Why is it STILL possible for people to find us on the interactive map???

Nice pic!

Afaf's point is still valid & I am surprised that the admins have not reacted on this issue. If someone doesn't want to reveal location - for whatever reason - (stating International, for example), then why should location (presumably of the server) be shown on the interactive map?

Members select International for many reasons - not specifically to hide their location;  some because they consider the world is their country.

Of course! But how does your post contribute to Afaf's concern?

I was addressing your point about your interpretation of how people use the International setting.

To address afaf's point: They are a number of data points that the site makes publicly visible about its members - that some members would prefer remain concealed e.g. online status; being able to view other member's games (while in play).

Equally, there are data points that remain hidden that some members would like to see e.g. number of people who have blocked you; number of people you have blocked; number of times you have used vacation.

chess.com makes a judgement about which to hide and which to reveal. For each one where they provide the option to hide or show, that incurs implementation cost and other overheads.

Given that:

• this is a social networking and chess site rather than a politically-oriented site
• people generally take a (healthy) interest in knowing approximately where their opponents are based

it seems (to me) a reasonable call that chess.com displays the location of your ISP without offering you the option to mask it.

I really think that making it IP based is a mistake.  It should be based on the location you declare (if you declare one and it can be found on a map).  If it can not be, then it should simple appear as unavailable in some way -- it should not be inferred from information I've not explicitly and deliberately provided with the acknowledgement and acceptance that it will be made public (i.e. as "private" information, it should be an opt-in option, not opt-out).

This part will be hard to automate - except by the user explicitly selecting places from a list.

That may be, but I'm afraid that the alternative is not acceptable to many.  While opt-out is certainly better than not having a choice, the way that it works is not terribly intuitive and in many cases may still cause people to inadvertently disclose their approximate real location.  In my opinion the IP should never be used unless the user explicitly agrees to it.

People also take a casual interest in knowing the real names rather than made-up usernames, and this would also fall under the social category. Should my name be revealed to everyone against my will?

TheGrobe is very clear (as he is very often), and I simply don't see why the admins have not solved the problem already! Especially since this problem has apparently been brought to the site's attention earlier.

chess.com lets you specify a made-up name to match your made-up username; some people choose to use their real names.

If chess.com revealed your gender without your say-so, that would be a breach of privacy.

ISP location can arguably be used as marketing collateral to promote the site. 

Should chess.com [continue to] reveal your online status? If it provides an opt-out for one point of data, isn't this the thin end of the wedge?

Virtually everyone has a problem with some aspect of the site. That doesn't necessarily mean they are genuine problems.

Privacy concerns such as this are genuine problems, though, they are important to many users who may not even realize that their information is being shared in this way (I certainly was not until Afaf's first thread) and may even represent a liability issue for the site.  Indeed, many countries have legislation that addresses these very concerns and how organizations must treat this kind of information -- and for good reason.  If we were discussing some functional aspect of the site I could agree, but we are not -- this concerns privileged information that is being shared without the user's express consent.

??? Why is it a breach of privacy to reveal my gender when at the same time it is a marketing ploy to say "Hey stalkers, we reveal our members' locations for you! Don't worry, they don't get any say in it."

Is there any precedent for other sites deciding to publish geo-IP data without consent? Let's not pretend that chess.com lives in a vacuum. I'm not 15 years old, so I don't know all social networking sites, but I don't know any which operate like this. I think it's clear that chess.com crossed the line and made a mistake.

I think user privacy should be on top of the list, literally. Like, they should leave everything aside for a few hours, days, whatever it takes and solve this problem.

I'm pretty sure this in some way violates the terms of service, privacy policy etc. agreement that people sign before registering here.

I am afraid that this is incorrect. Leaving out "location" still results in a position on the interactive map that presumably corresponds to the location of the used server.

I removed Location like Phobetrix said...as did the person who brought this to my attention.  People are still giving me general vicinty.

  Ironically I did not tell her that I even had a problem with this matter before...she independently asked me why someone in Australia was able to tell her exactly what city she's in without giving them that information.  She does not use her real name but still did  not appreciate this fact.  

Why make it so available??  Is it hurting someone not to know where I am on a map at a given time?  They can ask and I'll let them know if I want.  I don't understand the fascination or obsession with keeping us on this map.

jessica simpson with louis vuitton bag and a dog accessory?  Come on.  You're really stretching things now.

I think it's cool as an opt-IN feature. Some people like to broadcast exactly where they are, and what they're doing (on other sites), this falls into that broad category. As an opt-OUT feature it's just wrong.

Then the whole problem with opt-in features is of course user adoption. But then they should have thought about that ahead of time.