The MNHQ Moderation Team: Thread 2

Emmageddon....

Geddit.

Sorry. As you were.

It’s the entirety of the data you hold. All of it. The content of posts PLUS what’s asked for at sign up PLUS ip addresses plus any other info you collect as part of competitions or surveys

PLUS PMs...

I agree this would be best practice if we were holding what's classed as Personally Sensitive Information

As others have said, there's only so much MNHQ (or any organisation) can do to prevent this kind of thing. If they have procedures in place, etc. I'm sure they will be found to be compliant. In my industry (STEM) we were given a lot of freedom WRT to tech/internet access (with restrictions on things like file transfers and external drives, which would trigger security alerts) but that worked just fine because anyone who broke their contract and stole protected IP (within the company I worked it happened a couple of times, I think) was made an example of. They basically had their names dragged through the courts and were usually financially ruined by court costs and fines were paid. In on of the two cases I think there was also prison time. That works as a pretty good deterrent most of the time!

Which is why I don't have any sympathy for her. I hope this is pursued by the police because there need to be serious repercussions.

The apology is insulting, frankly.

HQ must be going on EH's reaction when she was confronted about the fact that she had plastered stolen data all over the Internet.

If she hadn't realised, she was probably shocked and horrified.

But only because it has legal repercussions.

She has demonstrated, comprehensively, that she is untrustworthy, vindictive, two-faced and someone who not only thinks nothing of betrayal, but is quite capable of maintaining a facade in order to deceive.

It's completely pointless to give veracity to anything she says.

Always fun to quoteDonald Rumsfeld and it’s appropriate in so many ways:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

Catching up and have not RTWT, so has she been arrested and all her PCs and phones taken in for examination? This has to happen after such a serious data theft. Don't give her time to destroy the evidence.

.

I admire you Justine for taking the moral high ground on this and giving the benefit of the doubt, while simultaneously dealing with the crime and business requirements in a robust way.

It's really important that an example is set to avoid future misuse of material by employees in the future and I guess that the police involvement is for that purpose. And because, a lesson needs to be learned by Emma herself. I suspect that has already happened.

This approach works for me - but then the all guns blazing approach has never quite been my thing. if my details had been leaked (and who knows, they may have been) I would probably have a different mindset completely!

"I don't believe she clocked that they had IP addresses at the bottom"
And the basis for this belief is?
Hope you have forensic IT people on this to find out what else she got up to.

Justine, I appreciate you answering questions but I think whilst the IP issue is important (legally and morally especially to those posters affected) the bigger picture is that potentially EVERY member of MN is affected by this because we do not know what info EH has taken and who she has shared it with and what they intend to do with it. The anxiety caused by this must be horrific for some people.

But I still support MN and think it's a force for good (which is why I'm so bloody angry that one idiotic person with an overblown sense of her own importance can cause such trouble).

Re the IP addresses, I AM prepared to believe that she did not see the IP addresses on the screenshots. I didn't spot them initially.

I was however, extremely alarmed at seeing the Admin screen and know the implcations of this being published.

Because it's restricted material and with good reason

However, if you look at those screenshots and see them as they would look on screen, I find it impossible to believe that the IP addresses were not obvious to see.

She may not have realised the implications of the IP addresses from a technical perspective but that she knew damn well she was publishing the sensitive material held in the admin mode for a company that deals with people's data.

And she published these admin screens:

1. to intimidate the women of mumsnet, for daring to speak out on a subject she disagreed with

2. To damage the reputation of Mumsnet

3. And to validate her own opinions and importance

There should be consequences for this.

But you don't which posters have been affected. You have previously said that she had access to all data. Wouldn't the safest assumption to be that all users may be affected, and that data may well be more than just IP addresses.

^ Here it is, the full reason why people are scared, why people are threatening to leave MN, why people want their posting history removed. NO-ONE including MN knows exactly what she did steal. NO-ONE and that is the crux of all of this. I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of EH mouth, how could we?

They should do that anyway, but what difference does it make if she’s asked?

I can't be 100% certain - hence contacting the posters affected and the police

But you don't which posters have been affected. You have previously said that she had access to all data. Wouldn't the safest assumption to be that all users may be affected, and that data may well be more than just IP addresses.

Yeh she isn't going to admit to anything other than what she has shown!

Has she been asked whether she stole any other data?

So Justine is saying is that this woman wanted to do damage to mumsnet, and target individual posters, but didn't intend to break the law whilst doing so?

She wanted to do as much legal damage as she could, and is now bricking it because she's inadvertently committed a crime.

Hence that transparent apology.

It's a mess.

Personally, I would like to see this woman face some official consequences, not just fall out, (like her reputation being compromised).

Because going out of your way to damage women for their opinion is unacceptable. And should be seen to be unacceptable.