I don't think it is relevant to discuss specific cases such as Afaf's; this is rather a matter of principle (and customers' rights), and it surprises me that so many do not seem to understand that.
However, if an individual case is so important for you all to latch on to, take mine. I give practically no information, here or on other websites, yet still appear on the map.
It’s reasonably clear WHAT is being asked for: to optionally hide whatever geographical information gets displayed on the map – so that it cannot be linked back to a specific member.
It’s also fairly clear WHY this change is wanted: some members have anxieties (mainly on behalf of other members) about the potential consequences of some unknown persons finding out approximately where they might be located.
There is a further suggestion that various national privacy rights may be being breached.
What is not so clear is: precisely WHAT gets displayed on the map under what circumstances?
And critically: WHY these anxieties are any different from other misgivings members may have about particular aspects of the website. (For instance, some members have asked for the following information to be hidden or to have access to it restricted: online status, profile, past games, viewing a live game in progress).
There is a degree of hysteria and petulance which obscures the key aspect of the discussion: is there a sound business case for considering such a change?
It’s reasonably clear WHAT is being asked for: to optionally hide whatever geographical information gets displayed on the map – so that it cannot be linked back to a specific member.
It’s also fairly clear WHY this change is wanted: some members have anxieties (mainly on behalf of other members) about the potential consequences of some unknown persons finding out approximately where they might be located.
There is a further argument that various national privacy rights may be being breached.
What is not so clear is: precisely WHAT gets displayed on the map under what circumstances?
And critically: WHY these anxieties are any different from other misgivings members may have about particular aspects of the website. (For instance, some members have asked for the following information to be hidden or to have access to it restricted: online status, profile, past games, viewing a live game in progress).
There is a degree of hysteria and petulance which obscures the key aspect of the discussion: is there a sound business case for considering such a change?
A pertinent comment, artfizz. However, I don't think it is helpful to speculate about the reasons for why a member prefers not to divulge location, anxiety or not. Irrespective of these reasons, I think it is in the member's full rights to have that decision honored by chess.com. There might have been degrees of hysteria in this thread, but we should not let that obscure the main point, and the petulance probably stems mainly from the apparent negligence of this issue by the site admins.
I don't think that the issue we discuss is comparable to the other "misgivings" that you mention, most of which are chess-related and working principles of this site that are very clear to a new member. The only exception is profile, but that is fully controlled by what the member writes, is it not?
Finally, a pragmatic point: what is the idea of putting "International" as the location if the map nevertheless shows it?
This shows the member map if I search for artfizz. (Unless the member is online, they don't get displayed on the map at all). The default low-resolution view puts me somewhere in the UK. However, by drilling down in the Google map, it locates me IN COMPLETELY THE WRONG PLACE at the intersection of two streets.
k
I don't think that the issue we discuss is comparable to the other "misgivings" that you mention, most of which are chess-related and working principles of this site that are very clear to a new member. The only exception is profile, but that is fully controlled by what the member writes, is it not?
Finally, a pragmatic point: what is the idea of putting "International" as the location if the map nevertheless shows it?
This is the crux of the debate: whether these 'member rights' actually exist or are purely imaginary.
The International setting can have various connotations - other than that the member wishes to stay off the map.
Is the IP Address privileged information? Compare it with a franking postmark on the outside of an envelope of a letter you receive: the sender hasn't supplied that postmark to you so I reckon the receiver should be free to use it as he decides.
Of course these rights exist! Why would they not? But right now they do not at this site - and that's the problem.
Oh, so you don't live at the intersection of Southgate Rd and St Louise Close? 
Of course these rights exist! Why would they not? But right now they do not at this site - and that's the problem.
Oh, so you don't live at the intersection of Southgate Rd and St Louise Close?
1. You say: "Of course, they do". I say: "Maybe they don't".
2. The site has a Privacy Policy. Does it conform to its own privacy policy? I say it does.
3. Does the site Privacy Policy conform to the relevant privacy legislation (presumably this has to be U.S. privacy laws). I say: It's highly likely that it does.
(4. That's narrowed it down to one place where I DON'T live - but this is germane to the discussion: if it showed my actual address, I might think differently.)
Of course these rights exist! Why would they not? But right now they do not at this site - and that's the problem.
Oh, so you don't live at the intersection of Southgate Rd and St Louise Close?
1. You say: "Of course, they do". I say: "Maybe they don't".
2. The site has a Privacy Policy. Does it conform to its own privacy policy? I say it does.
3. Does the site Privacy Policy conform to the relevant privacy legislation (presumably this has to be U.S. privacy laws). I say: It's highly likely that it does.
(4. That's narrowed it down to one place where I DON'T live - but this is germane to the discussion: if it showed my actual address, I might think differently.)
1. The right exists if the customer think it is her/his right. I don't claim that negating this right from the customer is necessarily unlawful, only that it is morally wrong.
2. It may formally conform to this policy (see above)
3. See above
Please, have a look at the original post #1, and the reply from Erik (#2)! This, to me, shows that the admins have not intended this problem to exist, and that its existence is a mistake. Also, I was told that the problem was brought forward once before and then understood by the admins and promised to be corrected. Having pointed this out, I think any further discussion about the legality etc is useless.
Wrong! We have a contractual agreement with chess.com, as defined by their Terms of Service & Policies. That is the full extent of our rights wrt chess.com.
I already admitted that the member might not have this right from a formal legal/contractual viewpoint (the legal/contractual issue is debatable; whether it really gives the right to disclose location).
However, "the customer is always right" !
Much more important: the admins have themselves admitted that this issue has not been understood, and they have earlier promised to correct it. So please, let's no longer discuss the legal side of this (it is beyond at least my competence)
Erik may well be correct: if you don't specify a location WHEN YOU CREATE YOUR ACCOUNT, you probably won't show up on the map.
Well, he conceded that if it showed his actual address...he might feel differently. That's a start to understanding how the rest of us feel, perhaps.
My friend did not specify a real location when she opened her account. She still faced this issue.
Erik may well be correct: if you don't specify a location WHEN YOU CREATE YOUR ACCOUNT, you probably won't show up on the map.
That is untrue! Please, do not blur the issue!
Perfectly true. This was the experience of a friend of mine:
- didn't specify location
- set country to International
- didn't appear on the map.
This is word against word. I did not specify location and set country to International, but I appear on the map. Since it is very unlikely that the site treats different members differently in this respect, I suggest that you check the validity of your friend's experience
This is word against word. I did not specify location and set country to International, but I appear on the map. Since it is very unlikely that the site treats different members differently in this respect, I suggest that you check the validity of your friend's experience
The situation is as I described it. Are you quite sure YOU didn't specify ANY location information when you FIRST created your account?
There may be several factors to consider:
- is there a difference between premium members and free members?
- is there a lag time before someone is shown on the map?
This is word against word. I did not specify location and set country to International, but I appear on the map. Since it is very unlikely that the site treats different members differently in this respect, I suggest that you check the validity of your friend's experience
The situation is as I described it. Are you quite sure YOU didn't specify ANY location information when you FIRST created your account?
There may be several factors to consider:
- is there a difference between premium members and free members?
- is there a lag time before someone is shown on the map?
Actually, I am not sure. I may have originally put "International" in the location window. Now it is empty.
Nevertheless, I still maintain that the user should have control of this information
Wrong! We have a contractual agreement with chess.com, as defined by their Terms of Service & Policies. That is the full extent of our rights wrt chess.com.
A contract, such as the Terms of Service here, may well turn out to have certain aspects that are unenforceble because they are inconsistent or in direct opposition to the law. Such would be the case if it were in fact found that some aspect of this site violated, say, privacy laws as an example. Because of this, it's not completely accurate to state that the ToS is the full extent of our rights at chess.com.
To take this one step further I believe that the right to have full control over our personal information on a fully disclosed basis that requires us to opt-in to its being shared with any third party (yes, including other chess.com members) is a right that many, of not all, here do in fact have.
I've supplied very little personal information to this site. One of the core things I value here is my anonymity, and the information I've provided basically starts and stops with my e-mail address and the city in which I reside. As a result, to find that that my IP address, one piece of information that I have no choice but to disclose, is being used as the basis to share additional information about me without my express consent is a gross violation of the trust I've put in this site -- trust that was entered into under ToS that were worded subtly differently than the set that is now linked to at the bottom of this page, and trust that I should be able to universally extend regardless of the ToS due to the underlying legislation that I believe should afford me protection from this kind of thing.
Erik...while you don't seem to think it's a big deal that people have our real names and that some of us are in areas that make it very easy to access us if members are made aware that we are in their vicinity, it is a REAL concern. I'm feeling a bit silly for having renewed membership at this point when I thought it was an issue that had been addressed before I did so.
Perhaps you don't consider that culturally in some areas, guys make a habit of stalking or harassing females they can get some kind of phone or address access to. It's so annoying having to explain this.
can you message me a screenshot of you on the map so i can debug this?
i do take it seriously. i just don't know what is wrong since i can't see it.
What is wrong is the fact that the map shows the location of the member's server also in the case where the member has not filled in "location", i.e. in the case where the member has not given her/his consent to divulge that information.
I don't think it is relevant to discuss specific cases such as Afaf's; this is rather a matter of principle (and customers' rights), and it surprises me that so many do not seem to understand that.