[hluska]

Let me see if I have this straight. In response to a story from a customer, you went through all of your records and then shared information about the case in public.

I'm glad your customer satisfaction scores are higher, but I'd rather not share any of my information with you. I'm not the op, but if I was, I would feel rather violated.

[jacquesm]

> I'm not the op, but if I was, I would feel rather violated.

Well then don't choose a public forum to vent a complaint, and since you're not the OP it doesn't matter anyway.

Turnabout is fair play: if you go into a thread about a product and make a strong play that their customer service sucks and then an officer of that company steps in and does what they can to see if there is a way to re-engage you on their dime that's about as good as you could possibly expect. On top of that he did not volunteer any info that wasn't already in the OP's post except for a possible correction of the date.

So you're wrong, twice.

FWIW absolutely no affiliation whatsoever with Spideroak.

[rarrrrrr]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm sensitive to this issue too.

For what it's worth, we do have very strict policy about what information regular customer service staff can access or share publicly (i.e. none in most cases) and how someone who calls in must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they really are the original customer before we will communicate with them. We're very careful about allowing any customer data to exist in 3rd party systems. We don't even use Google Analytics. https://medium.com/@mccamon/yeah-we-ditched-google-2fa644578...

That said, many people also expect customer support delivered over Twitter so some flexibility is required. In this case I made a judgement call and decided to answer.

[tjallingt]

All he said was that they refunded the guy, seems like information that is pretty OK to share publicly especially in response to the claim that their customer support was terrible. In addition to that the person who commented shared a large amount of information about the support ticket themselves so it seems like they are fine with sharing at least that much information about this case.

All-in-all this hardly seems like a reason to feel "violated"...

[Veratyr]

I'm the customer in question and I'm totally fine with what he said. Nothing personal was disclosed, only that SpiderOak wasn't able to find the issue (which I said myself) and that billing was suspended (I neglected to mention) and I got a refund (did mention).

If he'd named my ISP, location, address or something like that I'd say it's inappropriate but I think this is totally find and I actually appreciate that he went to the trouble.

[verytrivial]

Erm, they continued a public conversation about the customer that the customer publicly started themselves regarding customer service, and they kept the details to the delivery of the customer service and discussed the experience all customers were probably having at the time. Context matters.

[peteretep]

What private information about the user was shared?