iNat alledged as source of deadly mushrooms in Australian triple murder trial

[simono]

Death Cap mushrooms are an introduced species that is not native to Australia, they can only grow with introduced hardwoods such as oak.

[felix-insects]

It’s illegal to kill snakes in Australia but a lot of people (insert angry text) still do.

@cthawley

But generally, I am against the idea that humans should attempt to eliminate anything that might be dangerous to other humans from nature, and especially public spaces.

100% agree.

[Vireya]

Fair enough.

An Australian recreation reserve/park is an open space with just about 100% introduced species. There will be an oval where people play football in winter and cricket in summer. People walk their dogs, or bring their kids to run around. The only wildlife could be some native birds and insects. There could be playground equipment, a free electric barbeque, and picnic tables. They are run by local government and are open for anyone to use.

An expert whose job involves counselling people afraid their child or pet has consumed something poisonous saw mushrooms she knew were potentially problematic in a place frequented by children and dogs, and removed them. She didn’t kill the fungus - it would send up new fruiting bodies whenever it wanted to.

To me this is very different to going into a national park and damaging native plants, animals, or fungi.

[papernautilus]

@cthawley

But generally, I am against the idea that humans should attempt to eliminate anything that might be dangerous to other humans from nature, and especially public spaces.

I agree, though removing a hazardous species from the sort of public space described by Vireya is probably justifiable. It seems this wasn’t a nature reserve but more like a playground. In such spaces, I think authorities would be right to remove noxious animals or plants - say, for example, a wasp nest hanging right next to the children’s playground equipment.

[felix55555]

No, the recording of species should not be obscured unless endangered with permissions as having the data where species are observed is INCREDIBLY important. For scientists, researchers, fungi enthusiasts, foragers… we cannot prevent people from finding deadly mushrooms if they have their mind on it. Inaturalist should not be blamed, it is not anyone’s fault but the woman who unlawfully used it like this. We need species recordings. If iNat obscures deadly fungi, people will just find another resource. You can’t censor the internet no matter how hard you try

[cthawley]

If the person was legally allowed to do this, then I don’t have an issue. But this conversation is a bit of a sidetrack from the original question (which I’ve played a part in and so apologize for that). The original question was really about iNat’s obscuration of toxic taxa (not people intentionally removing/destroying them which isn’t really an issue specific to iNat), so we should probably stick to that or wrap up the topic.

[papernautilus]

I’d say there’s plenty more that could be discussed about iNat’s relationship to this case. For example, has the iNat administration been approached by the police/prosecution or by defense counsel to provide evidence of Patterson’s use of iNat, in particular her search history? Would they do so if asked? If they haven’t been approached, should they volunteer that information to the prosecution and/or to the defense? The privacy policy says that iNat would reveal private information about a user if:

We are compelled to do so by a governmental agency, court, or other entity (e.g., to respond to subpoenas, court orders or legal process);

or

We believe Your actions violate a law, regulation, this Privacy Policy, or any applicable website or app’s terms of use, or if You threaten the rights, property or safety of Us, Our Websites, Our Apps, any other Users, or third party;

https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/privacy

[bouteloua]

@papernautilus

I’d say there’s plenty more that could be discussed about iNat’s relationship to this case. For example, has the iNat administration been approached by the police/prosecution or by defense counsel to provide evidence of Patterson’s use of iNat, in particular her search history? Would they do so if asked? If they haven’t been approached, should they volunteer that information to the prosecution and/or to the defense?

Only iNaturalist staff and their legal counsel would address those questions. In my opinion it’s not helpful for iNatters to speculate on possible legal issues like this in a forum chat.

@cthawley

The original question was really about iNat’s obscuration of toxic taxa (not people intentionally removing/destroying them which isn’t really an issue specific to iNat), so we should probably stick to that or wrap up the topic.

I agree with this and am going to close the topic.

[tiwane]

@bouteloua got to it first, but I support her decision to close the topic since the original question has been answered and I think discussing the other legal issues surrounding a murder trial is a bit out of scope for this forum. There are plenty of places to discuss the trial elsewhere online.

Regarding the Privacy Policy, as @bouteloua said, I’m not a lawyer but that’s something we’d discuss with our legal counsel and their advice would proably depend on specific details involved.