BBC may want to rethink that. Either it is illegal and then the police and courts are the place or it is legal and then it is none of their business. What they are threatening is when they perceive their TOS are violated that they use personal information and interfere in other relationships. This exposes the BBC to liability e.g. if the person is fired they may ask the BBC to pay up. See also: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference</a>
I'm no fan of the 'employer' part, because it places companies in a position as arbitrators of behaviour that they don't deserve.<p>BUT: Considering the stuff I see people posting online, I do think it's such a cesspool of hatred, ill-will and really bad arguments that I am concerned how societies will continue to function, if these interactions become a routine part of civic society.<p>In the past, your opinions, and statements were moderated by your peers, i. e. friends, family, or even strangers (but face-to-face). Sure, that meant a certain degree of self-censorship in some cases. But apart from some anarchists notion of "free speech", I have yet to see anything good emerging from the cauldron of freedom (see /r/the_donald for reference).<p>Anonymously posting hate-filled comments or fake conspiracies is probably legal, but that doesn't mean it's good. It has real costs, both in how it may hurt those it wants to hurt, as well as the toll it has taken on the political narrative. There needs to be a mechanism to include the author in the fallout from his comments.<p>The best I can think of would be connecting posts to the author's Facebook profile. If your friends all see the stuff you write at bbc.co.uk, you'll be a bit more circumspect in what you say.<p>Generally, posts that the author would be ashamed of if their mother read them are probably something we can do without.<p>Ideally, we should come up with a mechanism that respects the idea that we all have multiple public personas, i. e. it's completely legitimate to ask a question on a sexual health forum but you still don't want your family to see it. But these 'personas' shouldn't be license to act without taking responsibility for the consequences.
Seems like this is just a clumsy way of simply saying they are going to contact the administrator of the domain your account is associated with (which may be your employer, school, etc.)
Wow, that's confusing.<p>I know that I know very little about U.K. law, so I would appreciate if someone there could answer:<p>- Do employers typically have law-enforcement duties?<p>- Is there a legal presumption of innocence---until proven otherwise---as there is in the U.S.?<p>- Besides TV Licenses, is the BBC a judicial entity?<p>I'm just trying to understand why the BBC may notify a non-law-enforcement agency about a possible violation of law.
"Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws (e.g. because content you have posted may be defamatory), the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement, [etc....]"<p>"in breach of any applicable laws" is not quite the same as "problematic", even under the modern sense of "a problem" or "something we don't like".
Is this another TV detector van? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van</a>
Given BBC's coverage as of late, I assume BBC will contact your boss if you make a pro-Corbyn statement.<p>This story reminded me of Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen trying to get an anti-Trumper fired from her position at a bank by outing her to her boss. (<a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/15/15640534/rodney-frelinghuysen-bank-employee" rel="nofollow">https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/15/15640534/r...</a>)
Is it problematic if you espouse beliefs about Brexit on BBC's website? Uh oh. Careful, your boss might know you have unsavory political beliefs.<p>If a person speaks illegally on a forum, then the right move would be to contact law enforcement. But if the action falls below law enforcement, then apparently the BBC has its own enforcement wing when it encounters unsavory speech. The oversight? BBC's cold cultural calculations and political acumen. The consequences? Getting someone fired or harassed at work.
If so, I have a feeling that all those disclaimers stating "my opinions do not represent my employer's views" are going to have a very different meaning.
This sounds like it would be a breach of the UK Data Protection Act<p><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents" rel="nofollow">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents</a><p>Information shared with third party without consent
Providing personal details to a family member without consent<p>Any organisation that stores and uses personal data relating to identifiable living individuals, either on a computer or in a paper filing system, is a "data controller" for the purposes of the DPA.
Data controllers are obliged to handle personal data in accordance with the eight data-protection principles set out in schedule 1 to the DPA unless a specific exemption applies. The first principle is that data must be processed fairly and lawfully, which requires any processing (including disclosure) to be done either with the consent of the individual or in order to fulfil legal obligations such as contractual obligations.
This disclosure would be a serious breach of privacy.
Unless my post is related to my workplace, I am certain my employer would just tell them to play hide and go f themselves and to stop wasting their time.<p>This seems to me an attempt to get folks spun up talking about the BBC. Are they hurting for money?
Then I'm glad I'm in the US and work for an organization far more interested in preserving our fragile and shrinking individual rights than policing naughty thoughts on the interwebs.
"BBC Rule 9" is going to be a meme with a history similar to using "cuil" as a unit of measure, and "Wadsworth constant". Interesting, possibly even valid, but no one cares.
So if someone's BBC account gets hacked, or an attacker otherwise forges a comment, how's that going to play out when someone gets incorrectly dismissed?
Dude. It just means that if you abuse from email@example.com, then example.com is going to be informed that you're spamming from them or whatever.
If you post harassing comments, this probably should happen. People are going to be concerned about free speech, but harassment isn't free speech, and I honestly don't believe it's a "slippery slope".