Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

12
  • This is more or less my point 3. SE has the power itself to allow access to it, but it isn't quite explicit what it is. If it is just the public profile info available to everyone (as it is to Google), it doesn't matter that much. Else it should be clarified.
    – Patrick Hofman
    Commented Mar 25, 2016 at 8:31
  • 1
    Did you read the answer by Joel Spolsky on that question? It explains why it is related to this change.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Commented Mar 25, 2016 at 12:44
  • 26
    There's actually a misunderstanding here. The language here does NOT give us the right to grant the National Phrenology Consortium the ability to claim you belong to it. It simply states that without permission from either you or us, it's definitively a violation. We still can't grant them rights we don't have in the first place.
    – Jaydles StaffMod
    Commented Mar 25, 2016 at 12:58
  • @animuson - it is an inference, but not a proof (or sufficiently large chunk of a proof).
    – Deer Hunter
    Commented Mar 25, 2016 at 12:59
  • 6
    @Jaydles - would be nice if that piece could be made clearer.
    – Deer Hunter
    Commented Mar 25, 2016 at 13:01
  • 6
    @Jaydles That's probably true, but Deer Hunter is right that the language can sound that way. Or is there some other part of the ToS that says nay?
    – E.P.
    Commented Mar 25, 2016 at 16:19
  • 3
    @E.P., deer hunter, not sure how widespread that confusion might be, but I edited in a clarification in case. Thanks for highlighting.
    – Jaydles StaffMod
    Commented Mar 25, 2016 at 19:29
  • 2
    @Jaydles - the whole change looks like a futile albeit quixotic endeavor. You can't ban Google Cache, and scrapers can access cached profile versions. I'm not sure if you're apportioning the blame correctly. I've seen a few complaints in chat rooms that users' old profile e-mails are being spammed. There's still a possibility that somebody is quietly selling addresses, maybe a disgruntled underpaid employee at three letter outfits whom you've supplied with the full database under a gag order...
    – Deer Hunter
    Commented Mar 26, 2016 at 20:49
  • 5
    @DeerHunter "You can't ban Google Cache" - actually we can. I'm not sure what we'll do here (and haven't discussed it with anyone), I'm just clarifying our abilities from a technical standpoint. There's a "noarchive" directive for exactly this purpose, it looks like this: <meta name="robots" content="noarchive">. I'll bring it up Monday with Jay and the team working on this as an option.
    – Nick Craver Mod
    Commented Mar 27, 2016 at 18:15
  • @nick any feedback on the discussion on Monday?
    – Patrick Hofman
    Commented Apr 3, 2016 at 21:39
  • @Jaydles Just to be clear as I'm no lawyer. Doesn't the or imply that if SO wanted to they could release the info. Shouldn't it be an and so the user must sign off/be involved on the release also? This would truly involve the user and give them power to protect their data.
    – Dan
    Commented Apr 19, 2016 at 16:07
  • @NickCraver that "noarchive" option should be a last resort. It blocks the practical access to archive data and threads in the case of down time or future perma-link changes. I know of sites that have gone dark are gone for good because they used that option carelessly thinking that the competition cared about their old webpage layout.
    – KalleMP
    Commented Apr 19, 2016 at 20:11