grobertson and Donna

[Guest guest]

If you can get someone's SSN on the net without having proper authority, that's

clearly

illegal and out of line. By searching for someone's name and some key words and

finding

something that they've had published (or as a result was published by some

public

publishing entity) that's not even remotely borderline: that's fully public and

common

knowledge, and was clearly intended to be that way. This is a false comparison,

because

anyone that knowingly does an interview for a publication read by the public

without

expectation that it'll be available to the whole world is a complete idiot,

because you very

clearly gave permanent consent, lest there be any contacts that specify

otherwise.

If you ever perform in some public sporting event, say, some foot race, which

often

donates some portion of the proceeds to one or more charities or some

fundraising

purpose, the fine print always mentions that as part of participating, you give

full consent

to the relevant information, which includes your likeness in any future

promotional

material, as well as your age, gender, and your performance times. Of course,

in such an

event, how in the heck are you going to track down and enforce an unreasonable

expectation of privacy when spectators are taking pictures and videos of the

racers?

What Tom did in no way invades her rights to privacy, as she has absolutely no

reasonable

and logical expectation of privacy by her actions. Not only that, but... it

contradicts her

past stated (or tacit) goals of trying to be some sort of authority to resist

having her name

and anything related to her in the public eye being exposed. When acting purely

as a

private figure in the privacy of your own home, you have a reasonable moral and

legal

expectation of privacy: when you go out of your way to do public things that

makes you a

public figure for whatever purpose, within the extent of that activity, you've

signed away

any rights of expectation of privacy as a direct result. This is well

established.

> > First off, when one does an interview where the interview is published, one

> > can no longer claim anonymity on the Internet.

> >

> Great memory though.

> > You posted on October 4 that you grew up in South Africa. You posted that

> > you are now in Australia. You posted that you studied psychology. You

> > posted that you have spent over 20 years working with children. You posted

> > you have spoken to literally thousands of children.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Zoe wrote: " ... <snip> ... I could post the entire contents of this

group online. Some parts of this are quite personal, and possibly a

little damaging for some of us ... <snip> ... "

While you could certainly do that, Zoe, this group functions under

the understanding that confidentiality is a cornerstone of our

community.

This is not the case when one gives a PUBLIC interview to a very

PUBLIC interviewer and personality -- a celebrity of sorts since

Donna *is* a celebrity of sorts -- as the expectation of

privacy and confidentiality is surrendered as it pertains to

information directly related to the interview.

In the case of the interview between grobertson and Donna ,

the information in the article relates directly to information

grobertson posted here. In other words, there is no expectation of

privacy with regards to who she is, what she does, where she lives et

al since she has made all of this information PUBLIC.

Zoe wrote: " ... <snip> ... Also, for example, I might be able to

find your SSN through an online database ... <snip> ... "

Yes, you could do that however if you did so, you would be committing

a criminal act which could result in charges being laid. One's SSN

is NOT public knowledge and therefore, one most assuredly expects

confidentiality with regards to one's SSN.

Raven

[Guest guest]

strict wrote: " ... <snip> ... If you can get someone's SSN on the net

without having proper authority, that's clearly illegal and out of

line. By searching for someone's name and some key words and finding

something that they've had published (or as a result was published by

some public publishing entity) that's not even remotely borderline:

that's fully public and common knowledge, and was clearly intended to

be that way ... <snip> ... "

Exactly, strict. Thank you.

Raven

[Guest guest]

I run a forum. I do not make the information people supply on joining public. I would not have minded at all if I thought that the interview with Donna was noted and mentioned as part of people's browsing on the net. I mind that the information was used in a post which I do not believe had anything to do with the discussion, other than that I am a teacher. That information has been posted by me before. I mind because Donna has nothing to do with my opinions and I do not choose to involve her in my dealings on the net without her permission. I am allowed to have an opinion on this, I hope, just as people may differ if they choose, but it should not become a brawl. That is ridiculous.

Re: grobertson and Donna

Zoe wrote: " ... <snip> ... I could post the entire contents of this group online. Some parts of this are quite personal, and possibly a little damaging for some of us ... <snip> ... "

While you could certainly do that, Zoe, this group functions under the understanding that confidentiality is a cornerstone of our community. This is not the case when one gives a PUBLIC interview to a very PUBLIC interviewer and personality -- a celebrity of sorts since Donna *is* a celebrity of sorts -- as the expectation of privacy and confidentiality is surrendered as it pertains to information directly related to the interview. In the case of the interview between grobertson and Donna , the information in the article relates directly to information grobertson posted here. In other words, there is no expectation of privacy with regards to who she is, what she does, where she lives et al since she has made all of this information PUBLIC.

Zoe wrote: " ... <snip> ... Also, for example, I might be able to find your SSN through an online database ... <snip> ... "

Yes, you could do that however if you did so, you would be committing a criminal act which could result in charges being laid. One's SSN is NOT public knowledge and therefore, one most assuredly expects confidentiality with regards to one's SSN.

Raven

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

[Guest guest]

> two_b_sailing wrote: " Wow!! Just Wow!! My first day and someone

>

> here is threatening to copy and post site messages elsewhere? I

> don't quite believe the 'for example' disclaimer... <snip> ... Just

> the suggestion that he would do such a thing was so terribly

> destructive. I'm not sure how much I'll post here. Thanks alot

> Zoe ... </snip> ... "

I meant that as an example of what I could (but would not) do (IF

I were to ignore legalities, ethics, impacts on others, and the fact

that the admins would quickly ensure that I would not have another

opportunity). I am sorry for the poor wording, and it's effects. The

intent was to attempt to demonstrate that there is a privacy line

somewhere, but it can be gray in certain other contexts. I side with

Raven in this one particular context, but I was meaning to note the

ethical questions that the internet adds, such as how is semi-public

information (Information that is obviously intended to be private, but

is not for some reason, like information on certain MySpace or

FaceBook pages) is handled.

In the context of this mailing list, I consider all information

to be held in confidence, with the exception of a link to a news

article (only the link itself, without commentary), an explicit note

from the post's author, or extremely extenuating circumstances

(confirmed intent to harm others or self). It is only within that

narrow context that I would even consider copying from this list.

> <snip> Zoe is very young, two-b-sailing, and while she contributes

> interesting bits to the group, she does not fully understand the

> difference between (a) posting a PUBLIC interview that is available

> online and in hard copy and ( posting PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL

> information from a PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL forum elsewhere on the

> Internet or in hard copy.

>

> This is evidenced by the fact that she indicated that she could find

> and post my SSN if she felt like it.</snip>

Again, intended as an example for debate. Besides my conscience, I

would rather not quarrel with lawyers, nor meet my new cellmate,

Bubba. I do understand that " private " and " confidential " do mean,

" do not forward. "

> <snip> One of the cornerstones of this forum is the confidentiality all of

> us support.</snip>

There are things I have said here in confidence, and I do treat

confidentiality as one of the main tenets of this list. I already know

firsthand the possible ramifications to the victim that held

confidence, and I do not wish that upon others. My own experiences of

being betrayed are rather difficult for me to forget.

>

> <snip> While I completely understand your very valid concerns, it saddens me

> that Zoe's suggestion has placed you in a position where you feel you

> cannot post freely to this forum.</snip>

I apologize for the effects of my poorly worded post. I do sincerely

hope that I am worth your trust, that you find your future experience

with this group to be beneficial, and that you will feel free to post.

Also, seeing as how I missed chiming in on the welcome message,

welcome to the group, Two be sailing.

--Zoe

[Guest guest]

I do not say that Son Rise is a program worth considering.

I say that it is a good thing to join an autistic child in his or her world. Son Rise does that. It is the only aspect of Son Rise that I promote.

It is important that parents learn to look at programs and evaluate them. It is important that they learn to look at their child's characteristics so that they can evaluate strategies that will support or harm. I will not be there for that child's life to help with all the decisions that need to be made. Parents need to know how to do that for themselves. They won't know how to do it if nobody shows them.

And many of the suggestions you make are dangerous but appear to be

effective. I'm certain that those who worked with the little boy in

Chatham, ON were able to make the same claim and yet 5 years later

the child is "Autistic once again."

This is an offensive accusation. Once again, if anyone here has any evidence that I have ever claimed to or intended to cure autism, I would like to see it. Please stop inventing crap. I would also like to see any dangerous suggestions I have made, because if I cause harm, I would like to know what that is so I can stop.

I find it unbelievable. No

one ever has a 100% success rate no matter how good they are at their

job.

What do you call success?

I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy.

I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy.I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy. I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy. I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy. I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy. I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy. I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy. I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy. I do not promote Son Rise as a therapy. I promote one strategy.

Get it?

Re: grobertson and Donna

gprobertson wrote: "I have worked with thousands of childre. I have not worked with thousands of autistic children, but that was not my statement. I have only worked with about 40 autistic children if you limit that to those who had a dx at the time ... <snip> ... "

"

I have worked with literally thousands of young children ... [end quote]."

If you have worked with that many young children, as I stated previously, then you are obviously considered to be somewhat of a credible authority.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... As for authority, well I start my talks with the fact that I am not an autism expert. I am an expert in my own autism. I use what I know about myself and the people I talk with to help parents, teachers and children ... <snip> ... "

Exactly and because you say you are Autistic, people listen to you even especially when you suggest that SonRise is a program worth considering. That you would do so speaks loudly to the fact that you have not done sufficient research on the subject of Autism to understand that promoting programs and therapies that are unproven or disproven, and in many cases harmful -- sometimes fatally so -- to Autistics is even more appalling!

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... It is not totally altruistic. I get paid for work in schools. I do not get paid for work outside the education department ... <snip> ... "

Yes, well, you have to earn a living so it stands to reason you would get paid for what you do. That was never an issue.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I have my job because the suggestions I make are effective ... <snip> ... "

And many of the suggestions you make are dangerous but appear to be effective. I'm certain that those who worked with the little boy in Chatham, ON were able to make the same claim and yet 5 years later the child is "Autistic once again." Those people are able to "claim" that their suggestions were effective ... at least for almost 5 years.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I know that because the children are all happily included in mainstream schools and there are no families of autistic children in conflict with schools in this district, unlike the rest of the state ... <snip> ... "

Without proof to back up that statement, I find it unbelievable. No one ever has a 100% success rate no matter how good they are at their job.

gprobertson wrote: " ... <snip> ... I am not a monster ... <snip> ... "

No one said you are a monster. What many of us are saying is that you are acting irresponsibly and dangerously so, in supporting and promoting programs such as the SonRise program that makes use of quack therapies and promotes a CURE where none exists and will never exist because Autism is not something that needs to be CURED in the first place.

Raven

------------------------------------

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. To contact the forum administrator, use this e-mail address: FAMSecretSociety-owner

Check the Links section for more FAM forums.