Who Can See (Read) the Contents of Private Messages

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Completely agree. This is one of the reasons I keep advocating to move to proper names only. Actual research shows that when people perceive that they must take responsibility for the words they write on these online forums, that civility and behaviour improves.

It’s not a panacea. And yes, it is still possible to hide behind fake IDs. But it’s been well studied, and it does help.

Part of me agrees with this idea and certainly there are many positives. In many ways, it is no different than years ago when people used to write to newspapers and other publications with comments. Many people today do use their real names. Too often people say things hiding behind a veil of secrecy that they would never say in a face to face situation.

On the other hand, I can see some reasons a person wouldn't want to. There is a lunatic element out there who takes things too far. Another reason for not wanting to list one's name is it allows one to comment anonymously. When done properly (I do recognize the inherent limitations of this phrase!), this can be a good thing. It can allow one to postulate things and get feedback without the need to risk starting rumours, causing distress to one's employers or family, create official policy, etc.

A third reason people might not want to is they don't want to be hounded over opinions which may differ from those of friends, family, co-workers, etc. Perhaps they wish to present facts or discuss policy, theories, options, etc. without taking flak from those near to them.
Unfortunately I don't think there are many good options. As you point out, there are ways around the need to use one's actual name. I guess all we can do is lead by example.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is one of the reasons I keep advocating to move to proper names only. Actual research shows that when people perceive that they must take responsibility for the words they write on these online forums, that civility and behaviour improves.

I agree with you in principle Mike. I think for our constituency boat names should be okay but I would not object to a true name requirement.

sail fast and eat well, dave
Dave Skolnick S/V Auspicious
Annapolis MD

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

....This is one of the reasons I keep advocating to move to proper names only. Actual research shows that when people perceive that they must take responsibility for the words they write on these online forums, that civility and behaviour improves .

For me, privacy is important!

While I am comfortable with most of the CF members and have given my name and contacts to many via PM,
...it is not out there for anyone to misuse or misrepresent as being affiliated with me.

In all honesty, my persona on CF is the same as in real life, as much as that embarrasses me to admit ![emoji57]

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

For me, privacy is important!

While I am comfortable with most of the CF members and have given my name and contacts to many via PM,
...it is not out there for anyone to misuse or misrepresent as being affiliated with me.

In all honesty, my persona on CF is the same as in real life, as much as that embarrasses me to admit ![emoji57]

I recognize there is a privacy issue with the call for real names. But a name on its own is not much of a privacy breach. Most of us, most of the time, operate in the public space without a mask. Meanwhile the dark side of hiding behind masks is well understood, particularly in online communities like CF.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I recognize there is a privacy issue with the call for real names. But a name on its own is not much of a privacy breach. Most of us, most of the time, operate in the public space without a mask. Meanwhile the dark side of hiding behind masks is well understood, particularly in online communities like CF.

The size of the public space varies .

For instance, most of the time my real life public space would be measured as a few hundred square miles and the number of public faces who might interact with me would be less than a few hundred and are usually somewhat similar to me.

The public space on-line includes all continents, the numbers are in the billions and most are vastly different to me.

CF is accessed not only by it's members but by anyone anywhere who wants to look.

In this day and age, we want more privacy, not less IMO.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Wotname

The size of the public space varies .

For instance, most of the time my real life public space would be measured as a few hundred square miles and the number of public faces who might interact with me would be less than a few hundred and are usually somewhat similar to me.

The public space on-line includes all continents, the numbers are in the billions and most are vastly different to me.

CF is accessed not only by it's members but by anyone anywhere who wants to look.

In this day and age, we want more privacy, not less IMO.

You missed my most important point; that a name in itself is not much to go on.

Fact is, many people here do operate without a mask. I’m not aware of any of us who have suffered serious nefarious events because of it (outside of a few annoying PMs). But the impact of allowing masks is all too easy to show here on CF. It’s why Facebook demands real names.

This tangent began around the concept of taking responsibility for the words we type. I’m not saying everyone who currently uses a pseudonym is behaving poorly. But the research is very clear, and very deep, around the impact of allowing people to hide behind masks.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You missed my most important point; that a name in itself is not much to go on.

Fact is, many people here do operate without a mask. I’m not aware of any of us who have suffered serious nefarious events because of it (outside of a few annoying PMs). But the impact of allowing masks is all too easy to show here on CF. It’s why Facebook demands real names.

This tangent began around the concept of taking responsibility for the words we type. I’m not saying everyone who currently uses a pseudonym is behaving poorly. But the research is very clear, and very deep, around the impact of allowing people to hide behind masks.

People hide behind all.kinds of Masks Mike, even when you know their names.

So while I don't doubt that the lowest common denominator of social media misfits get intimidated by using their name, as Wottie said, the internet world is big and whether its the next scam from Nigeria or a malicious attack ..... a pseudonym makes sense

[Wotname]

I had hoped for a simple straightforward answer - perhaps a vain hope .

It was a direct question to which someone must know the answer but either they aren't reading this thread or it's secret!

Gordmay and A64pilot did tell me who couldn't read them and that is a close answer

Originally Posted by cheers

It's up to the administrators of the site. Obviously at the top level they can read anything. Lower level moderators can be set to have them visible or not. ......

Yes, it was these settings that I am asking about!


Then we have all the answers to the questions that folk think I should have asked

But thanks anyway for your contribution, I enjoy reading them

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Exactly! The Internet is forever!

The word private will have different practical meanings. In this case, it is private in that I can't read that are not addressed to me. Likewise, it seems that most administrators can't read the PMs. We must remember however that there are cases were a person in a position of authority (and I am not talking about this forum) has abused their authority. Fortunately these are small in number contrasted to the billions of messages sent worldwide.

Of course, there are hackers. Perhaps worst of all are the various governments, at all levels, who read things and listen in regardless of what their Constitution or laws say.

The end result is that generally these are private, but that privacy is not necessarily absolute.

All good points ArmyDave and perhaps the most important is your first and last sentences

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Always expect anything written on the internet to eventually be found or made public. PERIOD

Ask any politician if this is not true.

Be nice, polite. Pretend your parents and minister are listening. Say nothing you would not stand up and scream in front of a thousand strangers.

‘Sticks and stones may break bones but words can destroy you. ‘. That sort of came from Grandma but she never saw a computer.

To the OP, if you want another level of privacy, exchange e-mail addresses and go off-forum.

Haha, I might tell my parents and minster stuff I would never a thousand strangers.

It a shame Grandma's old saying has been so altered as to render it's meaning to shift 180 degrees.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Completely agree. This is one of the reasons I keep advocating to move to proper names only. Actual research shows that when people perceive that they must take responsibility for the words they write on these online forums, that civility and behaviour improves.

It’s not a panacea. And yes, it is still possible to hide behind fake IDs. But it’s been well studied, and it does help.

How old is this research Mike? Given what I sometimes see on other social media (FB etc), it doesn't seem to be true empirically.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You missed my most important point; that a name in itself is not much to go on.

Fact is, many people here do operate without a mask. I’m not aware of any of us who have suffered serious nefarious events because of it (outside of a few annoying PMs). But the impact of allowing masks is all too easy to show here on CF. It’s why Facebook demands real names.

This tangent began around the concept of taking responsibility for the words we type. I’m not saying everyone who currently uses a pseudonym is behaving poorly. But the research is very clear, and very deep, around the impact of allowing people to hide behind masks.

No, I didn't miss it your point Mike, I just don't agree with it - which surprises me because normally I am in lock step with most of your posts. I guess you must be wrong this time .

FB may demand real names and it's makes sense considering it's original function to help people who already know each other to connect. Yes, I know it has changed!!! However FB allows it's users to alter their privacy setting considerably and in theory, FB is not available to anyone who doesn't join. CF is almost completely opposite in that sense.

I am surprised by your willingness to swap real life privacy for responsibility on CF as you value privacy in other threads. And I don't see much abuse on CF but maybe I'm reading the wrong threads or more likely, the Mods are doing a great job.

[Janet H]

The site team does not have routine access to private messages. That said, there is a report icon on each PM (little red triangle) and if you report a Pm that is in your inbox, a copy of that message will be sent to the site team. This is useful for reporting abusive messages, spam, etc.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Wotname

...I am surprised by your willingness to swap real life privacy for responsibility on CF as you value privacy in other threads. And I don't see much abuse on CF but maybe I'm reading the wrong threads or more likely, the Mods are doing a great job.

There is a balance to everything. I agree, there is an added privacy risk to using real names in any public space, including online forums. There is also very clear research on the psychological impact of the use of masks. I will happily link you to current research on the subject if you really want it, but I know you are just as able to find the literature as I.

I am a strong proponent of privacy protection. But I am also a strong proponent of people taking responsibility to the words they write. People who use their own byline tend to act more civilly and thoughtfully. Not all, and not all the time (I’m the perfect example ), but it is a clear phenomena. It’s the same reason people in small towns tend to behave less abrasively than folks in big cities — in small towns you can’t hide.

I don’t think real names is a panacea for all the ills on this forum. And I don’t think CF is particularly problematic. But I do believe some of the more negative behaviour we sometimes see here would at least be curbed, if not eliminated.

And as I said, a name unto itself is not really much of a privacy problem. It’s when a name — my name — gets attached to all the sundry data floating around on these internets. If privacy is the primary reason you oppose real name usage here, then I sure hope you’re running blockers like Ghostery. CF (like most websites) tracks and forwards tons of data about its users all the time. These are the real dangers to privacy.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Wotname

I had hoped for a simple straightforward answer - perhaps a vain hope .

It was a direct question to which someone must know the answer but either they aren't reading this thread or it's secret!

Simplest answer I can come up with:


No one knows the answer. The best I can come up with is four groups of people, with no one in any group knowing the details for the other three groups:



1.The site owner(s)
2. whoever the site owners have given th ncessary forum admin rights to.
3. whoever has admin/management rights on the database that forms te core of the forum.
4. whoever has admin/management rights on the server hosting the database.



To give you a specific example.

I resell domain hosting services. One of my clients has a Wordpress site.


They "own" the site and know who they have given access to.



I also have access to their database as do any of my employees that I have given rights to. The client doesn't know which of my employees have access. I don't know who the site owner has given access rights to.


As a reseller, I rent space in a data centre.

Some people in the data centre have access to the databases they host. I don't know who they are and the data centre staff don't know who i have given access to, nor do they know who the site owner has given access to.



Bottom line. There are several levels of access involved and no one at any level can answer your question about the other levels.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Janet H

The site team does not have routine access to private messages. That said, there is a report icon on each PM (little red triangle) and if you report a Pm that is in your inbox, a copy of that message will be sent to the site team. This is useful for reporting abusive messages, spam, etc.

Janet H gave us a pretty good answer.
In which case, the forwarded message was addressed to the site team.

[GILow]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Janet H gave us a pretty good answer.
In which case, the forwarded message was addressed to the site team.

Actually, Janet gave us a very carefully phrased answer.

The use of the expression “routine access” caught my eye.

But it is most likely as StuM has suggested. I too used to work on hosting systems and access is a complex field, usually user defined. In some of my jobs police checks were required as the level of access available to sys-admins has to be very high for them to do their jobs.

[Janet H]

Originally Posted by GILow

Actually, Janet gave us a very carefully phrased answer.

The use of the expression “routine access” caught my eye.

But it is most likely as StuM has suggested. I too used to work on hosting systems and access is a complex field, usually user defined. In some of my jobs police checks were required as the level of access available to sys-admins has to be very high for them to do their jobs.

The Site team doesn't have access to search Pms. If a Pm is reported however, they can read the reported content (this is the reason for my measured response).

In theory every keystroke you make is recorded somewhere and Pms (along with other site content) are stored on the sites servers. Tools to find specific content however are limited and accessing that sort of data is labor intensive.

We take member privacy seriously. A search warrant would be needed to access nonpublic info. That would include members confidential account info.

We have occasionally had inquiries from local police departments (e.g. a suspect boat sale) and when requested will direct them to publicly available information such as a members public facing profile. For more detailed information a properly executed search warrant would be needed.

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.

[Wotname]

Well, we got there in the end!

Janet H, thanks for providing the detail, it is appreciated.

And thanks to StuM fr providing the background detail which explains why there isn't a simple answer - this sort of detail about IT stuff is not part of my daily experience so your post helps considerably in my understanding of "how it works".