[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Privacy online



Perhaps an unnamed ringer could choose between 
"Anon.", "Local Ringer", and "Visiting Ringer", 
or anything else suitably acceptable. 

Alternatively, pseudonyms or nicknames could work, 
of the type used by summer camp counselors. 
A moniker be chosen by the ringer in question,
by (friendly) others (with approval of the ringer),
or arbitrarily assigned, possibly differing each time,
as in Google Docs.


My impression is that sometimes
some descriptions of a ringer's progress 
are included in the Clapper reports. 
I'm not sure how identifying these are,
but they might be mentioned in policy. 

Also, I would want ringers to be aware of
whether photography of the guest book
is encouraged, allowed, or prohibited. 

Regards from the left coast,
annag


On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 9:52 AM, John Bihn <jrb8alumni gmail com> wrote:
These are just my initial thoughts, so I’d be very interested to hear if anybody has similar/different views on bell-ringing privacy.

My initial reaction is that it wouldn’t be inherently contradictory for you to send a Bellboard link to the church. I think for the Clapper reports, which often contain slightly more detailed information than only specifying that a ringer was part of a performance, your practice of just using first names, or name and last initial in my case :-) , is reasonable. I think the difference here is that after performances/quarter-peals, ringers will sign their names in the guest book, which will be posted on Bellboard. I suppose the step that we may need to make explicit is that our performances are uploaded to Bellboard afterwards. I imagine that if a ringer did not wish to have their name publicly listed, we’d be able to list that bell as “Anon.” or “Local ringer” on Bellboard for example.

To address your question, my thought is that because the quarter peal commemorating the royal wedding has been publicly posted to Bellboard, it’s reasonable to pass the link along to the church. Of course, this is subject to any objections from those who were involved in the ringing who may not wish to have this information sent along.

Best,
John B.

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 10:12 AM Laura Dickerson <lauradi rcn com> wrote:
         The vicar at Old North asked beforehand if we were planning to
ring for the wedding of the now Duke and Duchess of Sussex. People did,
and it's up on Bellboard.  I was going to send the link to the church,
and then I started thinking of privacy. The historical site's twitter
feed @OldNorth1723 has two thousand followers.  In the Boston area
Clapper reports, I lean toward excessive privacy, not including anyone's
surname, even though the online version of the Clapper is password
protected.  Many twitter posts don't require logging in, securely or
not,  so would this be violating my self-imposed privacy line?  What do
people think?

Laura Dickerson


_______________________________________________
Boston-change-ringers mailing list
Boston-change-ringers cosmos phy tufts edu
https://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/mailman/listinfo/boston-change-ringers
_______________________________________________
Boston-change-ringers mailing list
Boston-change-ringers cosmos phy tufts edu
https://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/mailman/listinfo/boston-change-ringers
--

--
Anna C. Gladstone