h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

To repeat myself:
What the ...?

Perish the thought, Mina, perish the thought

Mina: "Is someone trigger happy this week??"

LOL, Mina! *Someone*? You mean there's someone who's *not* trigger happy this week?

For the record, I also remember quite clearly when and where CS announced about his own rude email. I was surprised (two mintues ago) to read the post where LeKZ was wondering how you knew. Apparently Willem's already corrected her on that.

I do hope that you don't think I'm out to get you Mina. I don't think I've ever attacked you.

No, , like Willem, you have disagreed with me, but I've never felt you were poking me with your pitchfork.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683&thread=127664&skip=1169

This posting has been removed. I wrote it. You can find the majority of it from my space by clicking on the entry entitled "How to ask a question". The content of that entry is obviously acceptable, since it's been up now for several days.

The posting was, as I correctly surmised, removed because it contained what the Moderation Team have referred to as "personal information".

The information in question was the name and WORKPLACE telephone number of the person in the BBC Legal department to whom I was advised to speak by the BBC switchboard.

Given that this person (who I'm obviously not allowed to name - although any yahoo with a phone can find out her name simply by calling the BBC and asking who they need to call to get the Legal Department) is in a customer facing role HOW is giving out her name IN THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT AND NO OTHER to be construed as "personal"?

Given that the email address for her is her WORKPLACE email address, HOW is that "personal"?

Given that the phone number I included is a BBC office phone number, HOW is that "personal"?

Am I now for some reason not even allowed to mention the names of BBC employees EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THEM DOING THEIR JOBS? It's going to make discussing what I saw on telly last night a bit tricky, to say the least.

Given that all these details were handed out to me over the phone within one minute, without me giving so much as my name or any reason for wanting them, HOW personal can these details be if the BBC is so cavalier about giving them out?

H.
You can guess I'm impressed.

In addition to the above, I have two questions, related to the information in this entry:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A655913

The first question is directed at anyone who has received an email from any italic recently. Are they still appending the confidentiality notice I was asking about (specifically, the one that says you can't disclose the contents without the written permission of the sender)?

The second question is directed very specifically at [name of Editor of H2G2 removed because giving the name of BBC employees constitutes personal information]. Hi [forename of Editor of H2G2 removed because giving the name of BBC employees constitutes personal information]! On September 7th, you told me that the above mentioned confidentiality notice was the verbatim wording given you by BBC Legal, and that it does in fact prevent your customers from discussing or republishing the contents of emails to which it is appended without the written consent of the sender. I was sceptical (actually, I was 99% certain you were and are completely wrong), and was surprised the Legal department would suggest such a thing. I said I'd ask them. You wrote words to the effect of "go ahead, I'm sure they'll be able to help" (the precise link is in the entry above). Well, you were wrong.

My question is this. Why do you suppose that over a period of over two months, and having received FIVE emails from me, at least the first three of which were acknowledged as having been received, WHY have the Legal department of the BBC completely failed to back you up on either of your assertions?

Surely, if they'd given you that wording verbatim because it has force in law, they could at any time over the last two months have simply typed "YES, YES, and N/A" (i.e. yes, we told H2G2 this stuff, and yes, it has force in law) into an email and sent it on its way, satisfying me completely that you were right and I was wrong, and taking them about thirty seconds. Even at BBC lawyer rates, I'd be prepared to pay for that kind of time personally, out of my own pocket.

So, Mr. [surname of Editor of H2G2 removed because giving the name of BBC employees constitutes personal information]. You agreed I should ask BBC Legal to back you up. I've asked them. They haven't backed you up, at all, not even a little bit, even though to do so would have been very, very easy for them if you were telling the truth.

My question is this. Why not, do you think?

H.

I guess you could ask [BBC employee] or even [BBC employee] on their respective Uspace which can be found here [BBC URL] and here [BBC URL]

Hoovooloo - you wanted to know about confidentiality statements:

I have had emails from h2g2 feedback and from Peta.



One of the emails from h2g2 feedback contains the following:

P.S. You've discussed the disappearance of your page on h2g2. If you want to quote this email or parts of this email in order to clarify thedisappearance please feel free to do so.

This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received
it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose
the information in any way, and notify me immediately. The contents of
this message may contain personal views which are not the views of the
BBC, unless specifically stated.



One of the emals from Peta includes the following:

The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written permission.

This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received
it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose
the information in any way, and notify me immediately. The contents of
this message may contain personal views which are not the views of the
BBC, unless specifically stated.



All the best

Ben

Thanks Ben - a big "YES, they're still using that warning" to question one. I'm on the edge of my seat for the answer to question two.

H.

Da nada. Any time.

Hoovooloo, in answer to your post 1225, the house rules, and I quote, state -
"It is not acceptable to publicise anyone else's contact details other than your own, and we will remove any postal addresses or telephone numbers from Postings."

Although it is a work number, I assume the number could be used to contact the person in question, so it is in effect 'contact details'.

Hope this helps.

In case you need the help, Mina, go here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/HouseRules

Now read again the bit which says: "However, it is acceptable to include general contact details for companies, for example, but you must only include publicly available details, such as the address of a restaurant, or the email address for customer support for a company."

The name and WORKPLACE telephone number of the customer liason person in the Legal department of the BBC would seem to me to fall comfortably under that definition.

Hope this helps.


H.

Yes, I did see that as well. But the rules specifically mention they will not allow telephone numbers.
It doesn't mention company phone numbers, only email addresses for customer support in general, not a particular person.

I'd assume it was a moderator who failed it. If you feel that's wrong (as you obviously do, and I do see your point), I would suggest that you reply to the email stating why you think it's wrong. But I guess that's like me teaching my grandmother to suck eggs!

Mina: "the rules specifically mention they will not allow telephone numbers". Wrong AGAIN - please read what you intend to quote more carefully. What the rules actually specifically state is this: "we will remove any postal addresses or telephone numbers from Postings".

That was NOT what happened. The Moderators are perfectly capable of removing small sections of posts leaving the rest of the post intact. They have repeatedly demonstrated this by ****ing out swear words in otherwise acceptable posts. In the case of my posting, they chose not to do what the House Rules state specifically that they will do. Instead, the whole posting was removed. Nothing to do with the fact that it's critical of the BBC, I'm sure.

Try to keep your facts straight. I'm still waiting for any answer to question 2, although I'm not holding my breath.

H.

Moderators are currently only allowed to remove URLs and star out swear words.

I did read it carefully, I don't see a lot of difference between 'they will not allow telephone numbers' and 'we will remove ... telephone numbers from Postings'.

I was only trying to clear up something you asked about, if you're happy to remain in ignorance, don't let me stop you.

I forgot to say, it's a good idea not to hold your breath for the italics, as they have unsubscribed to this thread.

My apologies, Mina, I do have to keep reminding myself that for many people here, English is not their first language. I've been caught out like that before. (waves to Hell!)

"we will remove any postal addresses or telephone numbers from Postings", it obviously comes as news to you to find out, does NOT mean the same thing in English as "we will remove any Postings containing telephone numbers and postal addresses".

For comparison "I would like to remove that hat from your head" has *quite* a different meaning from "I would like to remove your head because you're wearing a hat". Do you see a lot of difference now? If you don't, an English teacher may be able to help.

Thanks, btw, for the heads up about the Italics.

H.

I think we should agree to disagree on that one, as we are obviously interpreting the rules and the English Language differently.

No problem about the Eds, I thought I'd check to see if they were subscribed, as it's unlike them (IMO) to deliberately ignore direct questions.

100% satisfactory response to posting 1224, and rather less satisfactory response to post 1225, here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F47997?thread=151275&post=1475078#p1475078 Note to self: if ever meet Mina, DON'T wear hat. On other hand, if ever meet Mina and *she's* wearing hat, make sure to have portable guillotine handy because she *will not* notice the difference. ;-) H.