Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Unflip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Unflip

1 2 3

Original poster

When wilk Mumsnet or MPs challenge tabloids that take site chats and publish without permission ?

54 replies

WillLokireturn · 15/05/2019 23:11

It really worries me that this is a limited (log in or search) niche forum for relatively safe chats (limited to those that are interested) and that national tabloids steal information, publish it generically as widely, and share information that might be personal only MN site has consent to, without permission of the OP for that wider audience

It so contravenes spirit of permission for this site only and what GDPR means. Why is no one challenging them nor reporting tabloids to regulator for this?

OP posts:

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:54

If you want to have private chats, use the PM system, or for relative privacy and wider discussion, use Facebook or similar, where you have some control over who can see what you publish.

Terramirabilis · 15/05/2019 23:52

I understand what you're getting at. But to achieve greater privacy would require more controls on accessing the site, not being able to search for posts via search engines for example, having to have a log in, having to provide verified real contact information in order to join.

All of those things would restrict access and reduce usage. I suspect many many times more people read Mumsnet than post. Therefore more restrictions would simply discourage people from using it. Pageviews would drop, ad revenues would drop, business model would fail.

Remember: "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product."

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:50

Here you go OP, MN’s privacy policy, very clear on the subject.

When wilk Mumsnet or MPs challenge tabloids that take site chats and publish without permission ?

C8H10N4O2 · 15/05/2019 23:49

You are publishing your posts on a public website. The hosting is irrelevant, you have put it in the public domain.

If the tabloids were posting your PMs or personal information supplied to MN and not posted on the public site then you might have a case. As it stands, you don't.

FlibbertyGiblets · 15/05/2019 23:49

Flowery you're so patient.

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:47

The meaning of personal data is clearly defined in legislation, it doesn’t require debate. An individual must be identifiable, which in the majority of posts on this site, they are not.

Consent is not required to share information an individual has freely chosen to make available to the entire world on a public website.

I’m not “pretending” I know the answer. I actually do. Which you do not.

Original poster

WillLokireturn · 15/05/2019 23:47

@catinboots99 🙄🙄 And yet it is named website, only one that had explicit permission for posts. Under GDPR permission is limited & explicit for that purpose only You may feel UK GDPR has limitations and doesn't deal well with internet information, but that doesn't mean printed tabloids can bypass.

OP posts:

LikeDolphinsCanSwin · 15/05/2019 23:46

It's not personal data if the subject is not identifiable.
And, when you post here you are putting your post into the public domain.

GDPR is not relevant.

FlibbertyGiblets · 15/05/2019 23:45

The bottom line is: if you don't want your innermosts lifted, don't post them.

Original poster

WillLokireturn · 15/05/2019 23:43

🙄🙄 it's very worrying to me that commenting so far PPs cannot debate meaning of personal data eg for a start.
It's an open discussion that ought be had rather than pp pretend they know answer.

OP posts:

catinboots99 · 15/05/2019 23:36

MN is a public site. It's not an 'agreed limited audience'

Original poster

WillLokireturn · 15/05/2019 23:35

🙄🙄

Ok let's start from scratch. GDPR personal information. Permission to share in specific website.
Limited . Purposes, for personal info sharing - for advice and support
Tablid takes information. Not for agreed purposes. Nor for agreed limited audience.
OP asks MN to delete. As misuse of personal data.
But really they are all pretty annoyed that weren't asked and their personal info was misused.

I'm not sure how a number of pp have really misunderstood, as it's a valid concern.

OP posts:

llangennith · 15/05/2019 23:35

Get a grip OP.

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:32

I regularly use and advise on GDPR. Please point me to which specific clause you feel has been breached by tabloids copying data individuals have chosen to place in the public domain?

Particularly bearing in mind that for something to constitute personal data, an individual has to be identifiable.

OrchidInTheSun · 15/05/2019 23:32

You don't understand GDPR

Original poster

WillLokireturn · 15/05/2019 23:30

If you know and regularly use GDPR you would know it has to be named to have permission to share.

Yes the internet is extensive but pp give permission only to MN site for their story. For purposes of getting advice usually.
Maybe, I should direct this to people that regularly use GDPR professionally... ? It's such a breach.

OP posts:

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:29

What personal data that posters have not willingly put into the public domain themselves do you feel has been or is being subject to “theft” OP?

You know on Facebook you have all these security settings where you can control who sees your posts? Have you not noticed that we don’t have those on MN? Anyone can see anything and MN is just as publicly available as the Daily Mail.

CassandraCross · 15/05/2019 23:28

Define personal information, OP. Users consent to having their posts published on this site and thereby accessible to anyone and everyone who reads this site. You do not have to be a member to access this site it is in the public domain, it is not private.

Original poster

WillLokireturn · 15/05/2019 23:27

I expect there will be a number of "clever people" saying it's the internet. Please reflect and think about what was permission given. Many pp are vulnerable at that time they posted, and want to talk, but will never have given permission for wider sharing in national tabloids. Not theft of their info outside site they'd given consent to share on. GDPR in UK is quite specific about permission, it has to be named to share in my field.

OP posts:

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:25

Which part of GDPR do you feel they are in breach of?

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:24

MN is not “limited”. Anyone can read it.

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:24

They don’t need permission! Why would they? If they breached some kind of security to get it that might be different but if you put it out there it is available to anyone!

flowery · 15/05/2019 23:23

If you put your own personal data on the internet on a website without any restrictions on who can see it, you can’t complain that the data has been shared without your consent

Original poster

WillLokireturn · 15/05/2019 23:23

@flowery you miss the point. Tabloids do not have permission to take personal information from a limited site with tacit agreement, to a wider generic audience without agreement.

OP posts:

Waterandlemonjuice · 15/05/2019 23:21

Er, it’s the internet

Unflip

1 2 3