What is up with FPN?

[Penne Stilografiche]

not so private private messages.... Although this is probably not "news" to most people, it is interesting to see the way Wim explains how private private messages really are.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo.../#entry2837537

[Sailor Kenshin]

A little odd, as is this.

[jar]

I don't understand where there is any problem, just ignorance about computer basics from some members.

[KrazyIvan]

It's an open channel, there is no https in front of any URL on FPN so everything is wide open. Yes, even your password. Don't use any mission critical passwords in any forum and don't duplicate passwords across accounts.

[dannzeman]

not so private private messages.... Although this is probably not "news" to most people, it is interesting to see the way Wim explains how private private messages really are.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo.../#entry2837537

Yeah, that thread's been deleted.

[Tony Rex]

not so private private messages.... Although this is probably not "news" to most people, it is interesting to see the way Wim explains how private private messages really are.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo.../#entry2837537

Yeah, that thread's been deleted.

Crap! No, seriously, that thread was all about a complaint from a user (not surprisingly a fellow Aussie) about censorship of that word's usage in PM. Yet someone could get away with this http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo...s-in-malaysia/ in public.

[kaisnowbird]

not so private private messages.... Although this is probably not "news" to most people, it is interesting to see the way Wim explains how private private messages really are.

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo.../#entry2837537

Yeah, that thread's been deleted.

How come I can still view it?

Crap! No, seriously, that thread was all about a complaint from a user (not surprisingly a fellow Aussie) about censorship of that word's usage in PM. Yet someone could get away with this http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo...s-in-malaysia/ in public.

LOL. That was indeed an unfortunate choice of words.

[79spitfire]

Crap! No, seriously, that thread was all about a complaint from a user (not surprisingly a fellow Aussie) about censorship of that word's usage in PM. Yet someone could get away with this http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo...s-in-malaysia/ in public.

I have to admit to laughing my backside off when reading that!

[Jon Szanto]

Sometimes they go with the flow.

[Annie]

Anyone who imagines that any message, private or public, cannot be read by the owner of the forum is kidding themselves if nobody else.

[Mesu]

I don't understand where there is any problem, just ignorance about computer basics from some members.

Anyone who imagines that any message, private or public, cannot be read by the owner of the forum is kidding themselves if nobody else.

Before jumping to hasty conclusions, i am aware that the content can be viewed by the board admin of any forum.

My question is more like why mods have the access to do so. Not questioning the intentions or activities of the mods (most of whom i interacted with are very nice folks) but the need for the access rights.

Wim's answer is pointing to the current situation, where only he has the rights. What about earlier?

It is a general question about the policy and not about the content security.

Thank you very much.

[jar]

Anyone who imagines that any message, private or public, cannot be read by the owner of the forum is kidding themselves if nobody else.

Before jumping to hasty conclusions, i am aware that the content can be viewed by the board admin of any forum.

My question is more like why mods have the access to do so. Not questioning the intentions or activities of the mods (most of whom i interacted with are very nice folks) but the need for the access rights.

Wim's answer is pointing to the current situation, where only he has the rights. What about earlier?

It is a general question about the policy and not about the content security.

Thank you very much.

I still don't see what the issue is. So what if Mods have read permission on PMs? And what makes you think they did have such permission?

[AndyT]

Sometimes they go with the flow.

Now, that was very dry.

[Jon Szanto]

Maybe if they just named the convention "Open Messages", instead of "Private Messages", it would help. Words still have meanings.

[jar]

Maybe if they just named the convention "Open Messages", instead of "Private Messages", it would help. Words still have meanings.

Well they are not "open" and private and secret are not synonyms.

[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.

[jar]

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.

[Jon Szanto]

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.

Ah, yes, we are in complete concert then.

This was my consideration, as well. The thing is, since we acknowledge that nothing in current electronic communications is completely private (save for, maybe, encrypted emails and the like), one would think it not beyond good manners for those who administer an otherwise public forum to carefully indicate who, and under what circumstances, can view your 'private' messages.

They have made some stab at this over there. I left for other reasons, but none of this is in any way a surprise.

[Laura N]

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.

[Jon Szanto]

Thank you, Laura. As you say, above and beyond anything else this is an issue of trust, within a small community gathered together (ostensibly) for good-natured sharing of interests. It is this precise lack of trust that caused me to wander away, and that is a shame.