Who Can See (Read) the Contents of Private Messages

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Janet H

.......

Keep in mind when you send PMs to another member that just as with e-mail, they may forward it or post it. You no longer control that content.

A good reminder that it was always thus regardless of the communication medium. The only way to keep a secret is tell no-one!

It seems the only thing that humans prefer over keeping a secret is telling another of the secret .

[JPA Cate]

We did have a spam bot get in that sent PM's. It was an "emergency" for the mod team, and it took administrators' skills to resolve the situation.

Ann

[GILow]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

We did have a spam bot get in that sent PM's. It was an "emergency" for the mod team, and it took administrators' skills to resolve the situation.

Ann

Yeah, and she never got back to me, even after I sent her the money for the airfare.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GILow

Yeah, and she never got back to me, even after I sent her the money for the airfare.

Blame the admins. They deleted her reply giving her flight details.

[GILow]

Originally Posted by StuM

Blame the admins. They deleted her reply giving her flight details.

Well, there goes my chance of getting laid romance.

[JPA Cate]

^^^^^^^^
Sex with bots ----------------->androids.

Ciao!

[Smokeys Kitchen]

Got to this thread late and read the posts. Interested in the ones that are focused on whatever you put on the internet in any way can become public knowledge - I agree.

A little off topic, but it reminded me of a very humorous quote from several years back:

"Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail."

Eliot Spitzer

.... and we all know how that ended up ...

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

^^^^^^^^
Sex with bots ----------------->androids.
Ciao!

Hmm, so it was true. Those were not the droids you were looking for!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Smokeys Kitchen

... "Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail."
Eliot Spitzer
.... and we all know how that ended up ...

FWIW:
I doubt that incriminating E-mails were a significant factor in Spitzer's downfall.
Martin Lomasney, an old West End political boss from Boston, is best remembered for his warning to young politicians everywhere:
“Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink”*.
The saying was merely updated by Eliot Spitzer, adding: “never put it in email”.
* ☞ https://thewestendmuseum.org/the-lif...west-end-icon/

[GordMay]

In related news:
U.S. court rules against warrantless searches of phones, laptops

A Federal Court in Boston has ruled warrantless U.S. government searches of the phones and laptops of international travelers at airports and other U.S. ports of entry violate the Fourth Amendment.
Tuesday's ruling in U.S. District Court came in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smart phones and laptops were searched without individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry.
The ruling strengthens the Fourth Amendment protections of international travelers who enter the United States. Border officers must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of contraband before they can search a traveler's electronic device.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In related news:
U.S. court rules against warrantless searches of phones, laptops

A Federal Court in Boston has ruled warrantless U.S. government searches of the phones and laptops of international travelers at airports and other U.S. ports of entry violate the Fourth Amendment.
Tuesday's ruling in U.S. District Court came in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smart phones and laptops were searched without individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry.
The ruling strengthens the Fourth Amendment protections of international travelers who enter the United States. Border officers must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of contraband before they can search a traveler's electronic device.

Seems to me we don’t have the same protections here in Canada Gord. Last time I checked into this the courts had upheld CBSA’s ability to conduct random searches at our border. And that includes searching digital devices.

The CBSA claims they have the right to demand devices be unlocked even if they are password/fingerprint protected. I’m not sure this aspect has been fully tested in our courts, but apparently people have been arrested for failing to do so.

https://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads...rtGuide2.0.pdf

[transmitterdan]

To your friends no secrets tell. For if your friends become your foes, your secrets everyone will know.

A name is all that is needed to completely track down an individual. It’s easy to find a person, their home, phone and almost all their details within 5 minutes using just a name. With DNA databases these days it’s easy to find much of their family too.

The zeal to filter “undesirable speech” will also filter out much more “good” speech. Remember, you already have an undesirable speech filter, it’s called a brain. It works perfectly once you train it’s neural pathways not to be triggered by bad (aka free) speech. The more bad speech you hear/read the better trained your filter becomes.

[GordMay]

According to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), Mike is more or less correct.
The Canadian courts have not yet ruled on whether a border officer can compel a person to turn over their password and on what grounds, so that their electronic device may be searched at a border crossing.
While the law is unsettled, CBSA policy Footnote 1 states that examinations of personal devices should not be conducted as a matter of routine; such searches may be conducted only if there are grounds or indications that “evidence of contraventions may be found on the digital device or media.”
➥ https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-to...s-and-borders/

The cited US ruling does seem to limit the broad inspection powers that U.S. border officials have used to search electronic devices (by U.S. officers), without evidence of contraventions. This would seem to harmonize US LAW with Canadian POLICY.

[Mike OReilly]

Thanks Gord. I thought I read that the CBSA maintains the right to conduct “random” searches at the border. And that still includes digital devices. Since it is theoretically “random”, no reasonable suspicion is required.

From the BC Liberties Ass. guide:

Usually, the police cannot search randomly without suspicion, but this isn’t the case at the border. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies at the border, but the courts have found that the government’s interest in keeping dangerous goods and undesirable people out of the country gives the CBSA more power to search people and their possessions than police have in other settings.

The Customs Act gives the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) broad powers to search people and goods coming into the country, including the things that people bring with them. This includes the content – the files, photos and videos – on your digital devices. The files on your devices are “goods” under the Customs Act, and border officers can search goods coming into Canada without a warrant – even if they have no reason to suspect that the goods are or contain contraband.

[Auspicious]

Don't say or write anything you would not have published on the front page of your hometown newspaper.

"Private messages" are not private.