A word of caution - beware what you publish 스레드 게시자: 3089491 (X)
|
|---|
3089491 (X) 
룩셈부르크
Local time: 17:34
Self-rightousness might prove costly in the medium and long term.
Private conversations are supposed to remain private.
If someone contacts us with ridiculous rates, uses an impolite style etc., that may be unethical. Feel free to take the time to evaluate the situation properly and respond accordingly. Or just delete the message.
Text analysis, in order to detect and discuss markers of potential deceit, that seems ok, as long as anonymity is ensured.
... See more Self-rightousness might prove costly in the medium and long term.
Private conversations are supposed to remain private.
If someone contacts us with ridiculous rates, uses an impolite style etc., that may be unethical. Feel free to take the time to evaluate the situation properly and respond accordingly. Or just delete the message.
Text analysis, in order to detect and discuss markers of potential deceit, that seems ok, as long as anonymity is ensured.
Publishing messages from real people, with identifying details, might be in breach of even very low ethical standards. And when a (business) person is identified beyond any doubt, that might even bring some very real legal trouble in the not so distant future.
Why not just focus on getting real good paying clients? If you are very lucky, you might stll be able to get a last minute seat at a very relevant training. Feel free to visit the new ProZ.com Training page.
Good luck! ▲ Collapse
| | | | jyuan_us
미국
Local time: 11:34
회원(2005)
영어에서 중국어
+ ...
Privacy is important, but I'm a bit confused about the central theme of the post.
[Edited at 2021-03-15 21:19 GMT]
| | | | Sadek_A
Local time: 19:34
영어에서 아라비아어
+ ...
Sorry, but I'm finding a few contradicting messages in the original post.
- How could translator/interpreter be "self-righteous" if client (company or individual) "uses an impolite style etc., that may be unethical". Isn't self-righteousness, in its core, supposed to be groundless, which is not the case if someone else has actually abused you in a fashion that is documented?
- "prove costly in the medium and long term" & "bring some very real legal trouble in the not so distant futur... See more Sorry, but I'm finding a few contradicting messages in the original post.
- How could translator/interpreter be "self-righteous" if client (company or individual) "uses an impolite style etc., that may be unethical". Isn't self-righteousness, in its core, supposed to be groundless, which is not the case if someone else has actually abused you in a fashion that is documented?
- "prove costly in the medium and long term" & "bring some very real legal trouble in the not so distant future" seem like warnings to translator/interpreter. Shouldn't the abuser whose abuse is documented be the one warned and worried?
- "Private conversations are supposed to remain private". Within limits, of course. If a client threatens to, say, inflict physical harm or financial ruin on you, wouldn't you go public and let the whole world know? Don't you agree that said one-statement-fits-all harms more than it benefits.
Under usual circumstances, you don't specify the person/organization; however, in some cases, you can't but do so. ProZ doesn't allow it because of subscription considerations, but LinkedIn has several groups that are naming and shaming with documented evidence and they are helping the rest of T&Is not fall victims to said abusers.
What we should shun, however, is any counteraction toward an evidenceless abuse. ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Being canny, letting go and moving on. Increasingly necessary in today's online world!
Easier said than done, I grant you, but skills worth acquiring.
[Edited at 2021-03-15 11:09 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| An alternative approach | Mar 15, 2021 |
I don't think I would lose sleep over a possible lawsuit over re-posting some agency's PM ridiculous offer - but I concede that it isn't "a good look."
Perhaps a better alternative for releasing the bad feelings resulting from having received such an offer is simply letting the sender know exactly what you think of it in a direct reply. After all, that person has intruded on your time by sending you an offer that you find insulting. Why not let them know that you don't appreciate it... See more I don't think I would lose sleep over a possible lawsuit over re-posting some agency's PM ridiculous offer - but I concede that it isn't "a good look."
Perhaps a better alternative for releasing the bad feelings resulting from having received such an offer is simply letting the sender know exactly what you think of it in a direct reply. After all, that person has intruded on your time by sending you an offer that you find insulting. Why not let them know that you don't appreciate it? If enough people do this for a particular agency/PM, it might eventually have an effect. If nothing else, it could raise the awareness of the PM as to the kind of agency they are working for.
And then - of course - move on....
[Edited at 2021-03-15 11:27 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Mihai, why I disagree with some of your suggestions | Mar 15, 2021 |
You posted your suggestions under the "SCAM" section, therefore I think that it is beneficial for everybody to know the names of the scammers (was about to write alleged scammers, but they ARE real scammers), false names anyway. Posting the "confidential" communication harms only the scammer and cautions other colleagues.
When dealing with bad agencies, low rates, poor payment practices, that is another story and I agree with you.
My 2c
Liviu
| | | | Daryo
영국
Local time: 16:34
세르비아어에서 영어
+ ...
| Somehow, you reminded me | Mar 15, 2021 |
Mihai Badea wrote:
Self-rightousness might prove costly in the medium and long term.
Private conversations are supposed to remain private.
If someone contacts us with ridiculous rates, uses an impolite style etc., that may be unethical. Feel free to take the time to evaluate the situation properly and respond accordingly. Or just delete the message.
Text analysis, in order to detect and discuss markers of potential deceit, that seems ok, as long as anonymity is ensured.
Publishing messages from real people, with identifying details, might be in breach of even very low ethical standards. And when a (business) person is identified beyond any doubt, that might even bring some very real legal trouble in the not so distant future.
Why not just focus on getting real good paying clients? If you are very lucky, you might stll be able to get a last minute seat at a very relevant training. Feel free to visit the new ProZ.com Training page.
Good luck!
of the case of a burglar who made a complaint about his human rights being violated because the homeowner had the audacity to install a hidden cam that got the burglar caught in a matter of hours (a case of "protection of privacy" gone mad, for a change from the overused "PC gone mad").
BTW, it's not some kind of urban legend, it was a real case from an EU country that went all the way to the highest instances (don't have the time now to dig the references).
You sound a bit like defending the burglar.
Venting your frustration is one thing, could be seen as being of little value, but warning others is certainly a very good reason to have a "Scams" forum.
[Edited at 2021-03-16 13:14 GMT]
| | | |
Sadek_A wrote:
Sorry, but I'm finding a few contradicting messages in the original post.
- (...)
Under usual circumstances, you don't specify the person/organization; however, in some cases, you can't but do so. ProZ doesn't allow it because of subscription considerations, but LinkedIn has several groups that are naming and shaming with documented evidence and they are helping the rest of T&Is not fall victims to said abusers.
What we should shun, however, is any counteraction toward an evidenceless abuse.
I also had a little difficulty understanding the main points of the original post. I think one of the points is about being careful where replying and so on. It can actually bring you more trouble than it is worth. Standing up to bullies is important and I think this is at the heart of the problem. Irritating virtual bullies can spur them into action sometimes. Often best avoided. There are if course situations where it is necessary to take action.
Naming organisations and/ or individuals and accusing them of certain types of behaviour can be illegal in some countries, and, surprisingly to some, even if what you say is true. But, bearing in.lind that some people will bully others using a stolen identity, you can imagine the heartache, administrative and other problems that can arise, including legal ones but also emotionally for people who are not at fault at all.
In many situations, if action is required, then adopting the official routes to report it is usually a good option.
Believe you me, have I seen stuff that I would like to shout about off the rooftops but nine times out of ten that would have caused more harm than good and sometimes to people who are simply not involved. In today's virtual world, these could be people we don't even know about and could never identify.
| | |
|
|
|
3089491 (X)
룩셈부르크
Local time: 17:34
주제 스타터 | My Dear Liviu | Mar 16, 2021 |
If you ask me, this forum section should not even exist. As simple as that.
We have Blue Board. On the other hand, if a message comes from a Yahoo email address or similar, you know something might be wrong. Nowadays, any serious business person has their own domain address.
And if they send you somewhere else (making it illogical to just press Reply), you know something is wrong.
After it happened, sadly, there is hardly anything we can do about it.
... See more If you ask me, this forum section should not even exist. As simple as that.
We have Blue Board. On the other hand, if a message comes from a Yahoo email address or similar, you know something might be wrong. Nowadays, any serious business person has their own domain address.
And if they send you somewhere else (making it illogical to just press Reply), you know something is wrong.
After it happened, sadly, there is hardly anything we can do about it.
Regards,
Mihai ▲ Collapse
| | | | | customers with yahoo, gmail etc addresses | Mar 16, 2021 |
Mihai Badea wrote:
If you ask me, this forum section should not even exist. As simple as that.
We have Blue Board. On the other hand, if a message comes from a Yahoo email address or similar, you know something might be wrong. Nowadays, any serious business person has their own domain address.
Not all customers are businesses. Quite a few of my customers have gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc. addresses. Otoh, sophisticated scammers can have legitimate seeming addresses, and they can even pay for fake addresses making them seem to be in one country, when they're in another.
The Blue Board, in the meantime, only works for clients who post jobs on these kinds of forums, and only if they have scammed someone or several people a few times.
| | | | Sadek_A
Local time: 19:34
영어에서 아라비아어
+ ...
Nikki Scott-Despaigne wrote:
some people will bully others using a stolen identity
Hence, my "What we should shun, however, is any counteraction toward an evidenceless abuse." I was already aware of that point, and couldn't have overlooked it.
"evidenceless abuse" basically means the T&I did NOT gather a set of hard evidences to back up their counteraction; such hard evidences include, but not limited to, communication through company's/client's official, domain-based email service, receipt of company's/client's official PO with all three verifications (signature, stamp and letterhead), connecting with company/client through phone/whatsapp/LinkedIn/etc. for the purpose of the ongoing cooperation.
There once was that someone posing as a female (not sure whether they were indeed so) supposedly representing a media company, she contacted me through a gmail account with a test (a very challenging, however an amusing, piece), I liked the challenge so I took that test and upon forwarding it to her I carbon-copied the company she is alleging to represent. She sent me an agitated reply (through the same generic gmail address) saying I shouldn't carbon-copy the company in our communications. And, the company never replied. That's how I immediately knew that either:
- The company is indeed involved, but trying to leave no hard evidence that could be held against them, or
- The company is not involved, but scared to reply and get implicated.
Either way, I instantly ceased communication and got out of the then alleged cooperation. No hard evidence for T&I means no possible counteraction if things go wrong, and I wasn't going to accept that.
Nikki Scott-Despaigne wrote:
I think one of the points is about being careful where replying and so on
No, it's about limiting replying venues to only one, the abuser's.
Nikki Scott-Despaigne wrote:
Naming organisations and/ or individuals and accusing them of certain types of behaviour can be illegal in some countries
With the existence of said hard evidences? No, it can't be! Only if it's evidenceless, and totally understandable in such a case.
Maxi Schwarz wrote:
Otoh, sophisticated scammers can have legitimate seeming addresses, and they can even pay for fake addresses making them seem to be in one country, when they're in another.
Totally valid. That's why a domain-based email service alone is not all the hard evidence needed to prove the cooperation and any resultant abuse.
| | | |
Mihai Badea wrote:
Nowadays, any serious business person has their own domain address.
Yes, they do but they might use a Gmail address for other reasons. I’ll explain my reasoning: some years ago I was contacted by someone with a Gmail address looking for an EN-PT translation on human rights. Apparently all red flags were there: no company information, no profile photo, a very comfortable deadline, together with a very large number of words. Because the e-mail was very well written and polite I cautiously answered. To make a long story short, it turned out to be a leading human rights organization. Later on they told me that they always use a Gmail address for the first contact to avoid being flooded with unwanted email responses.
| | |
|
|
|
| in view of another topic I understand now why | Mar 16, 2021 |
it looked so uninteresting to me
| | | |
[quote]Mihai Badea wrote:
If you ask me, this forum section should not even exist. As simple as that.
We have Blue Board. On the other hand, if a message comes from a Yahoo email address or similar, you know something might be wrong. Nowadays, any serious business person has their own domain address.
And if they send you somewhere else (making it illogical to just press Reply), you know something is wrong.
After it happened, sadly, there is hardly anything we can do about it.
As you might know, for the last 12 years I have been translating documents for the US law regarding all kind of scams and schemes and I find this type of posting very helpful. Usually, I post new scams on FB as well, on all groups for T&I. Many of our colleagues are thankful for giving them heads-up on a particular issue.
Best,
Liviu
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » A word of caution - beware what you publish | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
