Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:43 pm
Michael. I have had this happen a few times before. You join up under the understanding that your username would be the only information given out, and without your consent, your full name is then plastered on old and new posts, not even giving you a chance to stop posting and leave the old post with the user name. About the only time this has been required or happen is video camera boards, where there is a lot of temperamental nuts who like infighting (maybe it is something transfered over from cinematograpy boards which apparently have a bad rep for that). At the time I was helping out and posting in a different style, so people in another industry wouldn't know I was there. So, it was a most unwelcome and illegal violation of my actual and expected privacy, and very despicable. However, here I forget if it was a expectation from the start. Six I give them the real name.
I'll tell you the way the real law works in some places. What people write in a legal document may include much that is overidden by law, like privacy legislation, and I imagine maybe even international agreement that has yet to be put in law, but which a judge could follow (but maybe that's one for a future precedence, which is a determination that sets the court law interpretation) and court law, or maybe overidden by the courts ruling. The bits already overiden are called "boiler plate" clauses, which have no real standing unless the law changes to support them. Companies often use the tactic of incorporating them to scare and bluff people into complying. Such deliberate misinformation and mishandling to defraud people out of their rights and liberties should be punishable by jail sentences as far as I'm concerned. Now, a court can also easily interpret that requirements are unfair, unjust, or for other reasons be unfounded, and strike them off or rule against them. The contract is not the interpretation of the contract but the court ruling and law is the finale interpretation, here, that can be overridden by legislation or constitution.
A landmark case (precedence) here was that night fill staff were helping themselves to broken packages, like who knows if it was broken or you broke it, ate it, and said you found it broken. So, the employer put up a notice that the staff were no longer to help themselves or they would be fired and required each staff member to sign it in recognition that they had read it. A woman read it signed it, and latter found a package and ate of it. I think the work mate warned her and she dismissed it saying that it was alright. But she was found out and sacked. That would seem a clear case to the average person. But, the union objected, and took it to court, after 6 or 18 months, the court ruled she did not sign it that she had read and UNDERSTOOD it (implying she might not have understood what she was signing) and they were forced to rehire her and pay her compensation but she left several weeks or months latter. Now, I am not sure which court made the ruling as to if it was state or federal court law, and if it was limited to employment court law or wider court law. So, I don't know if it would be relevant to this forum, if it is in or managed in Australia, or wherever it is what their court interpretation or laws on it would be. In many situations, long agreements with stuff burried somewhere in it, too long for people to fairly read, are used with unknowing and unexpectuling people to get the other party's way. Also, if an original agreement does not infer some right, a rewrite requires agreement to the new right.
So, such things are possibly possible to be challenged in court. The process could possibly be, maybe do your own research, plead a cause with a company (maybe mediation at some point), then ask a relevant competent for the task lawyer, arrange an out of court settlement, and then ask the court/s, and hopefully at some point in that, get a satisfactory resolution and stop. Which is very daunting. So, such a case might take several years, millions, lots of off time, commitment and work, a lot of financing from civil liberty groups before it pops out of the top court in the land on an appeal, for either side. So, justice is denied many times. So, it often isn't worth it. So, you either are going get agreement with them here, or it may not be worth it.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them