"We may occasionally release information about our visitors if required to do so by law or if,
in our business judgment,
such disclosure is reasonably necessary."
-- Gannett's online Privacy Policy, emphasis added, after a March 4 update that I don't think GCI publicized very prominently.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWow. That's a pretty revealing addition to the online privacy. It backs up my opinion that Gannett's holdings aren't really newspapers anymore, but rather just a bunch of advertorials. I'm glad I no longer have to tell people I work for Gannett.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if Sen. Kerry's bill is adopted and Gannett is reorganized as a nonprofit? Would that "business interest" addition have to be retracted? Nonprofit newspapers couldn't make political endorsements, but business endorsements are an extension of politics anyway ... as can be shown by the $$$ Billions businesses and their lobbying arms "donate" to pols.
You suck, 6:50. No one gives a shit what you tell people.
ReplyDeletewow! the ignorance of all matters digital on the part of jim and the posters on this site is staggering. do you realize that if you pledged to absolutely protect the privacy of all anonymous posters in your terms of service and then didn't, you'd be liable for breach of contract? and for what? for the homophobic, racist, and attacking rants that often occur on this and other blogs/stories? this happened to a new jersey newspaper (not a gannett paper). get a life and get educated, people. no one gets absolute anonymity on the internet.
ReplyDeleteword verification: zoing!
Interesting how this criticism has drawn out the McLean posse. To 6:57 PM, ROTFLMMFAO!
ReplyDeleteThis issue has nothing to do with the fact there is no absolute gaurantee of privacy. It has everything to do with the fact that it appears the newsroom did a special favor for a politician it endorsed so that public figure -- whose salary taxpayers foot -- could harass and intimidate a nonpublic constituent who dared to exercise his First Amendment right to legally protected comment at an online bulletin board.
you may have a point, depending on the real facts, except for three very, very wrong words: "legally protected comment." no comment on any public commenting area on the net is "legally protected." your identity can always be revealed. there is no absolute legal protection for any anonymous comment on any site, whether it's run by gannett, google, yahoo, or even jim. none.
ReplyDelete11:16 writes: no comment on any public commenting area on the net is "legally protected."Wrong. the protection is the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment 1.
ReplyDeleteYou're confusing protected comment with whether identity is "legally" protected. This is a legal area not fully explored in the courts, because online media is a very recent development.
I can see a lawyer making a good case that a newspaper revealing one anonymous critic to a politician the newspaper endorsed -- a fact I agree is not insignificant -- violated that agreement, unless every person who wants to know a poster's ID is entitled to get the same information as willingly.
This all, of course, makes the assumption the critical poster's claim the newspaper did this to him is true, which I also agree hasn't been verified yet.
Anonymous comment is not the providence of online media, btw. Indeed, our nation might not have been founded at all were it not for the likes of Publius and Leonidas, pen names, just like JuanMoore.
Sedition laws never have fared well in this democratic republic, and I think Gannett/Wausau's self-style sedition rules will fare just as poorly.