The MNHQ Moderation team

[BarrackerBarmer]

Dear MNHQ

I'm very grateful for the commitment to free speech you've publicly taken, and for Justine's courage this week.

A former disgruntled employee of MN is writing on Twitter about the 'transphobia' of MN staff, and calling you TERFs. She is showing a great deal of bias and intolerance towards women with feminist views, this may well be her honest opinion, which is no big deal I suppose, since she is no longer an employee.

At least, it isn't an issue until she calls a shout out to her
'friends who still work at MN' to report and take down posts by 'transphobic scum', by which she appears to be referring to any poster objecting to being called TERF by her friend.

Regardless of the personal views of the MNHQ staff, who should be as free to hold their own views as I am mine, I am disturbed that there may be a small contingent of employees who are invested in unfair moderation and will not be applying fair-handed principles, at least if the claims of this ex-employee are credible.

Can you please give posters some reassurance that the difficult job of fair-handed moderation isn't being abused by the 'friends' of ex-employees who are 'reporting it all' and taking down posts because any gender criticism means the poster is 'transphobic scum'?

Thank you.

Be careful people Don't swallow the bait

She and her friends can try spin this however she likes but she still stole user data from an employer.

It does look like a 'Plan B' - to me, anyway. Justine wouldn't roll over, and compounded matters by absolutely triumphing in the JHB interview ... and lo and behold !

I suppose this will at least very publicly expose the malignant underbelly of TR activism.

Can I please entreat people NOT to email her new employer about this?

I understand how serious what she has done is, and want this to be handled appropriately, but I also want us to rise above tactics that may feel vengeful or targeted.

In all likelihood Emma has a very rough ride ahead of her, entirely of her own making. I unequivocally condemn her actions, but I don't want to instigate a pile-on, nor proactively seek out her employers to report this to them. It's likely they will hear about this regardless.

Sentiments are running high and I don't want to fan the flames further for a particular woman. We need not hound her.

Cool heads required - and some serious questions answered. Reassurance about our data is needed, and that is the priority right now.

#TGLWGH

Yikes. I feel for MN- this is a shitty situation.

Btw dynamic ip addresses can be part of personal data if when used with other info, the identity of a person could be established. There's a summary of a Court of Justice of the European Union judgement below, which I reckon MNHQ would want to hope make sure doesn't apply in this case

businesses should note that if they have sufficient information to link an IP address to a particular individual (e.g., through login details, cookies, or any other information or technology) then that IP address is personal data, and is subject to the full protections of EU data protection law. For many businesses, this is likely to require a review of how IP addresses are handled in the context of activities such as customer engagement, website analytics, targeted online advertising, and so on.

www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/court-confirms-ip-addresses-are-personal-data-some-cases

Crikey Justine, this is a rollercoaster of a week isn't it? So, so sorry that you and Mumsnet Towers are going through this. And worrying for all of us. Mugs of gin all round. Hope those directly affected are ok.

This is rather worrying.

I don't expect MNHQ to detail what steps they are taking on this thread; but I do expect them to be taking steps.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine My post is in reference to MN saying (paraphrasing) they are going to give Emma the benefit of the doubt.

I would expect MNHQ is soeaking with their lawyers at the moment. The MN users with exposed data on twitter should be doing the same.

I wonder if everyone who's had their details divulged could bring a separate case against her? I'd have thought they could. Individual private cases, not waiting for the wheels of Data Protection Office to grind into motion.

www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Guidance-on-how-to-complete-the-data-breach-notification-form-in-compliance-with-EU-Regulation-611/1319.htm

I'd be prepared to put money towards a gofundme for that cause.

Did she steal user data? As pointed out a dynamic IP address is not data This is a public forum so apart from the visible IP anyone can republish the same Had she not taken and published screen shots of her screen when logged in a moderator noone would have known about any "breach" The rest of her Twitter thread in just her opinion

Cuboidal - I asked the question genuinely and have no experience in this area. If this person can publicly state that others were/are involved in collaborating with her on this and yet nothing can legally be done to check what she has on her devices or who else is involved - that is shocking.

Also - I note that her 'allies', far from taking the data she shared down and trying to help her protect herself, are quite happy to continue putting what she has done out there. I doubt they will stand by her if/when she faces repercussions. She is probably going to learn the hard way how little they care about women.

Juells,

for breach of copyright, yes, absolutely.

we grant a licence to mumsnet, not to individuals who are interning there.

It's probably in the Mail already , Barracker

businesses should note that if they have sufficient information to link an IP address to a particular individual (e.g., through login details, cookies, or any other information or technology) then that IP address is personal data,

Good point. What isn't covered is the case where controller A has a data set, controller B has a data set, and they are anonymous in isolation but sensitive in combination. So A holds "sexual orientation, random number" and B holds "name, same random number": clearly, if you have both of them a simple JOIN on random number gives you "name, sexual orientation, random number" which is obviously sensitive personal data. But neither dataset, at rest under the control of separate controllers, is sensitive. This is a loophole: I'm not up on GDPR (no longer my field) but is this fixed?

However, if the same controller holds those two datasets, then they are sensitive personal data; the separation via the random number might be part of the information security regime protecting that sensitive personal data, but it doesn't remove the requirement to treat it as such.

Is Healey sacrificing herself to bring MN to be censured for data breach with fines, legal cases and expenses and outside interference over the forum? The TRA plan of infiltration is well publicised. There may be something even more sinister here.

are you saying that the four users whose IP addresses were screenshotted should turn their routers off and on again?

Not everyone has a dynamic IP address that changes within a certain number range, some people have static IP's that do not change.

Oh I now know what MNHQ meant when they said others are watching last week- I searched Twitter MNTowers for the thread referred to upstream, and found a post by me that had been screenshotted - it was the stats one where I say the numbers are on our side. Someone had spent a considerable time trying to debunk it - well I'm glad it was half a day of their life they won't get back… and their analysis is biased - as one would expect.

No conscience or ethics behaviour on their part that speaks volumes about them - so pleased I don't stoop to that sort of stuff and stick to speaking my truth and using facts. Assuming consent, as we know, is pretty toxic behaviour.

IP addresses are one thing. If she had access to user account data she probably also has username/email combinations saved up somewhere.

Plan B sounds likely tbh.

: Justine could have known about this bad apple before her brave statement and gone ahead regardless. How brave indeed. But she could never have imagined that an employee would publicise and steal the data of mothers. How low down and dirty can you get. Peak peak peak.

itsallgoingtobefine
Itsallgoingtobefine,

if Emma was an employee, what will probably happen is that she'll be sent a firm letter requesting undertakings to identify and return/delete all materials and not to repeat or encourage others to repeat the activities complained of.

Breach of such an undertaking is quite a serious thing.

If her friends are real friends they will stop this now.

Mumsnet will assess the situation then report itself to the ICO then review its policies and tighten them further

If Emma wasn't an employee then a proper specialist will have to come and tell us the answer