Our private details, real names, diagnoses, etc. revealed online

Options
luv_gardening
luv_gardening Member Posts: 1,393
edited June 2014 in Alternative Medicine

(link removed by Mods to protect BCO members)

See the comments.  Many details are just plain wrong or exaggerated.

ETA My apologies for including the link.  Thanks to the mods for fixing it.

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«134

Comments

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited July 2012

    Moderators, I was also alerted to thenewme and blackcat's diffamation of BCO posters on that site and their violation of the U.S. Copyright Law.  

    This calls for legal intervention, no less.  Some posters on that thread became concerned about his/her copy and paste and asked blackcat to use quotation marks....

    You can skip the delusionary posts to blackcat's dated June 19.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hindsfeet
    Hindsfeet Member Posts: 2,456
    edited July 2012

    Ouch!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • realistically
    realistically Member Posts: 2
    edited July 2012

    You do know that this is a public forum, right? Privacy rights are very limited on the internet. 

    Breastcancer.org has shown a continual disregard for US Copyright law when it comes to posts by the users of these discussion boards. It would be hardly likely to want to defend the rights it has to what is posted here when copied onto other discussion sites. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • suzieq60
    suzieq60 Member Posts: 6,059
    edited July 2012

    Leah has also posted there and linked a thread, so who's at fault? All of our posts are in the public domain.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited July 2012

    Realistically...new poster with 2 posts, realistically laughable 

    Moderators, how do some of them get away with multiple IDs ?

    SusieQ, well, we all know who you stand by, don't we ? or maybe......

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NattyOnFrostyLake
    NattyOnFrostyLake Member Posts: 377
    edited July 2012

    SuzieQ and our old "new" poster,

    Defending copyright thieves is inexcusable. The web is not public domain. Damages have been awarded to people who reposted others' posts. BCO has strict rules about this.

    http://gizmodo.com/5681714/attention-the-web-is-not-public-domain

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited July 2012

    There is no profit involved in sharing the info that has been posted.  Therein lies the difference. And credit was given to the posters at BCO.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NattyOnFrostyLake
    NattyOnFrostyLake Member Posts: 377
    edited July 2012

    Nope. Has nothing to do with profit or credit. Has to do with intention. Ask your daughter about IP law.

    I could be out in the street giving away xeroxed copies of THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP and still be sued.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited July 2012

    Women from BCO were viciously attacked, defamed and their privacy violated on a quackbuster site

    "United States privacy law embodies several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into his or her private affairs, discloses his or her private information, publicizes him or her in a false light, or appropriates his or her name for personal gain.

    The essence of the law derives from a right to privacy, defined broadly as "the right to be let alone.

    Invasion of the right to privacy can be the basis for a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity violating the right"

    Neither Chilli nor Vivre had given out their blog - they are WERE private blogs, by invitation only. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • thats-life-
    thats-life- Member Posts: 1,075
    edited July 2012

    Its sad really.

    Blackcat stated she is keeping a list of women who have progressed to stage IV while being involved with the alt forum here at BCO. Im sure she/he knows that recent stats estimate around 30% of all earlier stage BC dx's will progress to stage IV. Im sure no one keeps a list of members who have progressed to stage IV using conventional treatment recommendations. Well, i would hope not...kind of morbid.

    One poster on that blog dismissed 'alties' deaths as returning to the crystalline.. or something to that effect, stating we shouldnt be too upset in that case. I would encourage people to consider the blog as a personal opinion only, and the followers as people who have embarked on a crusade to make a point only, without consideration of the experience of 'incurable' cancer.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rosemary-b
    rosemary-b Member Posts: 2,006
    edited July 2012

    Anyone who has trouble with what is posted at anoher website should go to the website and read the whole thread. That might be a good idea for all who are interested.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 1Athena1
    1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696
    edited July 2012

    Very tasteless, joy, I agree.

    But NattyGroves, I suggest that you keep reading rules because some talk about posting under multiple identities. I wouldn't point the finger if I were you - you might poke out your own eye.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited July 2012

    @ rose, yeah, why not kill two birds with one stone and publicize the website while you're at it.  Kinda pathetic

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NattyOnFrostyLake
    NattyOnFrostyLake Member Posts: 377
    edited July 2012

    Athena, calm yourself, dear.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 1Athena1
    1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696
    edited July 2012

    I'm just watching for your eye, rainbowpony/zuvart - I'm concerned that you might really hurt it.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited July 2012

    "Online Defamation And Your Rights

    Defamation laws and libel lawsuits are one such area and many individuals, businesses, and website owners have fallen foul of the belief that they can write anything about anybody when they are online.

    In light of the increase in libelous comments governments, judges, and courts around the world have extended their own laws and regulations to include comments made online as well as in other more traditional forms of media. What Is Defamation?

    The publication or broadcast of any libelous or slanderous statement about an individual or business that can be proven to be false and published with the intention of harming that entity's reputation is considered to be defamation. Online defamation is the publication of such statements made on any Internet based media including blogs, forums, websites, and even social networking websites. While many Internet users believe that they are free to say and do as they like while on the Internet, this is untrue and the same defamation laws and regulations stand for online defamation as they do in any form of media.

    Acts And Laws That Govern Online Defamation

    As social networking and blogging have become popular tools for Internet users to voice their opinion and get involved in discussions, online defamation cases have also been on the rise. While there are very few or no specific online defamation acts, libel lawsuits that cite the Communications Decency Act have been successfully been tried in courts around the world. Also, there are rumors that some countries around the world, especially the UK, are set to release specific online defamation laws that deal specifically with these laws.

    The Communications Decency Act Of 1996

    The Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) was actually established to try and deal with the publication of pornography and other adult content freely and widely available on the Internet. However, it was also created in a bid to combat any indecent and defamatory content found on websites and other online publications.

    Section 230 of the CDA is the section that is perhaps most relevant to online defamation. It attempts to deal with the question of an ISP's liability to content that is stored on their servers. Although it does not specifically outline all instances, it does contend that an ISP is not responsible for the information published by their users unless and until they are informed of any infringement; at this point, the ISP should act to remove the content or face legal action themselves.

    The Communications Decency Act of 1996 can be viewed in full at the FCC website"

    http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NattyOnFrostyLake
    NattyOnFrostyLake Member Posts: 377
    edited July 2012

    Athena: With respect, does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? That not everybody on the group is a pony? I'm concerned about you, that you imagine conspiracies where none exist. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Blessings and good night, dear one.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 1Athena1
    1Athena1 Member Posts: 6,696
    edited July 2012

    Good night to all of you and your devices, NattyGroves, et. al.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited July 2012

    Natty, Natty, Natty, dear one, how the heck do you know I have a daughter and one in the field of law?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited July 2012

    I don't have to by the way........

    http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • suzieq60
    suzieq60 Member Posts: 6,059
    edited July 2012
    Thing is that you are having a go at BlackCat and Thenewme for publishing info over there. However, Leah - who is one of your pals or even one of you with a new name has also posted a link to BCO over there - are you going to attack her as well?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • thats-life-
    thats-life- Member Posts: 1,075
    edited July 2012

    I find it all so depressing. I understand the feeling of violation from members who have been ridiculed. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • thats-life-
    thats-life- Member Posts: 1,075
    edited July 2012

    A breast surgeon and a nurse arguing continuously about 'little evidence'...at least there's a little! ;)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Stormynyte
    Stormynyte Member Posts: 650
    edited July 2012

    Geesh this again? This is a public site. The only info anyone can get about you from here is the very same info YOU put on here.  If you don't want it to be public, don't post it on a public website.

    You can not realistically have an expectation of privacy here. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rosemary-b
    rosemary-b Member Posts: 2,006
    edited July 2012

    Maud if you were addressing me, it is rosemary and I am happy to promote that site, which I have not mentioned by name. I believe it is Joylieswithin who first directed people to it. Are you going to scold her also?

    There does seem to be some inconsistency here.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • thats-life-
    thats-life- Member Posts: 1,075
    edited July 2012

    I think jlw was just giving members here a right of reply, or an awareness that they are being discussed, and that their personal blogs have been advertised and linked.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bluedahlia
    bluedahlia Member Posts: 6,944
    edited July 2012

    Nancy I'm not involved.  Besides there is no personal identifiable info other than that given by the posters involved.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rosemary-b
    rosemary-b Member Posts: 2,006
    edited July 2012

    Edited because it no longer makes sense with the OP removed.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • sweetbean
    sweetbean Member Posts: 1,931
    edited July 2012

    *sigh*  The fighting on these boards totally bums me out.  

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Wabbit
    Wabbit Member Posts: 1,592
    edited July 2012

    Why is this complaint here?  The moderators of the other site are who you should be talking to if you have a problem with posts on their site.  They will then decide whether they break their rules or not.  BCO can't tell them what to do nor should they be expected to fight your battles for you.

    And once again ... if you post stuff on a public site it is public.  Anybody can read here ... nothing we post here is private.  

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories