|LJA and friends-locked entries
||[Jun. 2nd, 2006|11:22 pm]
lj_abuse didn't work out
An unfortunate effect of sensible rules is that if you post something here raising specific concerns about specific cases, the abuse team members say they cannot respond here because the case is private - however, if you write to them privately, they don't respond to that either.|
Last week I emailed Mark and Denise about a statement made here by shamanix about abuse team procedures, which contradicted what they had done in my case. I haven't received a reply. A couple of days ago I forwarded the email to Six Apart's contact address, as well as the CEO and VP. Haven't heard from them either. If I hated telephones less I would have given them a call about it today.
Email to Six Apart/LJ
To: email@example.com, Barakb, anil, Kevink
Date: May 31, 2006 12:33 AM
Subject: Fwd: Abuse team and locked/private entries question
I am forwarding you the following email which I sent to Mark [surname], Denise [surname], and the LJ abuse team member [info]shamanix on Thurday May 25th.
I understand that it has been a holiday weekend, but I know that Mr [surname] has been responding to abuse complaints in the past few days, so I am peturbed to have had no response.
If the abuse team has stated rules, clearly steps outside those rules, and implies that a LiveJournal member is lying, I think they have the duty to provide an explanation. I would like to know precisely what violation of US law was being investigated when LJ Abuse representatives looked at my friends locked entries (see below).
I look forward to your reply.
Christine D. Clemens
Date: May 25, 2006 12:41 PM
Subject: Abuse team and locked/private entries question
To: markf, denisep
I'm writing to directly ask you a question concerning a statement made by shamanix on the abuse_lj_abuse LJ community.
"As has been said in this community numerous times, the ability to view locked/private entries is limited to LiveJournal's actual employees, and is only used in cases of copyright complaints or violations of United States law."
As I replied there, "Untrue in my case. There was no copyright complaint, and no alleged violation of US law. In fact on the first occassion, my journal was not reported at all - they thought I was [info] yellow_finch, who had been reported for breach of a NONC, and then went into [info] cdaae to have a look."
Shamanix also replied to another user bringing this up, here: http://community.livejournal.com/boob_nazis/1763041.html?thread=20281313#t20281313
"What people report and what actually happen are sometimes two very different things, as I'm sure you're well aware.
As you've quoted from my comment to [info] abuse_lj_abuse, I feel I should point out that all abuse cases are confidential and that team members cannot comment on specific cases."
I would like to know precisely what violation of US law was being investigated when LJ Abuse representatives looked at my friends locked entries. Yellow-Finch was reported for breach of a Notice of No Contact, on the grounds that an entry she made was presumed to be referring to a specific user. This is not a matter of copyright or breach of any law. As her username used to be cdaae13 and mine was cdaae (both referring to the character Christine Daae from The Phantom of the Opera), the abuse team decided I was the same person as her. When I received a suspension notice about it, a friends-locked entry from my journal was referred to.
Please inform me on what grounds my friends-locked entries were read.
They did unsuspend the account a few days later with apologies (followed by resuspending it on other grounds); I'm not addressing any of that, but I do think that they absolutely need to answer for their actions in the light of their stated policy in regards to locked entries. I think this is a perfectly reasonable question, and it's disppointing that they can't be bothered to answer it.
I realize that the abuse team is on their "abusefest" in Vegas so Mark and Denise are probably quite busy, but Mark has been responding to abuse complaints so here's clearly been around.