How about a published privacy policy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Puritanhead

Puritan Board Professor
I won't drop names, but I have heard of incidents where the contents of someone's private messages provoked reprimand from mods/admins. It never happened to me, but I've read things on the blogosphere.

I did once have a mod a long time ago, like five years, hint at a cliche I used in a benign private message to another party while telling me "good morning" in a private message. It was sort of a subtle hint he had followed my private messages. I don't know what the point of that is. I didn't have anything to hide.

I guess my point is that I think there should be more meaningful disclosure that admins can monitor these messages as well as a user's activity. I can respect that this is a privately administered and owned forum, and talking about the First and Fourth Amendment rights is a little silly as some get on their soapbox with these objections to how private forums are regulated. Those Bill of Rights protections are vis-a-vis the government, not private entities.

However, I think it's simply a matter of common courtesy to Internet users, and it might be a legal rationale for a prudently articulated privacy policy too if they follow Internet legal developments.

I will only say Paul reminded Timothy about greeting others with "an evil suspicion." I personally cannot understand why private conversations would need to be glanced at with any regularity. If for example, you had an underage minor on here, I understand the paternal willingness to watch who they are talking too and keep an eye on them, and there might be a tort concern there at shoring up any liabilities.

:think:
 
You are not the only one who has had this alleged practice of the mods reported to you. The same claim has been made to me also and, since I didn't have a second witness, I refrained from doing anything about it. In veiw of your comments, however, I would like to second your motion that the mods make their abilities and practices in this area explicit.
 
I've had the same claim made to me several times here, but I've never seen any proof, and frankly I can't see Rich doing it. No way. But I do know it goes on on other forums, so maybe a statement would be good.
 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/u2u-privacy-pms-8055/

Note that the original post in that thread dates to 2005 and subsequent posts were from 2008.
This is a Sticky Post in FAQ & Rules. Just to be more explicit (for those who have not noticed this rule in place since before I came here), I have added this section to the Forum Rules:

Privacy Policy

1. Profile Privacy: Due to concerns about online privacy, user profiles are only viewable by registered and logged in users. Furthermore, the only profile fields viewable by regular members are:

a. Age (if user selects to share it)
b. Biography
c. Interests
d. Church Information

Administrators and Moderators have access to First and Last Name and this is used only for accountability as board registration requires sharing this information. We do not permit completely anonymous posting that has no sense of accountability. Restriction of First and Last Name to Admins and Moderators protects privacy while permitting accountability.

2. Private Messaging. Private Messaging is between the parties who contact one another. It is neither monitored nor read under normal circumstances. The Administrators do have the ability to investigate and read Private Messages when they have warrant to believe that the PM system is being used for sinful and/or non-Confessional purposes. The Administrators have no desire to read PM's but protection of our membership and enforcement of the rules, which all agree to upon registration, sometimes forces it upon us. See this thread for more information: U2U & Privacy (PM's).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top