Originally Posted by
jar
Originally Posted by
Jon Szanto
I didn't imply "secret", but since you are semanticizing, please be so good as to give your definition of "private" in this instance.
Simple colloquial convention; as a way to differentiate between a public message (a post in a thread) and one directed to one or more members of a smaller subset of the total membership.
It certainly does not mean the message is not subject to being read by others or as in this case, parsed by a filter.
The thing to remember is that there is no complete privacy in today's communications network whether phone, internet, email or SMS.
Actually, to me, "private"
does mean that the message will not be read by anyone other than the addressee. An automatic "bad words" filter is fine. And I don't worry about the administrator being able to read private messages under extraordinary circumstances. However, I would find it extremely distasteful, overreaching and potentially dangerous, if anyone who was named a moderator could do so on an ongoing basis.
There is a distinction between computerized scanning by internet companies like Google, which like the "bad words" filter is automated and impersonal, and the possibility that actual human beings would be able to snoop on you by reading your private messages.
And the "no privacy in communication" thing is a red herring. We are not talking about governmental action here. It's a fountain pen forum, for goodness sakes. What they can do, technically, should be constrained by decency and necessity. And I hope it is. No matter what, they should clearly disclose just who can read members' private messages. To me, that's unclear right now.
Bookmarks