Admin Private Messages Manager

[SamG]

Refusing to get hung up on the word "private" in PM isn't the same as advocating indiscriminate access to PMs, I think, just to be clear. I very much object to the legal and moral weight being hung on the word "private," sometimes beyond all common sense. We're reacting to a buzzword, not a real word in a real context, as I see it. In my view, that's completely inappropriate. At the same time, I've never read PMs; not because they're private (I don't think they are in that sense), but because I've always assumed I can safely ignore them.

[Handyman]

After reading the last 3 posts, I agree with you guys both on this.
Somebody had told me that it was illegal in some countries to read the PM's so I felt the laws should not be broken... but I personally don't know where it would be illegal... and it it's not illegal, I'm not so opposed to having a tool where an admin could read the PMs if he absolutely needed to.

That said, some admins take it to far as Highway was saying where they want to see everything an user is doing.
I think, to a reasonable degree, stuff should be kept private... I don't like to be a browsing statistic for somebody to analyze besides my public user agent details (System software, browsers, IP)
So on one hand, I think you are correct… in some cases there may be a need for a tool like that, it just can't be taken to far.
We are still capable of going into the database and finding the PM if we need to.

I have only had to do that 1 time ever.

[Nicholas the Italian]

Somebody had told me that it was illegal in some countries to read the PM's so I felt the laws should not be broken... but I personally don't know where it would be illegal...

That guy was me and that country is Italy.
A private message is a private message, period.
If you don't want to provide a private message feature, don't call it "private message".
I don't think such a matter has actually ever been brought in front of a court, but if it was, I'm pretty sure privacy would be considered an unavoidable requirement for private messaging, just because the word "private" means what it means.
PS: there's a certain discussion whether "PM" should be translated as "Private message" or "Personal message"; someone affirms the latter would say that these messages are addressed to a specific person, but wouldn't imply any privateness. Disputable interpretation nonetheless.
PPS: phpBB2 in Italian says "private message".

[SamG]

PS: there's a certain discussion whether "PM" should be translated as "Private message" or "Personal message"; someone affirms the latter would say that these messages are addressed to a specific person, but wouldn't imply any privateness. Disputable interpretation nonetheless.

Why is that a disputable interpretation? Where is it written in law that the feature cannot be renamed for whatever reason? If that's true, then if I rename that feature on my phpBB installations to clearly show that privacy is not the intent of the feature (and I've argued already that it isn't), then I appear to be in violation of some law. I find that truly remarkable.

[code reader]

one small thing that can and should be done on every board that plans to disrespect the privacy or the PMs, in addition to renaming, should be to state it clearly in the "user agreement" text, and repeat it in the "rules and regulations".
something like:
"Be advised that we retain the right to read Private/Personal messages sent on this board, and to report suspect communication to law enforcement agencies."
even if you never going to actually do any of those things, it keeps you covered, and maybe keeps the PMs cleaner...

[Nicholas the Italian]

Why is that a disputable interpretation? Where is it written in law that the feature cannot be renamed for whatever reason? If that's true, then if I rename that feature on my phpBB installations to clearly show that privacy is not the intent of the feature (and I've argued already that it isn't), then I appear to be in violation of some law. I find that truly remarkable.

Of course you can rename it. And I'll probably do when I update the board.
The disputable thing is whether "personal" doesn't hold any of the implications that the adjective "private" holds (if a message is personal, you can guess it's also private).
Hey, I don't wish to discuss this issue for matters of principles or because I really care what laws say about privacy and everything, I'm just pointing out this fact. A public board shouldn't support anything really private? Then don't put in private messages. You wish to grant your users such a feature? Then treat those messages for what they are, private.
PS: wordreference.com board rules state it's strictly forbidden to publish parts of PMs; if you do you get banned. It's not an Italian board.

should be to state it clearly in the "user agreement" text

Right, of course.
(I stated in the rules that admins are not able to read PMs. Actually, when I wrote it, I didn't know I would have been able. )

[SamG]

My point is that even "private [something]" doesn't mean "confidential" in many (most?) of the ordinary uses of the phrase, so using "personal" in place of private isn't any less clear and may be even clearer since the stumbling-block word "private" is removed.

In English, we have things like private parking, private entrance, private drive, private practice, private party, private line (in contrast to party line), private property, private viewing, in which the idea of confidentiality is not the issue. It's the idea that these are non-public things. Why do people insist with such force that private message is a clear exception? That's what I object to. It creates burdens on forum admins that ought not be there, in my opinion.

Like you, I have no interest in debating this as a matter of principle. But when people insist that private messages are confidential messages and even toss out the idea that they might even ought to be encrypted, then it becomes a very practical matter, in my mind. In any case where I run a phpBB install I'm not obliged (and shouldn't be expected) to run a confidential messaging service as well as a public forum simply because phpBB comes with a PM system. Especially when it all hangs on an arguably non-conventional (in my opinion) use of a word. If phpBB were actually to force confidentiality upon its PM system I'd remove the system without a second thought. On what grounds would the developers of a public forum product have any right to insist that I also provide a confidential messaging service? None, as far as I can see. And I don't think that the present inclusion of a PM system goes down that road at all.

[Handyman]

What I would like to know is what VB and IPB have to say about it? aren't they private messages on those boards? and are the admins able to see them?

Also, there wouldn't be much sense in encrypting a message because to encrypt it in a decryptable format for the recipient to be able to read them, the admin would also have the capability of producing a script that would be able to decrypt them and read them.
So encrypting them is really not an option to help matters.

To me, it's not that big of a deal either way... I wouldn't say something to someone on the PM system that I would take anybody to court over for reading... but I don't live in Italy.
And in America, we have things like Private Drive, Private Corporation, private party... all it means is it's not public... but it doesn't mean you will be shot or sent to court for entering the building of a private corporation

[SamG]

I don't spend any time at the vB and IPB forums, but I think this recent thread in the Phorum forums is pretty typical.

I especially like the "evil admin" part (see what expectations admins are put under by evil developers?).

[Nicholas the Italian]

And in America, we have things like Private Drive, Private Corporation, private party... all it means is it's not public... but it doesn't mean you will be shot or sent to court for entering the building of a private corporation

We have all these "private [thing]" here too and the meaning is the same.
Private property does not mean you can be jailed if you happen to walk into it, of course, but it means that you can't come and go and stay there as you want without being authorized. Because it's private, it's mine, and if you insist in staying here I'll have to take my tommy-gun and shoot you down. The principle is quite the same.
All I'm saying is that PMs should follow the same rules of private (I'm not saying confidential) mail (both electronic and traditional), and if you open someone else's letters, hey man, doesn't matter if you're in Italy or not, it's illegal.

Out of curiosity, and I promise I won't go more off-topic than this. I did a little research just to prove I'm not talking trash.
Italian constitution, art. 15: "Freedom and secrecy of mail and any other form of communication are inviolable. They can be limited only for justified reasons by the judiciary authority, according to law." [Translation is mine]
Italian penal code, art. 616: looking into closed mail (i.e. anything except postcards or ads) not addressed to you is punishable, if you're denounced, with up to one year in jail and a sanction from 31 to 516 euros; if the guilty reveals part of mail contents to others without valid reasons, he's punishable with up to three years in jail.
Don't know how it works elsewhere.