UPDATE: Unvarnished changed its privacy policy, addressing some of the problems I mentioned. Thanks!
I recently wrote about my disappointment in Unvarnished’s privacy policy. To his credit, founder Pete Kazanjy immediately invited me to coffee. Turns out they’ve been thinking very hard about the delicate balance between anonymity and accountability, it just hasn’t made its way into the privacy policy. (The privacy policy, like the service itself, is still in beta.)
In speaking to Kazanjy, I gained a better appreciation of the problem Unvarnished is trying to address. It’s the same that Eric Goldman has been thinking about (PDF) for years: the virtual impossibility of getting a frank review of an employee without fear of blowback, legal or otherwise. Unvarnished allows “anonymous” reviews, in the sense that it obscures the name of the reviewer from view. The reviewer herself accrues a reputation, can be blocked from the site, and can be revealed in the event of a defamation suit.
The possibility of a defamation suit to unmask a reviewer is the first of two privacy issues that I’m hopeful Unvarnished will address in the near term. My impression is that Unvarnished will eventually develop a formal policy around “John Doe” subpoenas wherein it is clear to the user under what circumstances Unvarnished will give up their identity. (For instance, only after notice and a waiting period.) Right now the website says it will turn over user information “as required by law.” I’m hoping we’ll see a more detailed discussion that befits a website devoted to reviewing people. Specifically, Unvarnished should define “anonymity” and clarify how it will go about responding to subpoenas and other legal process concerning its users.
The second issue deals with what to do if it’s your profile being discussed. At present, it takes an invitation by an existing member to review them to become a member. Thus, in an effort to keep the website more civil, you cannot join Unvarnished unless (1) you have a Facebook profile and (2) you’ve been invited to review a member of the community. But once a member, you can add and review individuals who are not members. Non-members meanwhile have no way of determining whether they are being discussed on the website.
The obvious fix—which Kazanjy is taking under consideration—is to allow outsiders to search Unvarnished to determine whether they are on the website. One you claim your profile, you have the ability to review and flag content. Importantly, you can also engage in counter speech. You can point out bias, explain misunderstanding, or, perhaps most effective of all, apologize and promise to work on the issue.
Unvarnished’s privacy policy remains crappy for now. But I’m much more confident than I was two days ago that Unvarnished will try to work out its issues and treat user data responsibly. Let the great experiment begin.