empirica
Member of DD Central
Posts: 326
Likes: 235
|
Post by empirica on Jun 4, 2018 22:30:08 GMT
Unlikely. But Proboards could..... They could argue it? Or they could do it? Is it likely? Their Terms and Conditions irrefutably state content belongs to the posters, and with it any liability for wrongdoing. That said, they do back up the forums, but also say they cannot restore posters' posts if they have been manually deleted. (Cannot or will not?) I'm told it is unlikely they would maintain archive backup for very long _ likelihood is weeks or days rather than years or months. (Notwithstanding the (generally speaking) one year time limitation for defamation (in England)) That all said, I'm advised it could be quite surprising what ProBoards might pull out of the hat if five-o ever came knocking ...
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864 
Likes: 6,892
|
Post by duck on Jun 5, 2018 4:30:07 GMT
Whilst I don't want to divert this thread into a discussion of GDPR I wondered if Admin has a view on the point I raised above? I've managed to identify some of those who have been banned and note that they were some of the most prolific (and useful from a dd point of view) posters. Content that they cannot read this (don't want to give out ideas!), if their posts were to disappear that would leave some very big holes in threads..... but surely as registerme has illustrated above the current situation is very unclear at present and needs to be clarified. Whilst I have been mentioning this issue iro those that have been banned I cannot help but think forwards to the publication of the new T's & C's if/when the forum is incorporated. If a member reads the T's & C's and feels that he/she can't accept them we have another quandary, how does that person remove their past posts if they want to? Please note this post is not 'mod baiting' in any way. A lifetime spent as a professional engineer has made my mind focus on 'detail' since it is often the smallest issue that sinks the grandest plans! |
|
greenslime
Member of DD Central
Posts: 111
Likes: 144
|
Post by greenslime on Jun 5, 2018 7:38:10 GMT
3. KYC. Simply no. There is absolutely no way I would go through the loss of privacy and the rigmarole of identity checks for a forum. The only forums where I would consider that are private forums, typically associated with something that already requires KYC (the TC private forum is an example). I've never had to do that for a public forum and I wouldn't make an exception for the P2PIF. I might be ok with the current mods knowing who I am but in the future who would have that info? The somewhat bizarre offer of an unknown faceless Admin on the Frank forum to buy the P2PIF via an offshore entity is an example. It could be perfectly benign but who would know? Against that the reward of being able to post here is marginal. I would lose nothing really from being read-only since I don't even have access to the DD forum. I second this. Except it is worse. This site would become a target for hackers. The KYC data would be that of wealthy (significantly so in some cases) who are known to have invested on sites (look at which groups they post in) which themselves don't always have the best security. Those devising, testing and maintaining the security would be unpaid volunteers. Maybe one is currently an expert in this field, but that isn't likely to be the case forever. Perhaps a hacker would join as a moderator. I can't imagine ever sending you a copy of my passport or a bank statement. If the KYC was much weaker than that and I did join I couldn't ever imagine posting about which stockbroker I liked, or where my latest ISA is. Nor posting anything about any of the P2P that have a large minimum loan such as Thin Cats. And so on. I would be so much more careful than I am now about what I say. Without KYC I am happy to pay something to help cover legal and other costs; if it gets rid of adverts all the better. This. And it's not that I'm a HNW or SI (the words 'greenslime' and 'sophisticated' are seldom used together in any context ...), but simply that I'm becoming increasingly aware of how much of my life is out there and am seeking to reduce, not increase, my digital existence. As someone who has benefited far more from the forum than I have contributed I'm willing to make a financial contribution but that's as far as it goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Jun 5, 2018 11:40:43 GMT
Proposed Evolution of the P2P Independent ForumThe P2PIndependentforum.com (P2PIF) started out in November 2013, when P2P was a somewhat different proposition, and the regulatory framework for it’s operation barely existed. We received some initial legal advice around regulatory issues which resulted in our much lambasted refusal to allow the publishing of borrower’s names or anything which would easily allow for their identification. Since this time not only has the P2P environment moved on but so has other legislation such as GDPR and regulation around social media. As members may be aware we have lost nearly half of our volunteer staff team in the last year, whilst the number of forum members has risen by just over 25% (>1000) in the same period. A contributory factor in a number of staff departures has been the perceived increase from ‘regulatory’ risk coupled with the awareness that it is our individual personal ‘assets’ that are on the line should anyone ever attempt to sue or litigate against the forum. That we may be able to successfully defend any case is irrelevant as to merely mount a defence would have cost implications. If the end goal is to reduce the risk that individuals could be involved in legal action, then the way forward would be to incorporate with limited liability. A forum with virtually no assets is unlikely to be sued. While incorporating will reduced the risk to the individual moderator, it will increase the workload and costs which have to be paid for somehow. As a company director you will also have legal duties and responsibilities to perform.
Personally I have been a huge supporter of the forum, but I think we need to be sure that everyone is comfortable with whatever is decided going forward. We also need to consider that there are several "other" forums out there that do not have a cost model.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 5, 2018 17:30:58 GMT
Just to pick up on the questions regarding GDPR and the deletion of post content, I think it has to be assumed that Proboards Inc as the data controller does not believe that post content is personal information under GDPR.
Proboards will delete the forum account of banned forum members on request (via the Proboards support forum) which I believe ensures all personal information held by Proboards is permanently deleted, but not as others have noted the post content.
Concerns about Proboards policy in this respect will have to be taken up with Proboards Inc. as the data controller.
Given the multitude of re-quotes of forum posts, the caching undertaken by search engines and ISP's as well as the activities of groups such as the waybackmachine it has long been regarded as close to impossible to totally erase content posted to the internet. It is possible such practicalities have influenced Proboards approach.
EDIT (10th June 18)
To clarify, I should have pointed out that Proboards "consider a post that contains information such as (but not limited to) an email address, phone number, or mailing address to contain personal information. If we received a request from the party who's information was posted to have that removed, we absolutely would. This has been our policy long before GDPR went into effect."
My apologies for not making that clear, as I was fully aware of it at the time I made the post. The process for getting such posts deleted is initiated from the 'Report Abuse' link at the foot of every forum page, or by emailing abuse@proboards.com with a link to the post in question.
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 555
Likes: 432
|
Post by metoo on Jun 6, 2018 5:20:11 GMT
It seems to me that KYC checks would sap the life-blood of the forum, detering existing and new members from participation, for the many reasons others have given. A forum needs people willing to share their thoughts and knowledge or it dies. I have never encountered a forum that required KYC checks.
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Jun 6, 2018 11:03:08 GMT
Just to pick up on the questions regarding GDPR and the deletion of post content, I think it has to be assumed that Proboards Inc as the data controller does not believe that post content is personal information under GDPR.
Proboards will delete the forum account of banned forum members on request (via the Proboards support forum) which I believe ensures all personal information held by Proboards is permanently deleted, but not as others have noted the post content.
Concerns about Proboards policy in this respect will have to be taken up with Proboards Inc. as the data controller.
Given the multitude of re-quotes of forum posts, the caching undertaken by search engines and ISP's as well as the activities of groups such as the waybackmachine it has long been regarded as close to impossible to totally erase content posted to the internet. It is possible such practicalities have influenced Proboards approach.
I believe that the P2P Independent Forum are the data controllers, not Proboards Inc.
ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1600/social-networking-and-online-forums-dpa-guidance.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 6, 2018 11:14:45 GMT
easteregg that pdf is the old DPA not the now current GDPR.
That aside the .com domain does not host any data it is merely a pointer to the forum which is hosted by Proboards at p2pforum.boards.net/ The handling of user registration / login / storage of personal data is done by Proboards Inc. The Privacy Policy linked to at the foot of every page of the forum makes it clear the data controller is Proboards Inc. Proboards make visible to forum staff a small proportion of the data they gather on users, as is explained in their Terms of Service.
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Jun 6, 2018 11:24:11 GMT
easteregg that pdf is the old DPA not the now current GDPR.
That aside the .com domain does not host any data it is merely a pointer to the forum which is hosted by Proboards at p2pforum.boards.net/ The handling of user registration / login / storage of personal data is done by Proboards Inc. The Privacy Policy linked to at the foot of every page of the forum makes it clear the data controller is Proboards Inc. Proboards make visible to forum staff a small proportion of the data they gather on users, as is explained in their Terms of Service. Many thanks for clarifying. I have tried to check the register ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/what-we-do/register-of-fee-payers/ to see if Proboards are registered as such, but the register is "being updated".
|
|
empirica
Member of DD Central
Posts: 326
Likes: 235
|
Post by empirica on Jun 6, 2018 17:47:28 GMT
“The somewhat bizarre offer of an unknown faceless Admin on the Frank forum to buy the P2PIF via an offshore entity is an example. It could be perfectly benign but who would know?”
I don’t necessarily find the offer bizarre. OK, the offshore co. might be a little unusual, but as already mentioned, off-shoring does offer additional protection.
Otherwise, it seems to me to be a simple case of there being on the one hand a forum who’s volunteers don’t feel they can continue the way things are and on the other, someone is offering to take over the reins ‘as is’ meaning zero disruption _ or cost _ to the current membership.
Mention of the ‘Admin on the Frank forum’ sent me looking to see if there were more details on the offer and I found this:
“I would clarify my offer was for one penny, however the platform would remain free to use, it would not accept platform sponsorship or membership subscriptions, it would accept advertising on a arms length basis, as proboards does at the moment, and any income in excess of running costs will be donated to charity.
Furthermore there will be no identification checks (described incorrectly by the Independent Forum management as KYC despite posters not being their client or customer) although the forum will be fully compliant with the Data Protection Act, GDPR and the Defamation Act.”
Not sure the KYC point was necessary, but in all other respects, it’s clear cut to me.
What doesn’t seem so clear cut is this:
“And the Internet does throw up the most interesting information when prompted. Try googling "Administration p2pindependentforum.com" and among the first page of results you will find an entry on a NED site for a certain Mr C using their connection to the P2PIF to tout for fee earning opportunities:
"I am part of the administration team at the main self-help internet resource for the P2P sector, and have board level contacts at all the major debt funding platforms. I can advise on the best approach for securing crowd funding for businesses."
Would it be churlish of me to question the suitability of an individual that doesn't declare such interest to run an independent forum? Or whether all the motives behind the recent 'evolution' proposal have been disclosed?
(Had I the opportunity to comment on the P2PIF, I would have initially been in favour of an incorporated structure if it protected volunteers and broadly supported anything that improved the signal to noise ratio, but now it seems to me there's a whole new bunch of questions to be answered.)”
Is this correct?
If it is, might it explain why earlier questions as what approach would be taken if an offer came in to simply take over the forum ‘as is’ went ignored?Apparently, there are some vested interests here and, if indeed some are leveraging their connections to this community for personal gain, it would explain why there might be reluctance to give up the reins.
And to expect to be able to hold onto those reins whilst canvassing the membership for ways to pay for the upkeep of the horse is, in my opinion, taking the biscuit, to put it politely.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Jun 6, 2018 18:46:12 GMT
Just shows few are truly anonymous, without resourcing to serious obfuscation techniques, everyone who posts here has provided, at a minimum, their email and an IP address which is sufficient to find you (mostly), and more than sufficient to discharge the legal obligations of the Moderators to give up anyone who crosses any legal line.
That said, I do prefer to remain mostly anonymous (purely for peace of mind, whilst knowing that if I liable anyone they will find me) and therefore the KYC bit, telling a set of people I don't know, who I am (and who don't really need to know) is a red flag to me.
I really value the help the crowd sourced information on this forum has provided to me, and helped me to avoid many mistakes, yet I value my privacy more, and with all the Edward Snowden stuff and Facebook App slurping, I know that few (no one) can be trusted to protect my privacy!
Should the proposed route be followed, I suspect we'll all gather in another place to share again.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 6, 2018 19:38:49 GMT
What doesn’t seem so clear cut is this:“ And the Internet does throw up the most interesting information when prompted. Try googling "Administration p2pindependentforum.com" and among the first page of results you will find an entry on a NED site for a certain Mr C using their connection to the P2PIF to tout for fee earning opportunities:
"I am part of the administration team at the main self-help internet resource for the P2P sector, and have board level contacts at all the major debt funding platforms. I can advise on the best approach for securing crowd funding for businesses."
Would it be churlish of me to question the suitability of an individual that doesn't declare such interest to run an independent forum? Or whether all the motives behind the recent 'evolution' proposal have been disclosed?
(Had I the opportunity to comment on the P2PIF, I would have initially been in favour of an incorporated structure if it protected volunteers and broadly supported anything that improved the signal to noise ratio, but now it seems to me there's a whole new bunch of questions to be answered.)” Is this correct? This seems really strange, who is the person involved? And are they a mod or otherwise actually connected to this forum?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Jun 6, 2018 19:56:20 GMT
I think a little more Occam's Razor, and a little less tinfoil hattery, would improve both this place and "Frank".
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 6, 2018 20:01:43 GMT
That doesn't seem to add a great deal of clarity.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Jun 6, 2018 20:16:07 GMT
I'm not sure what sort of clarity you are looking for. For example, were I to have said something in my LinkedIn profile about being an admin on the P2PIF forum for a couple of years, and having an interest in the sector, would that simply be stating the facts, or would it be me making something of it that I shouldn't? There's a wise rule floating about somewhere on the internet that goes something along the lines of "never ascribe to malevolence that which could be ascribed to incompetence". Now I don't believe that there's any incompetence in play here, but there is a lot of backchat, side glances and snide commentary ascribing honest motives to malevolence. It happened with the UGF, it's happening with Frank, and it'll happen to the next place. Hence my being pro "KYC", even though I know a lot of people are anti the idea (and I understand why). Honestly, if people really think that the staff here have ulterior motives (means motive opportunity etc) then why do they, the forumites bother, and why do the staff? Just before I wrote this I sent a PM to some of the staff going "seriously, I don't know why you bother, just shut it down and let everybody go to Frank, make it their problem" (there's how much my "control" interest was in play, and is in play, for you cooling_dude ). PS. I don't think I've updated my LinkedIn profile for 15 odd years. |
|
