grit
an ugly force for good
I'm a fulltime software developer but I also do freelance work on the side to make a extra few quid. By publicly responding the the bad press in a way it legitimizes it.
web designer posting MY contact info on her website
- Thread starter D
- Start date
I'm a fulltime software developer but I also do freelance work on the side to make a extra few quid. By publicly responding the the bad press in a way it legitimizes it.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
You are quite simply wrong here. ISPs who wish to retain their DMCA safe harbour status have a legal duty to automatically take down anything that a valid takedown order is filed on. You might wish to read up on the legislation; try chillingeffects.org.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Posting anonymously on a board is not a public response.
grit
an ugly force for good
Apologies I dont follow, are you saying that the OP would air their problems anonymously against the offending web designer? I'm not argueing against what it says on paper about the DMCA just that the reality of it is quite different. If it behaves such as it does, why didnt the other poster on here with a similar issue get anywhere?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
What that's being suggested here is public? That was the only thing I could think of. Apart from that legal proceedings are public I suppose, but they're not publicised particularly.
grit
an ugly force for good
Oppps, Sorry, I was refering to what AnnO'Neemus had posted regarding making a page saying "This persons work was bad I was unhappy etc etc".
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The reality actually *isn't* different at all; the issue is that individuals just don't file DMCA takedowns very often. I've had false takedowns filed against me which went through without notice (actually that's also against the Act, but ISPs generally have more interest in complying with the takedown part than the other bits, because if they fail on that part they run more risk of then being sued, because individuals don't file takedowns very often and it's mostly corporations). Safe harbour status is a big deal for US ISPs because it means they can't be sued.
I have no idea what other poster you're talking about tbh.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
That wouldn't be a very good idea, no, it wouldn't achieve anything really.
grit
an ugly force for good
Personally I just find it hard to believe particularly as we have recent anecdotal evidence from another poster on this site who filed a DMCA, and nothing happened.
Edited to add: Actually if memory serves correctly I did a ip lookup on the server that was in question that time and it was located in Canada.
To be honest it would be great if the OP posted the actual offending link so we could do a bit more digging on this.
Edited to add: Actually if memory serves correctly I did a ip lookup on the server that was in question that time and it was located in Canada.
To be honest it would be great if the OP posted the actual offending link so we could do a bit more digging on this.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The only reference I can find is to a site hosted in Canada, where the DMCA won't help.
edit: as you say
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Ideally there won't be a need to file a takedown at all if the woman just removes all the personal info.
D
Well-Known Member
I have no interest in linking to her website at all ever. No interest in referring to her on my new site. I want her to take the info down and be out of my life.
I am not even linking to people I *do* like and whose services I recommend on my site, let alone someone I don't.
The only links on my site are to:
studios where I teach
places where I perform
***
I don't want to do a takedown (though that sounds exciting - like a "smackdown"?). I just want this woman to stop being an idiot.
I am not even linking to people I *do* like and whose services I recommend on my site, let alone someone I don't.
The only links on my site are to:
studios where I teach
places where I perform
***
I don't want to do a takedown (though that sounds exciting - like a "smackdown"?). I just want this woman to stop being an idiot.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
D, I really hope this gets resolved - I can't believe she is being such a twit!!!
I used to do peoples websites and I'd NEVER pull something like that. I was under the idea that once someone paid for the site, it was theirs. If I wanted to to use one for personal promotion, I'd ask first. But then, I'm very nieve (sp?).
I'd suggest changing your url, but that doesn't seem like a good idea based on what you have posted. Maybe some comment like "If you came here from a link, take my advice and never, ever hire this person. Her work is crap and she has no morals." Either that, or hope no-one visits her site.
(((D)))
)))))stupid, useless web designer(((((
The only upside I can suggest is that she is totally crap and no-one will visit her site. Once they see she is pos
I used to do peoples websites and I'd NEVER pull something like that. I was under the idea that once someone paid for the site, it was theirs. If I wanted to to use one for personal promotion, I'd ask first. But then, I'm very nieve (sp?).
I'd suggest changing your url, but that doesn't seem like a good idea based on what you have posted. Maybe some comment like "If you came here from a link, take my advice and never, ever hire this person. Her work is crap and she has no morals." Either that, or hope no-one visits her site.
(((D)))
)))))stupid, useless web designer(((((
The only upside I can suggest is that she is totally crap and no-one will visit her site. Once they see she is pos
grit
an ugly force for good
This is a really really bad idea (as said earlier)
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
I am the Queen of bad ideas.
I read back a bit.
The site is hosted in Canada? If that is true, then what she is doing is illegal. I would suggest that someone starts going thru the Canadian privacy rules and regs.
Canada is fairly aggressive about protecting privacy. They took on google maps and won. They took on facebook and won.
D - I'd suggest going to the Canadian equivilant of U75 (pm for addy) and ask there. The boards share some members and I'm sure someone will help you.
Then again, if it's not hosted in Canada - never mind.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
it isn't D's site!
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Canada has nothing to do with this.
***
As it HAPPENS, I do think her ISP may be Canadian - the whois reveals an 'administrative contact' or whatever in Toronto. But she is in CA (California) not CA (canada).
Actually, the country where the site is located means it is subject to their laws. I know this because the company I used to work for took over an American company and we, the IT department, got to learn a lot about where sites, servers, etc existed.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Duh!!!!
D is upset because the other person has a link to D's info. Change D's url - that is what I was suggesting. Then the twits link is dead!!!
But, as I said earlier, it wouldn't work because she has other links, cards, etc pointing to the existing site.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
op said:
Obviously, I'm missing something that y'all see.
meh
good luck D. This is a US issue concerning a site that may or may not be based in Canada. Imo - you should be asking on this side of the ocean. I offered you the link to a board that could help, but.....
free spirit
more tea vicar?
to be clear, everything that d is worried about is hosted on her ex web designer's server, there are no links to d's current website or anything hosted anywhere else that d can alter herself.
everything's hosted on the web designers server as one of a (surprisingly limited) number of examples of her previous work.
the site itself is one front page that's flash, with click through links to 6 seperate pages that are all html / pdf and hosted on the same server but as seperate pages.
Virtually all the problematic stuff is on the seperate pages rather than the flash bit of the site, so I reckon my compromise suggestion of simply replacing the seperate pages and leaving the flash bit as is, is a decent compromise that should take any web designer a few minutes max, doesn't involve messing with the flash file at all, and should get rid of 95% of the stuff d's worried about.
I could be wrong, but I think if she removed these pages and all references to your name not in the flash file, that it'd drop down the google rankings a lot as well as the google crawler won't pick up d's name from the flash file alone...?
everything's hosted on the web designers server as one of a (surprisingly limited) number of examples of her previous work.
the site itself is one front page that's flash, with click through links to 6 seperate pages that are all html / pdf and hosted on the same server but as seperate pages.
Virtually all the problematic stuff is on the seperate pages rather than the flash bit of the site, so I reckon my compromise suggestion of simply replacing the seperate pages and leaving the flash bit as is, is a decent compromise that should take any web designer a few minutes max, doesn't involve messing with the flash file at all, and should get rid of 95% of the stuff d's worried about.
I could be wrong, but I think if she removed these pages and all references to your name not in the flash file, that it'd drop down the google rankings a lot as well as the google crawler won't pick up d's name from the flash file alone...?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
no worries
after flicking through the rest of her site, I concur.
a couple of minor amendments in bold, but otherwise it's about right I reckon.
googlewise, I'm pretty sure that the removal of the non flash bits of the site will see it slip down the google rankings when the google web crawler next visits the site, as I don't think it can read the writing on the flash file... or at least there'll be a lot less references to your name on the site, and links within the site to other pages with your name on it, which should drop it down the rankings.
hope you're doing well btw
D
Well-Known Member
Well, I sent her the email with some minor adjustments (punctuation, clarity, spelling).
And this is what I received in reply:
"Well, yes you are correct that the front page is in Flash, but the navigation bar is also in Flash. In order for me to edit the links on the buttons, I do actually need the source file to remove those links. I am not going to have my visitors encounter an "Error 404" request over this.
I visited your actual website and observed that you are currently using an entirely different email address these days. Your contact information on my "sample" site pointed to your booking agency, whether that is current or not is hardly a negative reflection on you or me. I make it clear on my site that this is not a 'live' site, and Google and similar searches will capture this data along with the link.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. And, not unlike you, you are tying up my valuable time without paying for it. I even offered to help you out for free if you would just send me back the source file I built for you to begin with.
I maintain that your request is NOT reasonable, as your "personal information" is completely out-of-date, is that of a public figure who can have no expectation of privacy of THIS TYPE OF information (this is your resume, not your bank statement), and that if you wish to have any further conversation or action on this matter it needs to be done via legal representation. We're done here."
We are so not done. I just don't know what the next step is, since contacting her in a civil and professional manner is getting me nowhere.
And this is what I received in reply:
"Well, yes you are correct that the front page is in Flash, but the navigation bar is also in Flash. In order for me to edit the links on the buttons, I do actually need the source file to remove those links. I am not going to have my visitors encounter an "Error 404" request over this.
I visited your actual website and observed that you are currently using an entirely different email address these days. Your contact information on my "sample" site pointed to your booking agency, whether that is current or not is hardly a negative reflection on you or me. I make it clear on my site that this is not a 'live' site, and Google and similar searches will capture this data along with the link.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. And, not unlike you, you are tying up my valuable time without paying for it. I even offered to help you out for free if you would just send me back the source file I built for you to begin with.
I maintain that your request is NOT reasonable, as your "personal information" is completely out-of-date, is that of a public figure who can have no expectation of privacy of THIS TYPE OF information (this is your resume, not your bank statement), and that if you wish to have any further conversation or action on this matter it needs to be done via legal representation. We're done here."
We are so not done. I just don't know what the next step is, since contacting her in a civil and professional manner is getting me nowhere.
If she's hosting everything herself then unlikely you can change it. If you could force people to have accurate facts on website the Internet would be so much more useful...
I'd be doing stuff like making sure you had a findable LinkenIn profile and that your website (and accurate details) rank higher than hers on relevant keywords. (ie, your name). If she's as shit as you say this shouldn't be a problem...
Similar threads
