+Delta68 Posted January 2, 2020 Share Posted January 2, 2020 In order to view a cacher's profile, you have to register. However, there are no checks on the intentions of someone who registers. In case anyone is wondering, this was prompted by a nasty message sent to us my someone who registered yesterday. I have no idea who this person is and I am not happy with just everyone being able to view our stuff and we have deleted all information for the time being. Perhaps making the gallery premium member only as well would be a good idea. Thanks Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 2 hours ago, Delta68 said: In case anyone is wondering, this was prompted by a nasty message sent to us my someone who registered yesterday. Did you report the TOU violation to Groundspeak? 2 Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Agree with niraD, contact HQ ("contact us" at the bottom of this thread) with your issue. As most know with how caches are left by PMs as well as basic members, paying money doesn't make anyone more responsible. Quote Link to comment
+Delta68 Posted January 3, 2020 Author Share Posted January 3, 2020 7 hours ago, niraD said: Did you report the TOU violation to Groundspeak? No. There would be no point in doing so either. Quote Link to comment
+Delta68 Posted January 3, 2020 Author Share Posted January 3, 2020 1 hour ago, cerberus1 said: Agree with niraD, contact HQ ("contact us" at the bottom of this thread) with your issue. As most know with how caches are left by PMs as well as basic members, paying money doesn't make anyone more responsible. I think you're missing the point. It's more of a privacy issue really. Quote Link to comment
+MartyBartfast Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 19 minutes ago, Delta68 said: There would be no point in doing so either. I disagree. If this person signed up and randomly selected you, and potentially others, to send nasty messages to then HQ can disable the account and prevent them harassing others. If this person signed up and targeted you specifically to send a nasty message, then there's a good chance that it's an established cacher who created a sock puppet account for the purpose of sending you messages, if so then HQ may be able to associate the sock account with their normal account and close both down for breach of the TOU. 3 Quote Link to comment
+Touchstone Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Delta68 said: I think you're missing the point. It's more of a privacy issue really. When I log out and try and look at your Profile, I get the following message. That seems like adequate privacy for my purposes. To further segregate this sort of issue to the level of PM, seems a bit much in my opinion. The User that sent you the "nasty message" has possibly violated the TOU that they agreed to follow when they registered. Rather than upending the system to satisfy this perceived risk, it sounds easier to report them to HQ as people suggest, block them in the Message Center if that was the means they used to transmit this "nasty message", or ignore them. The subject of a private image gallery has come up once or twice before, and it seems by the lack of response from HQ on the subject that the solution is to not download images that you wouldn't want the entire world to see, and to keep them private in the first place. Edited January 3, 2020 by Touchstone 1 Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 I agree that current privacy is sufficient for the posted situation... but, completely separate, it might be a nice bonus feature for PM users to allow them to lock down their profile content as Premium Only, like being able to publish PMO caches. Just on its own merit, I kind of like the idea of giving PMs that option if they desire. 1 Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Similar to Touchtone, we see folks ask about things like this, usually in an "ex now stalking" type situation. When "privacy issues" comes up, often a "don't post it then" is the common answer. I'd bet I'm not the only one who noticed people mentioning stuff, to find they had their stats "hidden" from public view. - "Privacy" also affords the bullies and fibbers an easy out... One person hassling another should be directed to HQ. The entire system shouldn't be restructured because one person was a pain-in-the-can. - But this might all change now that we're all so sensitive that we need big government to step in to protect us from ourselves... 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.