G'day everyone!
Can I say SHOCKED? Ah yes, I can.
When Berke ran something of a MAJOR FIRESTORM on her blog that involves DBC Facts and AIM convos : http://berkeoutspoken.blogspot.com/2008/07/where-is-sense-of-decency.html , http://www.dbcfacts.com/aimA1.shtml , and http://www.dbcfacts.com/index.shtml
(I posted most of these links so that you'd get the idea of what Berke really means to talk about)
I have sat OUTRAGED at my desk here. My first impression of DBC Facts is a very outrage of doing something very unethical. My first question would be to them is: Did they get permission of everyone involved in the AIM conversations that the AIM chat room conversations can be made Public? If so, they better have a REAL, HONEST-TO-GOD-NOTARIZED hard copy legal paper that everyone listed on the aim chat acknowledges that their entire conversation would be posted for all to see.
If not: Posting some thing that would undermine the Deaf Bilingual Coalition group's efforts to get the message across is like showing something of an ugly underside of what's really happening among DBC members. Something that the public isn't meant to see very often.
IMHO: it's unethical, vexatious, and opens the DBC libel and slander lawsuits by people, who's aim conversations that once thought were private and non-public, who have been injured by the public disclosure of such conversations.
Why does DBC FACTs blog do this kind of thing? This does not really unify the deaf community. This comes at a time when DBC is taking on A.G. Bell on many issues.
Sadly to say, Berke is right. Some one who runs the DBC Fact site should have made every effort to SHIELD AIM Screen names and e-mail addresses from the general public, but leave the actual part of the conversation going public. The idea is to "protect the source of information". But since DBC FACTs didn't do that, as berke indicates, then it opens up into a whole new ball game.
If DBC FACTS blog had been a lot like DEAF READ, where they can point out of where who's posting such "TRUTH ABOUT DBC FACTS" (which includes the AIM conversations), then they would not have been in a position where they'll have to cough up so many documents, emails, and name who they got it from, etc, etc.
If lawyers come calling on the author of the DBC Facts Blog, he/she better be ready to work with their own lawyer and defend themselves. Even shutting down DBC Facts Blog would be an ideal time now to let cooler heads prevail.
Personally, at this point, I feel the deaf community is being divided farther by DBC Facts Blog rather than trying to unify our deaf community. By the time this blows over, it's going to be more of AG Bell thanking DBC Facts Blog for helping them win out over DBC. That's sad.
It's a sad time for our community.
No semper fi today. I'm just too angry and shocked.
But Salute to Berke Outspoken for her work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
Of course that this has been around for a while. But I wanted to clear what Jamie was trying to say: It's a question of ethics of posting people's Screen names from a chat room or IM conversation in a public blog or web pages. Whatever if someone says "it's ok " or given implied consent in an e-mail to post it on a web page, it's better that you, the author of the blog, have a real, notarized paper that can be scanned into a web page that shows who gave real consent to have their SNs posted in a public manner. Did DBC Facts blog do that? NO.
I've been informed that the DBC Facts Blog just recently withdrew the information from their web page and turned around and said : "if you want to see the conversations, ask us and we'll send it out by e-mail." (see info: http://www.dbcfacts.com/aimA1.shtml ).
I think that is in poor taste. It's still the same idea of sharing SNs to many people. It's still unethical. I just wish DBC Facts blog would not pass around people's SN to others. It should remove the SNs, but keep the conversations to show the facts. Exposing the DBC people to the public is creating just more problems for them.
So there's two things I want to say:
1. DBC needs to get it's act together and reorganize. The importance of their work crucial to their organization. If they can't work together to represent the deaf community, then disband.
2. I don't have a thing for Jamie Berke. She's a good friend of mine. I just wanted to clear up what she was trying to say and make it clear for her. I just wanted to support her work.
OK? Thanks.
Sherlock.
7 comments:
I can answer that question.
Everybody in the core group AIM meeting knows that AIM meetings are recorded and forwarded to each other and made available to those who didn't attend.
Want some proof? Take a look at evidence http://www.dbcfacts.com/evidence01.bmp and look at blue marked line. Read the Subject and you will see that DBC online meetings notes are recorded and distributed to me. It is done for our records. It is not like I took notes and kept records without anybody's consent.
I know you have a thing for Berke but do give credit to OTHERS who brought up this long before Berke did =)
Agreed. It's just getting really dirty now.
Gee, Hoocockan! Just because the group acknowledged the AIM meetings are recorded (mind you, for the purpose of distribution to the group; and for their records) does not give you the power to publish them to the world. You do NOT have that right and their consent for that purpose.
You don't get it at all. Thus, you have NO integrity!
ok- but -to "dr. Hocokan"-
even you said "everyone in the core group ..knows etc. etc."
Did the participants gave you permission to make thier conversations public?
It seems to me that there are issues of expectations of private here. You, as the secreatcy of the group was entrusted in keeping these communications private. You did'nt. You ought to be shame of yourself.
I do agree - putting in names is ethically wrong. But the same time I am disappointed with this whole thing because now it really divides everything up amongst us. Now it will take much longer and become more difficult to trust. Now if I wanted to start up a DBC in Texas - now I would be questioned because I have a CI despite the fact I am a strong deaf advocate. So the trust issue would not be there. So now if others start up more National level or even state level deaf organization - people will start to question it. "CAN WE TRUST THEM?" Its sad that both DBC and NAD are now coming under fire - the trust is gone - and now it needs to be rebuilt - it will take a while as they say Rome wasn't built in a day!
Thanks for speaking up. Quite a few of us are concerned about ethics, and we need as many of us who can to speak out against unethical practices.
Post a Comment