Stalked on gc.com

[+Team Firenze]

This really doesn't have anything to do with the OP but more of people's understanding of stalking/identity hacking.

 

Stalkers or social hackers like to use any tiny bit of information as power. They will do thinks like steal mail, search garbage, try and overhear conversations. They use this information in a multitude of ways. One way would be to say to a family member "hey I saw so and so last week at the park can you tell me where he is now."

 

Most people are gullible like that and will be easily disarmed by personal tidbits like that.

 

Foursquare, FB, GC, are all guilty of this but it all depends on the individual person's situation.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't get it, how does logging as notes instead of finds prevent "stalking"

It requires a lot of presumption.

Assume that someone having access to a list of caches you've "found" can equate to stalking.

(Like you, I'm not sure it can, but that assumption is necessary to prove the next point)

Obviously, the easiest way to determine what caches I've found is to click on my profile. Right there for all the world to see is a list of the caches I've found. You can trace my find history clear back to my very first one. However, what you will not see is a list of notes I've posted. To glean that information you would need to search every single cache page within a radius of X miles of my area of play, every single day. If I lived in Hanover South Africa, that wouldn't be too challenging, as there are only three within a 50 mile radius. But if I lived in a cache dense area, obtaining that data would be a lot harder.

 

If I wanted to protect myself from a geo-stalker, (and I believed the aforementioned presumption), I could log all my finds as notes, then add each found cache to my ignore list. In X number of days, (let's pick 30), I could edit the log from a note to a find. This accomplishes a few things;

1 ) It lets the cache owner know I found there cache, and provides them with any relevent data.

2 ) It keeps the cache from showing up in my next PQ.

3 ) It allows sufficient time between the find and its public unveiling, that my stalker would have little viable, current information to play with.

4 ) It keeps my find count going up, though it would be delayed.

[+Bamilbis]

Again, how does knowing where I WAS constitute stalking? If I met someone and they said, "Oh, I see you got a cache in Manitoba last week." I don't think I'd be creeped out. I think it would start a conversation. If that conversation led to them mentioning the school my kids go to I'd be concerned...but I don't log that info so that wouldn't happen.

 

Please, for the love of all that is holy....please explain the harm of knowing where someone used to be.

[+addisonbr]

You people who advocate privacy do understand you're advocating giving up a valuable resource right? When you look up "recent logs" you want to see them, right? You want to know if the dang cache has been found in the last week or decade, right?

I think many who voice support for privacy controls are less interested in having logs blacked out at the cache level, than they are about simply having some control about how information is organized at the level of the *cacher*. If someone leaves a log on a cache, it seems totally reasonable to expect that the cache owner and anyone who visits that cache page can read it. But I don't think that's the same thing as being able to click on a cacher's profile and see an organized list of every successful cache visit she's recorded on the site all on one easy-to-navigate page. I think it's reasonable for that cacher to ask for a way to restrict that sort of organized access to her activity, perhaps via the geocaching.com friends feature. It shouldn't interfere with anyone examining the history of cache GC123456.

 

I can respect that point. However, I also think that a certain amount of public exposure keeps us responsible for how we use the site an therefore helps maintain our standard of living here.

...

please enlighten me because i honestly don't see how is going to improve my enjoyment

...

We all benefit when people post. If we stop posting because some wing nut is afraid a stalker might find out where they used to be then we all lose. Wing nuts should either not post anything or not play this harmless game....

There have been a lot of suggestions that more or less boil down to "if you are concerned about privacy, log nothing on the site." But I totally agree with the above comments that this would be a loss to the community. If it turns out that having even a little control over what people can see when they pull up our profiles makes some cachers more comfortable posting logs, I think we'd all win to that.

[Mr.Yuck]

Again, how does knowing where I WAS constitute stalking? If I met someone and they said, "Oh, I see you got a cache in Manitoba last week." I don't think I'd be creeped out. I think it would start a conversation. If that conversation led to them mentioning the school my kids go to I'd be concerned...but I don't log that info so that wouldn't happen.

 

Please, for the love of all that is holy....please explain the harm of knowing where someone used to be.

 

Your answer was two posts above yours, I believe. I quote:

 

 

Stalkers or social hackers like to use any tiny bit of information as power. They will do thinks like steal mail, search garbage, try and overhear conversations. They use this information in a multitude of ways. One way would be to say to a family member "hey I saw so and so last week at the park can you tell me where he is now."

 

[+Bamilbis]

That's a good point. If a user so chose, I don't see a problem with the cache log being listed but the user name being listed as "Blocked". Obviously it would be better if the actual user name was listed so I could further see if maybe this guy listed a DNF and most of his logs are also DNF.

 

But I could at least accept the log without a name if the user so chose.

[+Team Firenze]

I think more important than privacy concerns is that this person needs to decide the level of the threat and act accordingly.

 

For the general public, I am a little concerned about the nonchalance people have been putting on the information stored in this site and others. Its not to say anybody should be paranoid. But more people need to be careful of what the put out there and how it might leave them open to some kind of issue.

 

Example: For some reason I originally logged into this site with my family name. That is something I almost never do online. So I changed it but it is changed in the forums for some reason. This is something I will need to fix. Its not the end of the world but you never know and there is really no reason to expose myself that way.

[+t4e]

You meet a geocacher on the trail and strike up a conversation. You've casually met a couple of times before at a couple of events. The guy says "I thought you moved to Vermont?" You look puzzled, "No I still live here in California". He says "I was looking at your profile and saw that you were logging most of your finds in Vermont this winter so I assumed you left the state." Isn't that kind of creepy? Especially if you're woman. If the profile Finds link were private someone couldn't easily get a convenient list of all the places you've been to since you started geocaching.

 

i don't find that creepy, just weird...in no way it can bring me any harm that someone thought i moved away

[Mr.Yuck]

It's the Internet. If you don't want information to be public then don't put it in the Internet. Anywhere, Facebook, Geocache logs, Geocache forums, Google+, anywhere. Once it's in the Internet it's public.

 

Gee. Did you really have to post that right after my post?

 

What about my case, which I assume you didn't read? Did I know in 2003 that some k00k was going to look up 1998 college basketball message board posts to gleam information about me? Should I have just never gone on the Internet like my 82 year old Mother?

 

It didn't HAVE to go right after you post, but it did. I suppose I could have waited, but then I would have missed out on the irony that luck threw my way.

 

And you would assume wrong. I did read your account. And you shouldn't run from the Internet either...nor should anyone including your mother. The Internet is a tool...like a kitchen knife. A kitchen knife can seriously harm you. It can even kill you. But it has great benefits and those benifites outweigh the risks of the tool. The Internet has great benefit and it also comes with risks. We shouldn't run from the Internet anymore than we should run from kitchen knives.

 

But you treat your kitchen knife with care too. You would never just toss it to someone. You wouldn't run around with it either. Those are both considerations you have because of good judgement. You weigh the risk and benifit and conclude that tossing the knife, while quicker, isn't a good idea because of the potential risk. The Internet is the same. Use good judgement and weigh the risk benefit of each thing you do on the Internet.

 

Posting a find, do you need to say you're from Springfield? Or is just saying the state enough...or maybe Southern part of the State or whatever. Do you need to put anything at all other than "found".

 

These are all questions we each need to answer for ourselves. We are in a transitional period where we as a society are figuring out the social norms as we go and we each apply our own unique lens through which we view privacy and openess.

 

Again, I would recommend "Public Parts" by Jeff Jarvis. I am in no way affiliated with him but his book shines a light on this very issue.

 

Edited to add link to Jeff Jarvis wiki page.

 

"Public Parts" Wasn't that a novel by Howard Stern?

 

All that Wikipedia page tells me is he is a left leaning journalist who has worked for various publications, and went to Northwestern. So what are the contents of this book? Is it a few hundred pages that say "It's the internet, deal with it"? The stalking of myself happened before Facebook (not that I'd ever post personal information to that garbage), and although the OP is posting about this in 2011, he could just have easily started the same thread in 2002. Nothing has changed here on Geocaching.com since then, in regards to privacy.

[+Bamilbis]

"Private Parts" was a movie about Howard Stern. "Public Parts" is by Jeff Jarvis, who is an Associate Professor at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism directing their Media Program. Jeff Jarvis knows and has been on Howard Sterns show and the title of his book is a play on that title.

 

It is most certainly NOT "a few hundred pages saying 'Its the Internet deal with it'" it's an in depth look at how the Internet is changing all of our views of privacy and publicness. Read it. I'm about half way through it on AudioBooks. (narrated by Jeff himself)

[+t4e]

"Private Parts" was a movie about Howard Stern.

 

movie was made long after the book was published

[+Bamilbis]

Okay...never read the book. Just saw the movie.

[knowschad]

Really, this is a very simple situation. When you log a cache, your geocaching alias is attached to the cache log. Anybody that wants to can see your geocaching alias. It is also written to your alias' profile page. Anybody that looks at that profile page can see what caches that alias has found.

 

Two points here. The first is... it is an ALIAS. It isn't your name, it does not carry your home address, your telephone, or even (as long as you set it up correctly) your email address. Any harassing communication sent through this site can be reported, and I suspect that it will be taken very seriously.

 

The second point: The first point is not secret. You knew this (or should have known this) when you started caching. If you don't like it, don't join, or at least, don't log.

[+Bamilbis]

+1

[+L0ne.R]

I think many who voice support for privacy controls are less interested in having logs blacked out at the cache level, than they are about simply having some control about how information is organized at the level of the *cacher*. If someone leaves a log on a cache, it seems totally reasonable to expect that the cache owner and anyone who visits that cache page can read it. But I don't think that's the same thing as being able to click on a cacher's profile and see an organized list of every successful cache visit she's recorded on the site all on one easy-to-navigate page. I think it's reasonable for that cacher to ask for a way to restrict that sort of organized access to her activity, perhaps via the geocaching.com friends feature. It shouldn't interfere with anyone examining the history of cache GC123456.

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

It's about the links on the profile:

 

[+pppingme]

It requires a lot of presumption.

...

Assume that someone having access to a list of caches you've "found" can equate to stalking.

...

To glean that information you would need to search every single cache page within a radius of X miles of my area of play, every single day. If I lived in Hanover South Africa, that wouldn't be too challenging, as there are only three within a 50 mile radius. But if I lived in a cache dense area, obtaining that data would be a lot harder.

...

If I wanted to protect myself from a geo-stalker, (and I believed the aforementioned presumption), I could log all my finds as notes

I took a stab at where you lived, and here's what I derived (remember, PQ's include "note" logs):

 

If I wanted to watch every single day, I could get every cache within 44.1 miles of you by running 5 PQ's.

Or, if I was OK with every other day, I could get every cache within 69.7 miles by running 10 PQ's.

Or three days for 89.9 miles with 15 PQ's.

 

By adding your found PQ's to my ignore list, and modifying the PQ's accordingly, those radius's would go up quite a bit (side note, this is actually a good trick for running PQ's from a 2nd account if you want to get more PQ's).

 

So by spending thirty bucks a year, I can keep tabs on you for just shy of a 90 mile circle pretty easily. If I'm in your area, I'm probably pulling these PQ's anyway, so costing me nothing extra.

[+GeoBain]

The second point: The first point is not secret. You knew this (or should have known this) when you started caching. If you don't like it, don't join, or at least, don't log.

 

Ok

[+geodarts]

It is most certainly NOT "a few hundred pages saying 'Its the Internet deal with it'" it's an in depth look at how the Internet is changing all of our views of privacy and publicness.

 

And as Judge Kozinski has written we might someday regret how much privacy we have surrendered.

[knowschad]

I think many who voice support for privacy controls are less interested in having logs blacked out at the cache level, than they are about simply having some control about how information is organized at the level of the *cacher*. If someone leaves a log on a cache, it seems totally reasonable to expect that the cache owner and anyone who visits that cache page can read it. But I don't think that's the same thing as being able to click on a cacher's profile and see an organized list of every successful cache visit she's recorded on the site all on one easy-to-navigate page. I think it's reasonable for that cacher to ask for a way to restrict that sort of organized access to her activity, perhaps via the geocaching.com friends feature. It shouldn't interfere with anyone examining the history of cache GC123456.

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

It's about the links on the profile:

 

Yeah? So, that tells me that somebody by the name of "Lone R" found such and such a cache on a given day. What good, as a stalker, does that information do me? Who is Lone R?

[knowschad]

It requires a lot of presumption.

...

Assume that someone having access to a list of caches you've "found" can equate to stalking.

...

To glean that information you would need to search every single cache page within a radius of X miles of my area of play, every single day. If I lived in Hanover South Africa, that wouldn't be too challenging, as there are only three within a 50 mile radius. But if I lived in a cache dense area, obtaining that data would be a lot harder.

...

If I wanted to protect myself from a geo-stalker, (and I believed the aforementioned presumption), I could log all my finds as notes

I took a stab at where you lived, and here's what I derived (remember, PQ's include "note" logs):

 

If I wanted to watch every single day, I could get every cache within 44.1 miles of you by running 5 PQ's.

Or, if I was OK with every other day, I could get every cache within 69.7 miles by running 10 PQ's.

Or three days for 89.9 miles with 15 PQ's.

 

By adding your found PQ's to my ignore list, and modifying the PQ's accordingly, those radius's would go up quite a bit (side note, this is actually a good trick for running PQ's from a 2nd account if you want to get more PQ's).

 

So by spending thirty bucks a year, I can keep tabs on you for just shy of a 90 mile circle pretty easily. If I'm in your area, I'm probably pulling these PQ's anyway, so costing me nothing extra.

 

That would be keeping close tabs on where somebody by the name of "Clan Riffster" WAS on those particular days. What good is that going to do you? And who is "Clan Riffster"?

[+Bamilbis]

Privacy isn't being surrendered. Look at Germany. They are up in arms about Google Street View. Imagine that...objecting to a company mapping the world and providing a picture to go with it! You do realise a person can WALK to your house and SEE it too, right?!? How do you stop that!!??!!

 

We give up as much privacy as is useful to us as an individual. Tell me your home address, You don't want to? That's because there is zero benefit for you to do so. Tell me your logs on geocache. Well, now there's benefit as by sharing your logs you get to see mine and that aids the community. Again, the whole ALAIS thing helps grease the skids on this point. I cant figure out why anyone would be hesitant to share their precious location of an ALIAS of theirs.

Edited October 17, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

[+addisonbr]

What good, as a stalker, does that information do me?

It also doesn't seem like it would be that much of a relative inconvenience if one had to simply ask permission before getting a link to that list. I think that's all most folks are suggesting.

[+addisonbr]

I cant figure out why anyone would be hesitant to share their precious location of an ALIAS of theirs.

I can see why some folks would be perfectly comfortable leaving their data completely open.

 

But I also don't see the harm in allowing someone to restrict some links on their personal profile. I can understand why some might have hesitation. Two or three years ago we had a bad experience in our local group's forums (which I administer) in which a really angry local cacher was pointing out in posts that he knew which cachers had young children. It was a little creepy, and it probably made at least a couple of cachers wonder if they had ever mentioned in a Found Log that a cache was near their kids' school, or if they'd ever posted pictures of the little ones holding up a cache container.

 

Do I think anything bad happening along these lines is particularly likely? Not really. But I wouldn't begrudge a cacher on the other end of one of those rants wanting to restrict profile-level data to a friends list. It certainly wouldn't interfere with my own enjoyment of the game, and if it made them more comfortable contributing logs to the site, I think I'd be better off.

[+t4e]

Who is Lone R?

 

a cacher that likes to hand make signature items and is quite creative

 

now by looking at their profile i can see WERE they've been and visit the same caches hoping one of their pretty signature items is still in that cache

[jholly]

This has been an interesting thread to say the lest. But you do realize that we got sea-gulled on this one?

Edited October 17, 2011 by jholly

[knowschad]

What good, as a stalker, does that information do me?

It also doesn't seem like it would be that much of a relative inconvenience if one had to simply ask permission before getting a link to that list. I think that's all most folks are suggesting.

 

I guess I'm not seeing how that would work, then. Are you saying that I would be able to see that a Find was made on a particular day, but not who it was that logged that find,well, I guess that would be the end of PAF, but not the end of the world. But if it means that I wouldn't be able to even see that a find was made... that would not work, as others have pointed out. If you mean that I wouldn't be able to see which caches you found (should you have chosen privacy mode) by looking at your profile... that would kind of suck if we decided to go caching together, wouldn't it?

 

No... it is just fine the way it is. If somebody is really being stalked (big IF, in my book), it is such a minor problem as to not be worth mentioning. Show me who has been harmed by it and I might reconsider.

[+addisonbr]

I guess I'm not seeing how that would work, then. Are you saying that I would be able to see that a Find was made on a particular day, but not who it was that logged that find,well, I guess that would be the end of PAF, but not the end of the world. But if it means that I wouldn't be able to even see that a find was made... that would not work, as others have pointed out. If you mean that I wouldn't be able to see which caches you found (should you have chosen privacy mode) by looking at your profile... that would kind of suck if we decided to go caching together, wouldn't it?

I'm saying that if you go to a cache page, you would see all logs and who made them. I think it's reasonable to assume that if you post a log to a cache page, that other visitors to that cache page would get to benefit from the information you share there.

 

If you go to someone's profile page, they could have it set so that an organized list of all of their logs / photos / stats / whatever would be either open to the world (most would probably use this setting), open to just the Groundspeak friends list (doesn't seem crazy), or kept entirely private (likely elected by a minority of cachers, but I'm okay with that). It's not that different from how privacy is approached on other sites. If you post something on someone else's page, you expect other people with access to that page will see your post. But you might not want every- and anyone to be able to click on your profile and see every post and upload you have ever made to any page anywhere, ever, in one well-organized, chronological list. You might request that that particular level of access be granted to a list you approve.

 

I'd imagine that if I was comfortable enough to go caching with you in person, I'd probably also be comfortable enough to give you access to my finds list.

[+Team Firenze]

Really, this is a very simple situation. When you log a cache, your geocaching alias is attached to the cache log. Anybody that wants to can see your geocaching alias. It is also written to your alias' profile page. Anybody that looks at that profile page can see what caches that alias has found.

 

Two points here. The first is... it is an ALIAS. It isn't your name, it does not carry your home address, your telephone, or even (as long as you set it up correctly) your email address. Any harassing communication sent through this site can be reported, and I suspect that it will be taken very seriously.

 

The second point: The first point is not secret. You knew this (or should have known this) when you started caching. If you don't like it, don't join, or at least, don't log.

 

I am not sure about everybody else but I inferred from the OP that the "stalker" knew the OP's ALIAS before going all stalker. Of course, if you use an Alias, don't post any personal information or pictures you will be fine.

[+Team Firenze]

 

No... it is just fine the way it is. If somebody is really being stalked (big IF, in my book), it is such a minor problem as to not be worth mentioning. Show me who has been harmed by it and I might reconsider.

 

So, out of 5 million users, none of them have been Stalked, had their identities stolen, had a bad breakup or been in a nasty custody battle? These are just a few situations where an interested party would like to know somebody's past whereabouts.

 

I could list a thousand examples but they probably wouldn't interest you because you haven't personally seen it happen. There is a reason why facebook and google have these issues. I don't personally agree with all the people that have issues with these privacy concerns. I think people should take more responsibility for guarding their own information. But, that doesn't mean that bad things don't happen.

 

I don't see the harm in people having an intelligent conversation to make things better without constraining the openness of the game.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think many who voice support for privacy controls are less interested in having logs blacked out at the cache level, than they are about simply having some control about how information is organized at the level of the *cacher*. If someone leaves a log on a cache, it seems totally reasonable to expect that the cache owner and anyone who visits that cache page can read it. But I don't think that's the same thing as being able to click on a cacher's profile and see an organized list of every successful cache visit she's recorded on the site all on one easy-to-navigate page. I think it's reasonable for that cacher to ask for a way to restrict that sort of organized access to her activity, perhaps via the geocaching.com friends feature. It shouldn't interfere with anyone examining the history of cache GC123456.

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

It's about the links on the profile:

 

I agree. The "finds" link should be blocked out as an option, to anyone who is not on the cacher's friend list.

 

Also, an audit log on the profile page would be a way to prevent obsessive people from spending way too much time ogling someone, and also as a public record in the event of any problems.

[+dakboy]

 

No... it is just fine the way it is. If somebody is really being stalked (big IF, in my book), it is such a minor problem as to not be worth mentioning. Show me who has been harmed by it and I might reconsider.

 

So, out of 5 million users, none of them have been Stalked, had their identities stolen, had a bad breakup or been in a nasty custody battle? These are just a few situations where an interested party would like to know somebody's past whereabouts.

And this would all happen with or without this website. When things like this happen, you call law enforcement when appropriate, not complain about the fact that data you've posted on the internet is publicly available.

[Mr.Yuck]

It requires a lot of presumption.

...

Assume that someone having access to a list of caches you've "found" can equate to stalking.

...

To glean that information you would need to search every single cache page within a radius of X miles of my area of play, every single day. If I lived in Hanover South Africa, that wouldn't be too challenging, as there are only three within a 50 mile radius. But if I lived in a cache dense area, obtaining that data would be a lot harder.

...

If I wanted to protect myself from a geo-stalker, (and I believed the aforementioned presumption), I could log all my finds as notes

I took a stab at where you lived, and here's what I derived (remember, PQ's include "note" logs):

 

If I wanted to watch every single day, I could get every cache within 44.1 miles of you by running 5 PQ's.

Or, if I was OK with every other day, I could get every cache within 69.7 miles by running 10 PQ's.

Or three days for 89.9 miles with 15 PQ's.

 

By adding your found PQ's to my ignore list, and modifying the PQ's accordingly, those radius's would go up quite a bit (side note, this is actually a good trick for running PQ's from a 2nd account if you want to get more PQ's).

 

So by spending thirty bucks a year, I can keep tabs on you for just shy of a 90 mile circle pretty easily. If I'm in your area, I'm probably pulling these PQ's anyway, so costing me nothing extra.

 

That would be keeping close tabs on where somebody by the name of "Clan Riffster" WAS on those particular days. What good is that going to do you? And who is "Clan Riffster"?

 

Well in my case the k00ks spent hundreds of hours Googling the alias I used all over the internet from the day Al Gore Invented it until the Spring of 2003, and were able to find my real name, I dunno, somewhere in some post I made to the internet in that 8 or so year time period.

 

Stalker #1 was more adept at this than Stalker #2. Stalker #2 told me "that's not stalking; he researches with intensity".

 

I'm afraid I don't have hundreds of hours to spend on Clan Riffster to prove this. Perhaps he could just give us his name?

[cezanne]

 

There have been a lot of suggestions that more or less boil down to "if you are concerned about privacy, log nothing on the site." But I totally agree with the above comments that this would be a loss to the community. If it turns out that having even a little control over what people can see when they pull up our profiles makes some cachers more comfortable posting logs, I think we'd all win to that.

 

I do not think that all would win in this way - some will win, and others, like myself, will lose a lot. As I have explained already for me being able to read the logs of other cachers (for example, hiders of caches I might want to go for, but do not yet know the hider and his way of rating terrain) is of utmost importance. These cachers will rarely be my friends (apart from the fact that I feel that most cachers do not have that many true cacher friends and thus the term friends is not a good choice).

 

Cezanne

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

why is it that people never see the other side of a situation like this, and always assume the "accuser" is the victim?

the OP came here and made quite a serious accusation against someone without any supporting facts, we are 3 pages later and yet the OP has not made one single additional post

how do we know its not an overreaction or obsession?

 

Further: The OP says that the alleged stalker hasn't hidden any caches or logged any finds recently, but logs in every day.

 

The only way the OP could know that is if the OP is looking at this person's profile every day.

 

Does that make the OP a stalker?

[+addisonbr]

some will win, and others, like myself, will lose a lot. As I have explained already for me being able to read the logs of other cachers (for example, hiders of caches I might want to go for, but do not yet know the hider and his way of rating terrain) is of utmost importance. These cachers will rarely be my friends (apart from the fact that I feel that most cachers do not have that many true cacher friends and thus the term friends is not a good choice).

Fair enough. People who want to read sorted and chronologically organized lists of logs by individual cachers with enabled privacy controls, but who are unwilling to send a simple electronic request asking for permission and identifying themselves, would lose a bit of functionality.

[+lamoracke]

the suggestion to me that a "friend" can only see a friends logs is crazy. So, if you are on that cache page and say it has 300 finds and I have 15 friends, I can only read 10 of the logs because I only have 10 of my 15 friends who have logged it? Perhaps you are not suggesting that, but rather at the profile level.

 

I agree with knowschad on this. One having a geocaching alias and the # of finds associated with that log is part of the social aspect of this site. If you dont want folks to read your logs, well, do not log them or say anything.

 

If someone had a bad break up and someone is reading their logs to get a tiny glint of information, well, I am sorry you are in that situation....but its not like they are getting your address, or a nude photo, or your credit card #, its what you said on a geocaching.com log, on a piece of tupperware in a stump. I personally cannot understand why folks would want to block this from other geocache users to be able to see. I like the social aspect of this site, if I found caches in a bubble and had no idea what others were doing or found, I would probably quit.

[+addisonbr]

the suggestion to me that a "friend" can only see a friends logs is crazy. So, if you are on that cache page and say it has 300 finds and I have 15 friends, I can only read 10 of the logs because I only have 10 of my 15 friends who have logged it? Perhaps you are not suggesting that, but rather at the profile level.

Correct. I suspect that most are simply suggesting this at the profile level. I don't believe there is a push to keep you from reading logs that have been posted to a cache page, from that cache page.

 

If you dont want folks to read your logs, well, do not log them or say anything.

While I see this suggested a lot, I find myself drawn towards solutions that make cachers comfortable posting more, not less. This may be a personal preference.

[+JJnTJ]

Make the ignore list (for the forums) work on GC.com, too, and make it bi-directional. If I add someone to my ignore list, they can't see my profile or any of my logs, and I can't see theirs. A potential stalker will have to keep creating accounts to get around the block, and if they're that focused on you, your logs on GC.com are the least of your problems.

 

Though I'm still having trouble getting my head around the issue. Log your finds a day later, and your stalker will only know what you did yesterday.

[+Castle Mischief]

Geez. You know there was a time when we all had our actual names, adresses and phone numbers printed in these big books that would be just left on people's porches for anybody to read.

 

Years later and we're worried about people finding out where we were after the fact??

 

Stalking is serious and should be addressed. Cyber-bullying is serious and should also be addressed. Reading somebody's cache logs (and I'm really not understanding how the OP proved this to be true in the first place) is in and of itself, neither.

 

Deal with the individual and let's not create solutions for problems that don't exist when it comes to posting information that we know in advance will be public and that we post anyway.

[knowschad]

Really, this is a very simple situation. When you log a cache, your geocaching alias is attached to the cache log. Anybody that wants to can see your geocaching alias. It is also written to your alias' profile page. Anybody that looks at that profile page can see what caches that alias has found.

 

Two points here. The first is... it is an ALIAS. It isn't your name, it does not carry your home address, your telephone, or even (as long as you set it up correctly) your email address. Any harassing communication sent through this site can be reported, and I suspect that it will be taken very seriously.

 

The second point: The first point is not secret. You knew this (or should have known this) when you started caching. If you don't like it, don't join, or at least, don't log.

 

I am not sure about everybody else but I inferred from the OP that the "stalker" knew the OP's ALIAS before going all stalker. Of course, if you use an Alias, don't post any personal information or pictures you will be fine.

Possibly so, but if so, that is the OP's doing. If you want to be anonymous, you have to remain anonymous.

[knowschad]

No... it is just fine the way it is. If somebody is really being stalked (big IF, in my book), it is such a minor problem as to not be worth mentioning. Show me who has been harmed by it and I might reconsider.

 

So, out of 5 million users, none of them have been Stalked, had their identities stolen, had a bad breakup or been in a nasty custody battle? These are just a few situations where an interested party would like to know somebody's past whereabouts.

 

I could list a thousand examples but they probably wouldn't interest you because you haven't personally seen it happen. There is a reason why facebook and google have these issues. I don't personally agree with all the people that have issues with these privacy concerns. I think people should take more responsibility for guarding their own information. But, that doesn't mean that bad things don't happen.

 

I don't see the harm in people having an intelligent conversation to make things better without constraining the openness of the game.

 

Facebook and Google aren't using aliases, for one thing. For another, they are often posting a lot more information than where they cached last week. You are comparing apples with oranges. Both are round, but that's where the comparison ends.

[+Team Firenze]

 

No... it is just fine the way it is. If somebody is really being stalked (big IF, in my book), it is such a minor problem as to not be worth mentioning. Show me who has been harmed by it and I might reconsider.

 

So, out of 5 million users, none of them have been Stalked, had their identities stolen, had a bad breakup or been in a nasty custody battle? These are just a few situations where an interested party would like to know somebody's past whereabouts.

And this would all happen with or without this website. When things like this happen, you call law enforcement when appropriate, not complain about the fact that data you've posted on the internet is publicly available.

 

I am not sure how it is in other countries but all calling law enforcement is going to do is get you some suggestions. There is no law against "stalking". A person can sit in your car, follow you, 24/7. If they don't actually commit a crime there is nothing law enforcement can do.

[+Team Firenze]

 

why is it that people never see the other side of a situation like this, and always assume the "accuser" is the victim?

the OP came here and made quite a serious accusation against someone without any supporting facts, we are 3 pages later and yet the OP has not made one single additional post

how do we know its not an overreaction or obsession?

 

Further: The OP says that the alleged stalker hasn't hidden any caches or logged any finds recently, but logs in every day.

 

The only way the OP could know that is if the OP is looking at this person's profile every day.

 

Does that make the OP a stalker?

Wouldn't that take just one look at the stalkers profile? It doesn't have to be every day.

[knowschad]

No... it is just fine the way it is. If somebody is really being stalked (big IF, in my book), it is such a minor problem as to not be worth mentioning. Show me who has been harmed by it and I might reconsider.

 

So, out of 5 million users, none of them have been Stalked, had their identities stolen, had a bad breakup or been in a nasty custody battle? These are just a few situations where an interested party would like to know somebody's past whereabouts.

And this would all happen with or without this website. When things like this happen, you call law enforcement when appropriate, not complain about the fact that data you've posted on the internet is publicly available.

 

I am not sure how it is in other countries but all calling law enforcement is going to do is get you some suggestions. There is no law against "stalking". A person can sit in your car, follow you, 24/7. If they don't actually commit a crime there is nothing law enforcement can do.

 

http://www.baddteddy.com/stalkers/stalker_laws.htm

[knowschad]

why is it that people never see the other side of a situation like this, and always assume the "accuser" is the victim?

the OP came here and made quite a serious accusation against someone without any supporting facts, we are 3 pages later and yet the OP has not made one single additional post

how do we know its not an overreaction or obsession?

 

Further: The OP says that the alleged stalker hasn't hidden any caches or logged any finds recently, but logs in every day.

 

The only way the OP could know that is if the OP is looking at this person's profile every day.

 

Does that make the OP a stalker?

Wouldn't that take just one look at the stalkers profile? It doesn't have to be every day.

 

The "but logs in every day." part would require the OP to check the "stalker's" profile every day.

[+Team Firenze]

Stalking is serious and should be addressed. Cyber-bullying is serious and should also be addressed. Reading somebody's cache logs (and I'm really not understanding how the OP proved this to be true in the first place) is in and of itself, neither.

 

Deal with the individual and let's not create solutions for problems that don't exist when it comes to posting information that we know in advance will be public and that we post anyway.

 

I think you taking a very narrow view of what constitutes Cyber-Bullying, identity theft, or stalking. Again, we are talking about a lot of users here. It takes only 1 bad situation that get picked up in the media to make this bad for everyone. I compare it to people not leaving caches under bridges or near governement buildings. It doesn't sound like a big deal but it certainly could be in the right situation.

 

Let me clarify my position here. I don't think Groundspeak should or should not do something about privacy setting. I agree it could be a major pain and hurt the openness of the game (i like that as well). Being able to ignore a specific user is not going to help because that user could just create a new account. They could IP ban but there are ways around that too.

 

I just think Groundspeak may want to keep an eye on it and if there is a way to make a something private then they may want to think about it.

 

More importantly individual users need to be aware of what they post. 99% of people do this but then again some don't.

[+Team Firenze]

The "but logs in every day." part would require the OP to check the "stalker's" profile every day.

 

True didn't think about that.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Team Firenze

[cezanne]

some will win, and others, like myself, will lose a lot. As I have explained already for me being able to read the logs of other cachers (for example, hiders of caches I might want to go for, but do not yet know the hider and his way of rating terrain) is of utmost importance. These cachers will rarely be my friends (apart from the fact that I feel that most cachers do not have that many true cacher friends and thus the term friends is not a good choice).

Fair enough. People who want to read sorted and chronologically organized lists of logs by individual cachers with enabled privacy controls, but who are unwilling to send a simple electronic request asking for permission and identifying themselves, would lose a bit of functionality.

 

The issue is not about sending requests. Getting accepted as "friend" often means belonging to a clique of friends in real life. Those not belonging to such cliques will have a difficult life in your concept. That already holds locally, but even more on a larger scale. If I am travelling to another country, it would be quite annoying for both sides if I am sending out tons of friend requests and others have to react to them. That might have worked in the early phase of geocaching with a very small number of cachers, but does not work now. It is quite absurd to put someone on one's friend list one never has heard about before. This does not even fit to the friend concept of Facebook etc which is already absurd as it is very often not about real friendship.

 

I also need to admit that I would not like to have to reply to friendship requests on a regular basis. There are simply too many cachers and denying some and accepting others will create angry cachers.

 

BTW: Whether the finds are sorted or not, does not play any role for me. I just want to see e.g. which harder terrain caches I am familiar with this person has found and at which season or read the logs of cachers whose logs I enjoy (regardless of whether they like me).

 

I try to do as much research on what I have to expect at a specific cache as possible on my own without disturbing anyone else. Sometimes I try to ask some friends if they have already found the cache I have in mind, but I try to keep the number of such questions low and often I do not know anyone I know well who has been there already anyway. It is not that easy to select caches when being handicapped in some ways where the separation 1* vs. >1* does not help.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 17, 2011 by cezanne

[Mr.Yuck]

why is it that people never see the other side of a situation like this, and always assume the "accuser" is the victim?

the OP came here and made quite a serious accusation against someone without any supporting facts, we are 3 pages later and yet the OP has not made one single additional post

how do we know its not an overreaction or obsession?

 

Further: The OP says that the alleged stalker hasn't hidden any caches or logged any finds recently, but logs in every day.

 

The only way the OP could know that is if the OP is looking at this person's profile every day.

 

Does that make the OP a stalker?

Wouldn't that take just one look at the stalkers profile? It doesn't have to be every day.

 

The "but logs in every day." part would require the OP to check the "stalker's" profile every day.

 

Thanks for the website on stalking laws in a previuos post. Even if the website does look like it was made with Notepad in 1997.

 

Well, yeah, that is an ironic development that GeoBee brought up about having to look at the "stalkers" profile every day to see if he's logging in. Hey, a stalking victim uses what ever resources are available to them. If that means resorting to "stalking" themselves, then so be it. However, I'm sure no one is serious about the OP being a stalker, and it's just an amusing little bit of irony here.

[+Team Firenze]

 

Possibly so, but if so, that is the OP's doing. If you want to be anonymous, you have to remain anonymous.

 

Obviously, but we aren't talking about being anonymous. We are talking about someone who already knows the party in question GC name