# A word about SDMB privacy **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [February 12, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795 "2005-02-12T22:20:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/121 "2005-02-15T19:43:29Z")
**CrazyCatLady** wrote > [@](#): > > I’m not saying the admins are going to knock us up and give us STI’s, you numb twit. Then don’t say it. And the personal insults against me are no more reasonable than your claims that some unnammed Mod will molest you. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/122 "2005-02-15T20:04:58Z")
> [@](#): > > After all, once you make a public statement, it is NOT protected by privacy laws! Define “public statement”. I think it’s obvious that not everyone in these discussions is using the same definition of that term, and by some definitions, **TubaDiva** ’s actions were all apparently based on public statements. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/123 "2005-02-15T20:18:24Z")
(1) Ixnay on the insults, folks. (2) Please resist any lingering temptation to rehash the details of this incident, which we are trying to avoid. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/124 "2005-02-15T22:06:24Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Define “public statement”. AFAIK, once you post something on a public message board (such as the SDMB), it becomes public information and you can’t claim invasion of privacy if someone uses that information against you. For example, if I post in this thread that I download 300 illegal mp3s per day, and somebody mentions it in another thread, or on LiveJournal, or wherever, that’s public information. If, on the other hand, I confide in an email to a moderator that I download 300 mp3s/day, or another user confides this info to a moderator, then that’s _private_ information. One is public, the other is private. I don’t understand the confusion over this. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/125 "2005-02-15T22:21:18Z")
> [@Ed Zotti](#): > > (1) Ixnay on the insults, folks. (2) Please resist any lingering temptation to rehash the details of this incident, which we are trying to avoid. Thank you for keeping this thread open. Even if the thread acts as no more than a deaf ombudsman, I feel it is valuable to the community to have a place where the overreaching topic of privacy can be aired out. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/126 "2005-02-16T00:50:00Z")
> [@KGS](#): > > If, on the other hand, I confide in an email to a moderator that I download 300 mp3s/day, or another user confides this info to a moderator, then that’s _private_ information. One is public, the other is private. I don’t understand the confusion over this. Excellent post. But here is the hypothetical that puzzles me. If you send an email to a third party, claiming that you download 300 mp3s/day, and that third party, a Charter Member, forwards that email to a moderator, and the moderator then posts that information (in any public forum), is that posting private personal information? IOW, if you are communicating with a third party, without the benefit of any sort of privacy/confidentiality agreement, can you presume your communications are protected in any way? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/127 "2005-02-16T04:38:57Z")
For that matter, it was my understanding that legally, no e-mail is considered private unless it’s encrypted or the sender has otherwise taken steps to ensure its privacy. Certainly, in every legal case I’ve heard of where a company has snooped into an employee’s e-mail, the company has won. If we want e-mail to be considered private with regards to the privacy policy on this site, it seems to me that we need to explicitly say so in that policy. IANAL, of course, and knowing this board, I’m confident that if I’m wrong in this understanding, I’ll soon be corrected. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/128 "2005-02-16T05:20:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > For that matter, it was my understanding that legally, no e-mail is considered private unless it’s encrypted or the sender has otherwise taken steps to ensure its privacy. Certainly, in every legal case I’ve heard of where a company has snooped into an employee’s e-mail, the company has won. I’ve always assumed that private emails are considered private and are protected as such. Of course I’m just assuming, which makes an ass out of etc. etc…in any case, your example is not analogous to the current situation. Emails written on company time using company equipment, personal or not, belong to the company – if for no other reason, the company has a right to investigate whether or not the employee is abusing company time and equpiment. We as Charter Members are not employees, we are _customers_. For instance, let’s assume that the company you mention is in fact a Donkey Porn service, and you, **Chronos** , are a frequent customer who has ordered 300 Donkey Porn magazines over the years. The company would be in gross violation of your personal privacy if they revealed this information in a forum where people know you (or anywhere else, for that matter.) On the other hand, employees of the company are certainly allowed to discuss this matter amongst themselves, in the course of doing business – for example, one guy sends a memo to the boss saying: _“I noticed that Chronos has ordered his 300th issue of **Donkeymon Manga** …does that make him eligible for the free glossy poster of **TubDonkey** , or does he need to order 350?”_ > [@AZCowboy](#): > > Excellent post. But here is the hypothetical that puzzles me. If you send an email to a third party, claiming that you download 300 mp3s/day, and that third party, a Charter Member, forwards that email to a moderator, and the moderator then posts that information (in any public forum), is that posting private personal information? I would believe so. In this case, if the hypothetical moderator (let’s call her **SexyBassoonMama** ) decides that this information constitutes a TOS violation worthy of banning, she could announce the banning but NOT the reason why. (This would fall under the minority of cases where a poster’s banning would be noted with, “Privacy policy does not permit me to divulge any further info.”) It’s okay for her to discuss the matter with other moderators, since it’s in the course of doing business and the confidentiality blanket applies to them all. Now…here’s where it gets tricky. If I protest the banning, is **SexyBassoonMama** obligated to tell me the reason? Or would revealing the 3rd Party Member’s email constitute a privacy violation? At which point my brain starts to hurt and I have to go watch Dr. Phil to distract myself from the pain… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/129 "2005-02-16T05:46:49Z")
Here’s where I differ with many others. I think if I email **AZCowboy** and say: “Dude, you suck! I’m gonna’ whip your ass”, then that email is AZCowboy’s to do with as he sees fit. If he forwards it to a mod., it eventually reults in my getting banned and word gets around that I have a tendancy towards violent threats, well…tough. I shouldn’t have threatened him, and other members here would have a _right_ to know what I’ve been up to, so they can avoid me, wherever and whenever they might encounter me. IE: At the point that I emailed AZCowboy, I’ve given up any right to privacy. ---
**Author:** ![InternetLegend](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/internetlegend/32/13154_2.png) [@InternetLegend](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InternetLegend)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/130 "2005-02-16T06:24:01Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > The idea of enabling PMs is so that people can still plan Dopefests and do other things not well served by message board posts, without necessarily having to reveal an e-mail address if not desired. If someone still reveals their e-mail address via PM, and trouble later brews, I can’t see it being the _Reader’s_ problem at that point. > > I’m spinning around these ideas in an effort to reduce the _Reader’s_ culpability in the event of a meeting between members going wrong. I don’t see why anyone thinks that enabling PMs would have the effect of reducing the _Reader’s_ liability. If a member here would prey on other users (in any way) via email, there is nothing to prevent him or her from doing so via PM. If anything, since the content of PMs _is_ available to the administrators of a board and since the message system is part of that board, the likelihood they would be held liable for any misconduct conducted through that system would be increased, not reduced. It was fairly obvious to me when I registered that I had the choice of whether to make my email address public, and I made the conscious and considered decision to do so. If someone used my email address to harrass or otherwise do harm to me, I would consider that a consequence of my decision, not the fault of this site for giving me the option to display my address. ---
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/131 "2005-02-16T07:02:49Z")
> [@AZCowboy](#): > > Excellent post. But here is the hypothetical that puzzles me. If you send an email to a third party, claiming that you download 300 mp3s/day, and that third party, a Charter Member, forwards that email to a moderator, and the moderator then posts that information (in any public forum), is that posting private personal information? Let me answer your hypothetical with a hypothetical. Lets say that Poster A has received an email from Poster B. Poster A then alters the body of the email (these are just text files, folks) to make it appear that Poster B downloads 300 mp3s/day, and then forwards that email to a moderator. Would it be proper for the moderator to post that information in any public forum? Of course not. The moderator in question doesn’t know if Poster B really wrote that email unless they have additional information, perhaps from either Poster B’s ISP or Poster B himself, to suggest that Poster B really wrote that email. Then lets take it from your analogy, where Poster B readily admits to writing that email. Let’s even say that Poster B’s email address is [AlfredGuffeld@hotmail.com](mailto:AlfredGuffeld@hotmail.com) (not a real email address or name). Would it be proper to say that Alfred Guffeld downloads 300 mp3s/day? Of course not, anybody can register any hotmail account name that they want, it doesn’t have to match their real name. The real Alfred could have some online enemy who goes around trying to get him in trouble with the MPAA or something. Again, you have to have additional, independant confirmation. -lv ---
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/132 "2005-02-16T07:13:45Z")
Which, I just realized, never answered your question. In your case, in the lack of independant confirmation, the moderator would be doing little more than spreading rumors, which would be frowned upon, as it could lead to charges of slander if shown false. If the moderator in question would get independent confirmation without the additional information being “private information”, and if the additional information is found without the use of private information, the moderator should be able to quote the public sources to an extent (posting home addresses has always been verboten. Heck, you can’t even post your OWN home address here). At least, that’s how I see it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/133 "2005-02-16T07:28:48Z")
Please, **KGS** , I do have some modicum of taste. It’s _goat_ porn, not donkey. 😉 And I would hope that such a business would not ask for identifying information at all, and if they would, that they would have an explicit privacy policy specifically addressing what they can and cannot do with it. As to the edited e-mail question raised by **LordVor** , in real life, decisions often come down to one person’s word against another’s. If Poster B says that Poster A sent him a particular e-mail, and Poster A denies sending it, then the administrator would have to decide which story is more plausible, and whom she trusts more. No, this is not perfect, but often, it’s the best we’ve ogt. ---
**Author:** ![Iceland\_Blue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/4bbf92/32.png) [@Iceland\_Blue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iceland_Blue)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/134 "2005-02-16T11:29:49Z")
Surely if Poster B can provide the original e-mail from Poster A that would be evidence? > [@Bill H](#): > > And the personal insults against me are no more reasonable than your claims that some unnammed Mod will molest you. Where do we go if we DO wish to be molested by an unnamed Mod? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/135 "2005-02-16T14:34:21Z")
> [@InternetLegend](#): > > I don’t see why anyone thinks that enabling PMs would have the effect of reducing the _Reader’s_ liability. If a member here would prey on other users (in any way) via email, there is nothing to prevent him or her from doing so via PM. To me, there is an important difference. E-mail, for many people, is closer to their real-life person than a PM on a message board. At least with PMs, someone can go no further than to harass someone else’s on-board personna (assuming an unwilling victim). With e-mail, it seems different to me – for instance, some people use versions of their names in their e-mail addresses. In many cases, you can “hone in” on a person better through e-mail than you ever could through message-board PMs. ---
**Author:** ![LordVor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90ced4/32.png) [@LordVor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LordVor)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/136 "2005-02-16T16:35:43Z")
> [@Iceland\_Blue](#): > > Surely if Poster B can provide the original e-mail from Poster A that would be evidence? An original email, by itself, is a plain text file. It would take me roughly 5 minutes to create any message look like it came (legitimately) from any specific email address. And we all know that nobody on a message board holds a grudge against anybody else. Now, if the feds raided Poster A’s house, impounded his computer, and found a copy of the email in his sent folder, then it’s evidence. > [@](#): > > If Poster B says that Poster A sent him a particular e-mail, and Poster A denies sending it, then the administrator would have to decide which story is more plausible, and whom she trusts more. No, this is not perfect, but often, it’s the best we’ve ogt. Hopefully, the administrator would use additional public information before making such a decision. There’s nothing saying that the administrator in question _has_ to act on the accusation personally, the administrator could just tell Poster A to contact Poster B’s ISP or something. If it was a web-based email account, I would be ok with the administrator forwarding the rumor to Poster B’s ISP, who is in a better position to independantly verify the charges. -lv ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/137 "2005-02-16T16:49:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If we want e-mail to be considered private with regards to the privacy policy on this site, it seems to me that we need to explicitly say so in that policy. This is a splendid idea. BTW, I think your example of companies opening up employee e-mails is a little bit of a case of apples and oranges to this site’s privacy concerns. Companies have likely been found to “own” e-mail addresses under their domain – and I’m betting a perusal of an employee handbook would spell this out in almost all cases. However, I think things get dicier when a company decides to go after someone’s personal e-mail account (provided said employee wasn’t using the private account during work hours). At the very least, I would expect that the companies attorney’s would have to go through a judge to get access to an employee’s personal, non-work e-mails or the files on said employee’s home PC. * * * Something to think about for those pondering the single e-mail kick-around – there’s a big difference between sending a received e-mail on to one person (or a small, affiliated group) and “broadcasting” e-mailed information on a website with a sizeable community. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/138 "2005-02-16T17:59:50Z")
Like I said, IANAL, and I don’t know the legal basis for the “companies reading e-mail” decisions, but I uderstand that at least part of it was based on a lack of expectation of privacy in e-mail. But again, I might be wrong. > [@](#): > > Something to think about for those pondering the single e-mail kick-around – there’s a big difference between sending a received e-mail on to one person (or a small, affiliated group) and “broadcasting” e-mailed information on a website with a sizeable community. On this point, I have to disagree. A great many e-mails are, in fact, broadcasted (that is to say, sent to many people, sometimes more even than we have members on this board) by exactly that mechanism. The originator sends it to a small group of people, then each of those people sends it to a small group more, and so forth, until, by the miracle of exponential growth, it’s saturated all of the mailboxes in the English-speaking world. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/139 "2005-02-16T18:31:56Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On this point, I have to disagree. A great many e-mails are, in fact, broadcasted (that is to say, sent to many people, sometimes more even than we have members on this board) by exactly that mechanism. The originator sends it to a small group of people, then each of those people sends it to a small group more, and so forth, until, by the miracle of exponential growth, it’s saturated all of the mailboxes in the English-speaking world. Apples and oranges. To do this with impersonal information (jokes, chain letters) is an annoyance, but not a privacy violation. To do this with someone’s personal info (whether it’s demographic data or it’s potentially compromising life details) is highly unethical. You wouldn’t say that sending an e-mail to an SDMB admin is the equivalent of, say, publishing the contents of that same e-mail in a front-page ad in the _New York Times_, would you? Also, **Chronos** , there are ethical considerations in play on the side of any legal considerations. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795/140 "2005-02-16T19:09:16Z")
My understanding is that personal (private) email from work is not protected because the employer owns the servers, systems, and generally the work product for everything generated on its systems (as **KGS** noted). For our purposes here, I don’t think there is too much that can be derived from these precedents. However, I think **Chronos** was closer to correct that no email is considered private unless there was some agreement (or other steps) that such information be treated as private. In response to my hypothetical, **KGS** responds that s/he believes the moderators actions of posting personal information received from a third party is posting private personal information. I don’t believe that it is. I’ll expand on that in a moment (but **John Carter of Mars** pretty much nails it). **LordVor** , in my hypothetical, I wasn’t attempting to address whether such conduct was appropriate or ethical, and I was trying to avoid any issues as to whether the third party received information was accurate, valid, authenticated, or otherwise trustworthy. Your point is well taken, however. I’m just trying to stick the privacy question. The other issues are a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. **bordelond** , I believe the distinction you make between PMs and email are mostly illusory. People choose their email addresses and their SDMB usernames. They are free to select their real names for either one. Even if they previously used their real names on their email, email addresses are free, and they can easily setup an anonymous email address have have it forwarded to another account. In the end, both email and PMs can be traced to an IP address, and with a court order, the ISP can divulge the authorized user behind that IP address for any moment in time. None of this is truly anonymous (or at least untrackable). > [@bordelond](#): > > Something to think about for those pondering the single e-mail kick-around – there’s a big difference between sending a received e-mail on to one person (or a small, affiliated group) and “broadcasting” e-mailed information on a website with a sizeable community. Correct, but if you don’t have an agreement with the person to whom you sent it, should you have a presumption of privacy? I say no. And you suggest a pretty good standard - if you are about to send an email (without any sort of privacy agreement with the recipient), ask yourself how you would be impacted if such information were published in the _New York Times_? There is no “constitutional right to privacy”, and here in the US, we have precious little legal protections, beyond the threshold of our homes. Unless otherwise established, I don’t think you will find much protection to information in an email once it leaves your home. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-word-about-sdmb-privacy/289795.md?page=8)