieties as privacy.
Herman is a long standing member and a dear friend of mine and many other people here. He, Bucko and myself share a blog. He's travelled extensively and met many AIDSMEDS members.
Herman has also battled with many daemons for a long time now. Including the most terrible depression. Which, to my mind, colours this whole thing in a more complicated light than a mere issue of privacy.
How do you think I would be viewed if Hermie does harm himself and it turned out that I had forewarning of the event and didn't say anything?
I can shoulder many burdens, dear heart, but fuck that one.
I really don't think I have a right to keep that sort of information from people here. I'm not the only one who is intensely fond of Hermie.
I have no doubt that I did the right thing by posting the full details of Siang's PM to me, even though he expressly asked me no to. And you know what? I'd do it again. Right now there are people emailing Hermie and others who may know where to get a hold of him.
I'm not so deluded that I believe any of us can stop another person from necking themselves if they really want to. If Herman is determined to do something, he will. Of that I've no doubt. Or it may turn out to be a big false alarm and over-reaction.
Who knows?
So darlin' let me assure you that the fact that you're offended by my decision to reveal all will not see me lose one moments sleep. It's a very, very small price to pay.
MtD
-
There is no question in my mind it was the right thing to do...in fact I'll share a bit of a PM I received concerning the subject. I deleted it so I am doing this from memory. The disclosure wasn't done lightly or with malice but out of concern. Matty asked for my advice and I told him the decision was his but that I thought the correct thing to do was to release the information. It was done with a modicum of fanfare. I did notice a couple of responses from some members saying they had communicated with a Herman a few weeks ago and he seemed fine...however, with this new information they would double their efforts to get in touch with him. Without the release of the PM they might have never known. We all know is this case it was the right thing to do.
-
I think each situation is different and you have to trust the judgement of those involved. Not nearly as important as this situation, but earlier this week I was told by a friend of a medical problem he was having that he wanted to keep private. But after getting more info and learning the severity I felt it necessary to tell others who would want to know and be able to help. In MtD's situation I believe he did what he felt was best for Herman and others who know Herman.
Woods
-
We've set a new bar for pettiness.
Rights right, wrongs wrong.
Matty did what he felt is right. I'd guess most of us happen to agree.
tea-party niceties I like that one. Thanks!
-
Thanks for the answers.
Matty, "offended" was not be the right word, but I can't find the right one. As I said in my first post it's a difficult situation that's why I asked for your thoughts, and was in no way an attack, a right vs wrong, but a more of a question and an opening for discussion.
Milker.
-
Actually it IS a question of right and wrong. You are offended by something someone did. That makes it wrong in your mind.
Matty had to make a choice. One that has moral implications for some people. He chose to do what he could to ensure the safety of his friend. The possible consequences of his actions are: His friend may be mad at him.
The possible consequences of not betraying a trust seemed a lot worse.
That sir is a life choice. Matty made his choice and has no difficulty with that choice. Matty also has no difficulty paying the price if it comes to pass.
You, milker passed judgment on Matty for making a choice. That's your right, but don't back pedal now. Stand up for your beliefs.
You wouldn't have started a thread if you didn't feel strongly about it.
I am offended that someone would call Matty out for trying to help his friend. There's my stance. Feel free to argue the other side.
For the record. If you're going to call someone out for their actions. Have the moral fortitude to stand fast in your belief instead of editing so that you don't offend anyone. If you're going to say "You're wrong." just say it.
-
Ok let me try to express my emotions when I opened Matty's thread. I'm going to write very simply because english is not my native tongue and I've had problems trying to give my feelings here.
Milker browses the unread posts and clicks.
Emotion 1: "shit"
Emotion 2: "i hope Herman will get through this"
Reflexion: "Why did Matty disclose if he was told not to?"
Reflexion: "Would I have disclosed"
Reflexion/Thought/Trouble: "This is wrong/right/I feel like a voyeur/What can I do/I don't know Herman/Matty knows what he's doing/Maybe not/I don't know/I won't reply/I want to say something/Yes/No/What if it was me?Someone I know?"
Reflexion: "I will start a new thread and ask for thoughts".
So no i'm not pedaling back, i'm confused. I reserve the right to changing my opinion at any time, otherwise I don't see the point of a discussion. And frankly, I don't want to battle with Matty on this specific purpose, he knows the man, I don't know him, he has a special bond that I do not have. Not to mean that I'm cold to people that I don't know, but it's not a balanced conversation. This is why I didn't want to mention names in this thread but I guess that broke too :)
Milker.
-
Here is my opinion: private messages have to be kept private, period. That's the point of their being private messages! In cases like this one, perhaps there can be an understanding that privacy won't extend to the board moderators, for safety considerations. But to publicly tell everyone on these boards is a real violation of trust. I know I would not want any of my private messages made public. So while I get the motivation, I disagree with it, and feel strongly that there needs to be an understanding that PM's are completely private.
Before you clobber me with your justifications, I have read and understood them - this is to say I disagree, that's all.
Metta,
Rich
-
Even if the decision was the wrong one (and I don't think it was) I find it hard to get offended by somebody acting out of gut conviction in (what they perceive to be) somebody else's best interests.
MtD did what he did from this conviction.
I've done something similar when a friend of mine called me to tell me he'd OD'd, but not to call an ambulance. Fuck that... if somebody's going to get me involved, they should know me and have a pretty good idea that that's not going to happen. I'm not going to let that person's privacy result in death. Sounds like MtD's the same.
I don't know Herman. I do know depression, and it's no place to be making a decision on what channel to watch, never mind end of life stuff.
M.
-
I also need to add that I find it troublesome that the original post was edited (which I think was the right thing to do) and then Matty's post was allowed to go through, with the edited information in it
-
Rich, no one will clobber you for your opinion on it.
I might disagree and argue the point. What I have a hard time with is the way it was presented.
It took it as a shot at someone who faced a moral dilemma and made what he felt was the best choice not for himself but for his friend. I define that as a selfless act of courage.
I applaud anyone that makes a difficult choice and stands by their conviction.
I also reserve the right to call him a dumbass if he choses wrong. *wink*
-
It's very different to call for an ambulance than to put a private message on a public message board! How does putting this information out on this board actually help? My belief is that there were better ways to offer help than to violate someone's trust, and to violate the privacy that is inherent in PRIVATE MESSAGES!
I also think it was the right thing to do to edit the original post in this thread; i also think the other thread should have been removed immediately - and should be removed NOW!
Metta,
Rich
-
I also think that the main points of this person's PRIVATE Message could have been posted, without posting the PM verbatim. I don't know Herman either, and I don't mean to sound uncaring, really. But wouldn't something along the lines of "Herman is in serious trouble. Help is needed!" have gotten a response as well, without word for word posting someones PRIVATE message, that he expressly asked not to be made public?
Steven
-
I agree with a Rich. Everyone talks about how close everyone here. That isn't necessarily true though. This site is comprised of how many members at the moment? It's kind of like my local neighborhood bar. I recognize just about everyone when I walk in and I talk to a lot them, and we all feel like one happy family until last call...that doesn't mean I want my dirty laundry aired out to each and every one of them should I get into some kind of trouble.
In my opinion, as if it counts, a private pm to those closest along with a call to action would have been more appropriate than a post to the general AM community.
-
I agree with a Rich. Everyone talks about how close everyone here. That isn't necessarily true though. This site is comprised of how many members at the moment? It's kind of like my local neighborhood bar. I recognize just about everyone when I walk in and I talk to a lot them, and we all feel like one happy family until last call...that doesn't mean I want my dirty laundry aired out to each and every one of them should I get into some kind of trouble.
In my opinion, as if it counts, a private pm to those closest along with a call to action would have been more appropriate than a post to the general AM community.
With all due respect, I don't see the connection to dirty laundry. Think of how an A.P.B. in the cop world covers all bases. Translation for here is: Some members I talk to on the phone, but we hardly ever email. Some I use Msn Messenger with, but we don't talk on the phone, although we have each others' numbers, etc., etc. How are people here to know that xyz channel is the preferred method for friend A and xyz123 channel is used for friend B and that surprisingly friend B is actually "closer" than friend A even though most people assume friend A is "closer". Sometimes, time doesn't allow for cumbersome methods, in which case, cumbersome methods should be tossed aside in favor of simple ones
-
The easy or simple way doesn't alway equate to the right way. Nor does the easy or simple way produce the most poductive or effective results.
-
You take a chance on people's trustworthiness every time you send an email or a PM. There's no guarantee that anything is private, that's been a recurring theme here. One day you send a funny picture to a friend, the next day you're all over the internet with your nuts hanging out of your shorts.
In this case, I'm glad Matty disclosed as he did. He would be unlikely to PM me and less likely to email me, but now I know some of what's happening with Hermie and I can pray for him.
Creighton
-
if someone sends a message they may do harm to themselves or others is a cry for help and if they had real plans this evidence would be found after the fact so it's my belief this person wants the help so by all means necessary
anyone with knowledge should do something.
-
You will have to forgive my bluntness, but it is none of any of your business what another member does, when the action is directly connected to a possibly dangerous situation. Instead of debating on whether this was right or wrong (because it was neither) serves no purpose. As someone who has battled depression for decades, I can not tell you how powerful it is to find a thread where people are asking about you. When my darkness closes in, it becomes very scary for me and extremely difficult to sort the sanity from the madness. That is why such a post is so important, because it tells the person THAT WE LOVE YOU AND WE ARE HERE FOR YOU.
Therefore, I give you all my permission to post any comunique from me that you find deeply unsettling or possibly dangerous. Never forget that for some people this place is just like family and when one of your family members go missing, you cannot help but to be concerned about that person. I will always err on the side of doing what I believe is best for the person I am trying to help. And if that means I break your confidence and you wind up hating me, all I can offer is I hope it is a long and healthy hate. Sometimes we are forced to make difficult choices to save the ones we love. Trust me when I tell you that MTD's post will mean the world to Herman.
I know that they always do that for me.
-
From the above posts, it seems that those who know or have met Herman thinks MtD did the right thing. I put myself in that group. I met him in Montreal. I won't say that I'm as Close as Matty by any means, but I did find Herman to be a really nice guy. To have done nothing would have done him an injustice, especially since he's been suffering from depression which can cloud anybody's thoughts. Could Matty have handled things better? Who's to say. I look at what he did as helping Herman in the best way that he could at the time he posted, and that's what's important.
David
-
One day you send a funny picture to a friend, the next day you're all over the internet with your nuts hanging out of your shorts.
Creighton
:o :o hope those videos i sent out dont end up on xtube :o :o
======================================
If i sent out a PM i wouldnt want it posted on the internet mainly because i might be embarassed for what i said to someone in confidence that i didnt want everyone else to know.....but i also understand everyone is different so i guess it depends on the person and the situation...
-
I had send Matty a PM ( of which i assume full reponsibilities ) out of respect for the bond that they had and also of the Spin Cycle they are part of. Herman, posted a poem in the Spin Cycle some time ago, of which Matty understood the degree of his depression and therefore posted here on the A M, thru' this and PM, i was asked to contact Herman, thus had begun our bond. THIS, Milker you MUST TRY to understand, there are bonds that are created long before you got here.
I did what i felt i must do. Matty, do what he felt right, he took full responsibilities FOR IT. I am not saying it is right or wrong, i am saying i respect it. BEYOND THIS , is just plain INTELLECTUAL MASTURBATION !!
When i send Matty this PM, I actually BCC to Bucko another member of the Spin Cycle, now IF Bucko would had started that thread, would he solicited such venom, just wondering ??
-
Once again my question was general. My mistake was not to wait a few days before posting.
I don't think it's masturbation, I think questions like this arise and it's good to talk about them. I will try to not post when the subject is still hot. I totally recognize the bonds that you have with other members, and I do not question that at all.
I don't feel venom in this thread, and if Bucko or xyz had started I would have asked the same question, it has nothing to do with Matty, whom I respect like every other individual in those forums. But respect doesn't mean that I will ignore actions that I find worth talking about.
Milker.
-
Milker,
I would hope that we could always talk about any issues, as long as we respect others views. You asked a very real question, one that is asked countless times daily, because reaching the mentally ill can be a very formidable task. I also believe that discussions like this help members to somewhat understand some of the challenges of mental illness. When we stop discussing the actions we take, is the time when we should worry. Healthy debate is always a good thing.
-
Matty did the right thing.
Christine
-
On the question of privacy.
As Aunty Doxie noted above, I discussed this matter with him before I posted. The issue of privacy was not the point of that conversation per se. Rather I wanted to assay the potential for any ensuing fuss that the subject might raise occluding the objective of my posting. That objective was to reach out to Hermala and to let those who love him know something serious was up.
Indeed I noted in the other thread that I didn't want people to "stampede around like hairy goats" about this issue. I wanted a calm approach with minimal drama. And that's what has happened.
I asked Doxie because I hold his opinion on any matter in the highest of esteem. Seriously, few people around here have his piercing insight.
Secondly a number of you have a very quaint view of privacy on Teh Intahwebs. Actually you have very quaint views on privacy in general.
I'll wager a pound to a pinch of shit that the Forums Administrators (and quite possibly the Global Moderators) have the ability to read anyones PM's here. And rightly so. They are ultimately responsible for what goes on here and it stands to reason that they have the power to "break the seal" on the PM system should the need arise.
So if you think that PM's are some sacred place of secrecy then you're probably a bigger idiot than the mittens pinned to your jacket would indicate.
As a result of my thread in Living With I was flooded with PM's (and emails and IM's and text messages to my phone) from people who placed concern about Hermie above rarefied notions of privacy. I now have a number of email addresses for Herman and a couple of phone numbers.
But you'll note that I didn't post those. That to my mind would have been an unacceptable breach of privacy. As Joe Killfoile so sagely noted in Living With, it's best that Hermie isn't overwhelmed with emails, PM's and phone calls at this time. Rather, those who are closest to him should now come to the fore and help in this time of dire need.
Those people know who they are.
MtD
-
Matty did the right thing.
Christine
What she said...
-
In all the times that I've interacted with Matty, I have never known him to take lightly issues of privacy or people's lives.
You can disagree with what he did, but I highly doubt it was a spur of the moment decision. It was carefully made, and I think he did the right thing.
-
Indeed I noted in the other thread that I didn't want people to "stampede around like hairy goats" about this issue. I wanted a calm approach with minimal drama. And that's what has happened.
MtD
And that's why I started a different thread :)
As for PM privacy, I agree, it should be understood that PM may be broken. My question was "should we ignore someone's wish if ignoring may help save him/her".
I was the one that had to take the decision to "let go" my mother or "keep trying". I am proud that I fulfilled her wish.
Every situation is very different, and only you, Matty, and very close friends to Herman were able to make that decision. My question was more general, an invitation to discussion with the pros and cons, but it quickly degenerated because I posted too fast and using words that made it go to the wrong direction. I hope people now understand what I was trying to get to!
Milker (who can be very confusing sometimes)
-
If matty's actions result in Herman realizing that life is worth living... and that there are people who care... all other ethical considerations are minor. Not acting to help someone because of adherence to a principal is, in my opinion, unprincipled. Life is not black and white... and I do believe that Matty's actions demonstrate that he understands that... and that hopefully Herman will reach out for the help and love he needs.
-
In this instance Matty did the right thing, for sure. He showed caring, compassion and concern by reaching out to a beloved friend.
Good on ya mate.
Paul
-
I'll wager a pound to a pinch of shit that the Forums Administrators (and quite possibly the Global Moderators) have the ability to read anyones PM's here. And rightly so. They are ultimately responsible for what goes on here and it stands to reason that they have the power to "break the seal" on the PM system should the need arise.
For the record, neither catagory of moderator can read PMs - the one and only exception being PMs that are reported.
Ann
-
For the record, neither catagory of moderator can read PMs - the one and only exception being PMs that are reported.
Ann
I'm surprised to learn that. In my opinion it's a deficiency in the software that should be corrected.
MtD
-
For the record, neither catagory of moderator can read PMs - the one and only exception being PMs that are reported.
Ann
I'm surprised to learn that. In my opinion it's a deficiency in the software that should be corrected.
MtD
What on earth makes you think we have the time or interest to go around reading anyone's PMs? Private means just that - private.
Ann
-
What on earth makes you think we have the time or interest to go around reading anyone's PMs? Private means just that - private.
Ann
Oh fuck it. Whatever Ann. I didn't mean you should do it as a matter of course. Just that you should have the power to in certain rare circumstances.
::)
MtD
-
i doubt the messages are encrypted, so in case it's needed they should be able to get access to them. For a legal problem, for example.
Milker.
-
What on earth makes you think we have the time or interest to go around reading anyone's PMs? Private means just that - private.
Ann
Oh fuck it. Whatever Ann. I didn't mean you should do it as a matter of course. Just that you should have the power to in certain rare circumstances.
::)
MtD
With all the confidentiality issues we've had around here, I didn't want anyone to be thinking we can pry into their private messages. We can't and I wanted to circumvent any hysterical threads started as a result of your careless speculation.
Ann
-
With all the confidentiality issues we've had around here, I didn't want anyone to be thinking we can pry into their private messages. We can't and I wanted to circumvent any hysterical threads started as a result of your careless speculation.
Ann
Yes, yes Ann. Whatever you say.
MtD
-
With all the confidentiality issues we've had around here, I didn't want anyone to be thinking we can pry into their private messages. We can't and I wanted to circumvent any hysterical threads started as a result of your careless speculation.
Ann
Yes, yes Ann. Whatever you say.
MtD
Semantics.... this software package has a level of security for moderators and one for administrators. Moderators cannot read messages, an administrator could, provided they opted not to install encryption.... an unsual expense for a free website.
~puck..... who, as you have probably figured out... sells and implements software for a living.
-
m.t.d.... shot down
-
I don't think that the administrators can legally read the PMs of members. As Ann pointed out, I'm not sure why they would want to, but as this is a US-based site I think the 4th amendment applies:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Although, obviously with the internet being quite a new thing the law is struggling to catch up. I know that the servers that hold all of this data we type in are protected by Federal Law.
Matt.
(who wishes the UK had a constitution)
-
I mean what really count is the fact that we have got a message from Herman.
That was an ultimate goal !
I would do the same to save anybody`s life ! Al
-
But on the other hand ................mmmmmmmmmmmmph......arrrrrrrrgh................bite........my.........tong....................does ........he really wanna to be saved ?............Oh Gosh ............It just went out...............what`s you thinkin?
Al
P.S.: When I was diagnosed CD=58 .I thought that I was over ,have prepared my self to die ,now still thinkin but........................it will be a great stigma to my kids too , so I`m stucked ! :o
-
I don't think that the administrators can legally read the PMs of members. As Ann pointed out, I'm not sure why they would want to, but as this is a US-based site I think the 4th amendment applies:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Although, obviously with the internet being quite a new thing the law is struggling to catch up. I know that the servers that hold all of this data we type in are protected by Federal Law.
Matt.
(who wishes the UK had a constitution)
Nonsense. The Constitution would have no bearing on what a private entity would do, only with what the federal government would do.
If there's something in the TOS agreement that states all communication within AIDSmeds is there's to do whatever they want with it, and you click "accept" when you sign up then that's all they need to do legally I would think.
-
Nonsense. The Constitution would have no bearing on what a private entity would do, only with what the federal government would do.
Are you saying there is something in the TOS agreement for this site, or not?
It's interesting that you say the 4th amendment doesn't apply to a "private entity" - "nonsense", but then go on to say that, in any case, all they would need is something in the TOS to get around it. What's to get around if it doesn't apply? Your argument falls between two stools.
Although, I think you are probably right about the second part - I think you have to have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy for the 4th amendment to apply - and something in the TOS would certainly remove that.
I'm no lawyer, but I've certainly been following the debate in the EU, especially with regard to the retention of records by ISPs and Google as a prevention of terrorism measure. State, Federal and (in the EU) supra-governmental law does apply to the internet, all the time - regardless of ownership.
M.
-
Are you saying there is something in the TOS agreement for this site, or not?
It's interesting that you say the 4th amendment doesn't apply to a "private entity" - "nonsense", but then go on to say that, in any case, all they would need is something in the TOS to get around it. What's to get around if it doesn't apply? Your argument falls between two stools.
Although, I think you are probably right about the second part - I think you have to have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy for the 4th amendment to apply - and something in the TOS would certainly remove that.
I'm no lawyer, but I've certainly been following the debate in the EU, especially with regard to the retention of records by ISPs and Google as a prevention of terrorism measure. State, Federal and (in the EU) supra-governmental law does apply to the internet, all the time - regardless of ownership.
M.
Rather than supplying an argument that "falls between two stools", I think instead philly is illustrating that there are multiple ways in which your constitutional argument was incorrect.
But I'm just waking up from a nap. So I may be full of shit.
-
Yeah, that's what I was saying.
-
Okay.