# twickster, what part of "private" don't you understand? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 16, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330 "2009-09-16T15:29:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/121 "2009-09-21T17:47:19Z")
People who send private messages have the same expectation of privacy as do people who send physical letters addressed to an individual. It’s _nice_ if the recipient keeps it private, but does the recipient have an \*obligation \*to keep it private? No. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/122 "2009-09-21T17:49:48Z")
Please see here: [Private messages are not necessarily confidential](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=532910) > [@](#): > > We offer the private message function as a convenience for our members and guests. It is not the goal of the Straight Dope Message Board to operate a mail server. > > A private message is a posting intended, but not guaranteed, to be read only by the recipient you specify. Neither the moderators nor the administrators of the SDMB have any access to PMs exchanged between members, unless a PM is specifically forwarded to a moderator or administrator by either the sender or the recipient. > > Although it’s called a “private” message, remember that once it is sent, the sender has no more control over its further use and distribution than he or she would a public posting on the message board. There is no guarantee of privacy in these messages, and you assume the risk that any PM you send might be made public by the recipient. > > Since they are treated as postings, the rules of conduct for private messages are the same as those of the general forums of the Straight Dope Message Board, starting, but not ending, with our most basic rule: Don’t be a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/123 "2009-09-21T18:21:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Speaking of which, **InvisibleWombat** , I find your post in this thread here… > > …to be curiously at odds with the action you took last August (above). Why abandon the correct opinion you had an adopt this new one? At odds? Somewhat. I still feel that it’s bad etiquette and generally bad form to share the contents of a message that was clearly intended for your eyes only. I have, however, come to realize that making it an official rule would be pointless, because it would be unenforceable. If you are interested in my thought processes, I explained it [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11397295&postcount=87), in the “Is quoting the contents of a PM against the ‘rules?’” thread. > [@magellan01](#): > > Do you find being part of a crowd that comforting? Do you find being snide and vaguely insulting that comforting? I speak for myself, thank you. And being a reasonable human being, I am capable of changing my opinion when presented with compelling arguments. > [@Quasimodem](#): > > Nothing of any substance to add, except you couldn’t **pay** me to be a moderator, (not that I actually \*could \*) and y’all do this for _free_??? I believe it was in 2001 that masochism was officially added to the requirements list to be a moderator. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/124 "2009-09-21T20:36:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, this notion that I am fabricating some link between PMs and private correspondence and the confidentiality that implies is nonsense. Also, what she shared was very, very, very minor. So that fact that InvisibleWombat felt the need to point out the reason for PMs is particularly noteworthy. This is very interesting, because as I said, two of my PMs were openly discussed recently, and nary a word from any mods. Of course, I didn’t report the posts where it happened because I didn’t believe that PMs were confidential, but I wonder what would have happened if I did. Probably nothing. I do think it’s tacky to reveal the contents of PMs, but if you are PMing someone you’re not good buddies with, you shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t respect your privacy. I sure wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/125 "2009-09-21T22:11:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Also, I am still waiting for responses… In that vein, I am curious to see if you are going to address the point made in post 106, in which you are quoted saying that a poster should feel free to share the contents of a PM with a moderator. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/126 "2009-09-21T23:29:30Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > Please see here: [Private messages are not necessarily confidential](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=532910) Tuba, could you clear up whether that applies to all paid members, guests, and staff? ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/127 "2009-09-21T23:35:56Z")
Yes. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/128 "2009-09-22T00:16:48Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > In that vein, I am curious to see if you are going to address the point made in post 106, in which you are quoted saying that a poster should feel free to share the contents of a PM with a moderator. It’s hard to believe this is necessary, but here you go: On these boards, PMs should be private. Period. The staff should take actions that 1) respect that and 2) encourage it. Now, if a poster feels that he or she was sent one that is abusive, he or she has the ability to report that abusive behavior. Is that “sharing” it? Technically, yes. But it is doing so in the least public manner possible (administrator? mod?), thereby keeping as much of the “private” nature of that mode of communication as possible. If you have more of this, "you say you want to keep it private but now you say you want to “share” it—AHA!!!, go ask Colonel Mustard in the library. While you’re there, look up “excluded middle”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/129 "2009-09-22T00:30:31Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > At odds? Somewhat. > > I still feel that it’s bad etiquette and generally bad form to share the contents of a message that was clearly intended for your eyes only. I have, however, come to realize that making it an official rule would be pointless, because it would be unenforceable. No, it wouldn’t. You could enforce it on the SDMB.It could be just as enforceable as a lot of the other rules. There’s a rule here against certain language or being a jerk, but it is understood that you seek to enforce it only as far as activity on the board, not in people’s lives in general. Same with PMs. The board policy could be that PMs are intended to remain private and that sharing the content of a PM would be open to mod action, just like other violations. > [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Do you find being snide and vaguely insulting that comforting? I speak for myself, thank you. And being a reasonable human being, I am capable of changing my opinion when presented with compelling arguments. Do I find it _comforting_? No. But I don’t see how one might expect that to be “comforting” in the way that being part of a crowd can be. ::shrug:: Changing one’s mind is fine. And if that’s what you’ve done, good for you. But that means you’d also be able to change your mind back to what is somewhat at odds with your new position. And beyond. You’re reason for not agreeing with me that PMs should remain private is that it is unenforceable. I think I’ve shown quite simply how to do that. Have I not. If not, why? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/130 "2009-09-22T01:52:14Z")
> [@twickster](#): > > Yes. With respect, your wording seems aimed at members and guests only. For example, you begin with We offer the private message function as a convenience for our members and guests. It is not the goal of the Straight Dope Message Board to operate a mail server. If the rule does apply to staff, why did you not specify that, especially since the question had been asked beforehand whether it would? Could you not, for example have said this?: We offer the private message function as a convenience for our members and guests and staff. It is not the goal of the Straight Dope Message Board to operate a mail server. I do realize that there is the possibility that merely asking the question might raise your hackles. You could be thinking, “God, is there nothing that can please these people?”. Or “No matter how we worded it, someone would have complained.” But to anticipate those possible thoughts, let me emphasize that I am not complaining, nor am I difficult to please about this matter, and I don’t mean to raise your hackles. I’m just wondering why, with all this controversy swirling — much of it originating when a staff member revealed the contents of a PM — your final wording was so “Us” versus “Them”. The staff that can’t read the PMs, but the members and guests for which it is a convenience. Even this: There is no guarantee of privacy in these messages, and you assume the risk that any PM you send might be made public by the recipient. could have been worded more like There is no guarantee of privacy in these messages, and we all assume the risk that any PM we send might be made public by the recipient. but you said “you” — _you people,_ almost like Ross Perot at an NAACP meeting. Again, you did not include the staff. And the reference to the “Don’t be a jerk” rule (and other rules) was the topper. It is a ruling that has never been made against a staff member that I can recall. There is really nothing in there to indicate that it applies at all to staff. And even though you say “Yes” (assuming you were answering that “yes it does apply to staff” and not simply "yes, Tuba can answer your question), the “four corners” principle of law doesn’t give your “Yes” much authority, unless it and the question it answered are considered an addendum to the rule. I’m sure you’re rolling your eyes. At least, I would be rolling mine in your position. But I’m not in your position, so I can only calls 'em as I sees 'em. I just hope you will calmly reword the notice, and that Dex will not blow his top over my bringing this up. And that’s all I really have to say about that. ---
**Author:** ![Hakuna\_Matata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hakuna\_Matata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hakuna_Matata)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/131 "2009-09-22T02:58:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It’s hard to believe this is necessary, but here you go: > > On these boards, PMs should be private. Period. The staff should take actions that 1) respect that and 2) encourage it. > > Now, if a poster feels that he or she was sent one that is abusive, he or she has the ability to report that abusive behavior. Is that “sharing” it? Technically, yes. But it is doing so in the least public manner possible (administrator? mod?), thereby keeping as much of the “private” nature of that mode of communication as possible. > > If you have more of this, "you say you want to keep it private but now you say you want to “share” it—AHA!!!, go ask Colonel Mustard in the library. While you’re there, look up “excluded middle”. Technically as you state then it isn’t private if you share it-there is no need for an AHA moment. You by sharing it have broken that privacy compact you seem to hold so dear to your heart. If it is private it is private. Period. Then it is private and the staff should not be involved. Once you involve another entity other then the orignal two you no longer have privacy. And you do realize you can send a private message to 10 people at the same time right and bcc them as well? How private is that? So you are just using the word private to mean what you want it to mean to bolster your argument. This is just a silly semantics game you are playing. You staff members have my sympathy for having to deal with this silliness. I can’t imagine anything I would say in a PM that I wouldn’t be comfortable sharing with anyone. I think PM’s are side conversations that don’t derail a thread and nothing more. If you want privacy and confidentiality go see a priest or your lawyer. Do tell who is this excluded middle you speak of? Do you have support that most of the board wants the PM’s to be private to the extent you say they should be? It has no more privacy then an email I send out, even if I put ‘confidential’ on it, once it leaves my computer all privacy is off the table. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/132 "2009-09-22T03:30:37Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Tuba, could you clear up whether that applies to all paid members, guests, and staff? It applies to everyone who uses the private message function. ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/133 "2009-09-22T03:34:11Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > With respect, your wording seems aimed at members and guests only. For example, you begin with > > We offer the private message function as a convenience for our members and guests. It is not the goal of the Straight Dope Message Board to operate a mail server. > > If the rule does apply to staff, why did you not specify that, especially since the question had been asked beforehand whether it would? Could you not, for example have said this?: > > We offer the private message function as a convenience for our members and guests and staff. It is not the goal of the Straight Dope Message Board to operate a mail server. > > I do realize that there is the possibility that merely asking the question might raise your hackles. You could be thinking, “God, is there nothing that can please these people?”. Or “No matter how we worded it, someone would have complained.” > > But to anticipate those possible thoughts, let me emphasize that I am not complaining, nor am I difficult to please about this matter, and I don’t mean to raise your hackles. I’m just wondering why, with all this controversy swirling — much of it originating when a staff member revealed the contents of a PM — your final wording was so “Us” versus “Them”. The staff that can’t read the PMs, but the members and guests for which it is a convenience. > > Even this: > > There is no guarantee of privacy in these messages, and you assume the risk that any PM you send might be made public by the recipient. > > could have been worded more like > > There is no guarantee of privacy in these messages, and we all assume the risk that any PM we send might be made public by the recipient. > > but you said “you” — _you people,_ almost like Ross Perot at an NAACP meeting. Again, you did not include the staff. > > And the reference to the “Don’t be a jerk” rule (and other rules) was the topper. It is a ruling that has never been made against a staff member that I can recall. > > There is really nothing in there to indicate that it applies at all to staff. And even though you say “Yes” (assuming you were answering that “yes it does apply to staff” and not simply "yes, Tuba can answer your question), the “four corners” principle of law doesn’t give your “Yes” much authority, unless it and the question it answered are considered an addendum to the rule. > > I’m sure you’re rolling your eyes. At least, I would be rolling mine in your position. But I’m not in your position, so I can only calls 'em as I sees 'em. I just hope you will calmly reword the notice, and that Dex will not blow his top over my bringing this up. And that’s all I really have to say about that. It applies to everyone who uses the private message function. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/134 "2009-09-22T03:42:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You’re reason for not agreeing with me that PMs should remain private is that it is unenforceable. I think I’ve shown quite simply how to do that. Have I not. If not, why? You have not, for reasons discussed at great length, both in this thread and the one that triggered it. Let me recap, one last time. [ul] [li]What if you claim that someone posted something you said in a PM, and they say no, you said it in an email, or a text message, or mailed it to them on a postcard? You have no way to prove they revealed the contents of a PM, and we can’t cite them for breaking a rule.[/li][li]How about if you claim someone sent you a threatening PM, and you send me a copy as proof. How do I know you didn’t just sit down and type it yourself? Since I can’t read your PMs, I have no way of knowing whether you made it up.[/li][li]As I’ve said here at least three times, you can’t safely assume your PMs are private anyway. This board software could hiccup and make them public. Someone could look over the recipient’s shoulder. Having such a rule would give you false confidence.[/li][/ul] In a nutshell, every single case of someone crying “she revealed the contents of my PM” could swiftly degenerate into a “he said/she said” situation, making the rule completely unenforceable. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/135 "2009-09-22T03:48:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Also, I am still waiting for responses from both **tomndebb** and **Marley23**. Sorry. I bowed out. I responded to your question of associations with real world conversations with direct ties to actual real world situations. You waved away my comparisons, insisting on some odd definition of your own. Since I have seen no other poster join you on your quest, I figured we just disagreed and see no reason to continue to disagree for another dozen posts. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/136 "2009-09-22T03:51:45Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > It applies to everyone who uses the private message function. Aha! You said “everyone.” What if it’s a group and not a “one”? Well, mods are a group, but also a “one.” This seems like a pretty clear opportunity to skate around this rule if desired. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/137 "2009-09-22T03:56:21Z")
> [@Hakuna\_Matata](#): > > Technically as you state then it isn’t private if you share it-there is no need for an AHA moment. You by sharing it have broken that privacy compact you seem to hold so dear to your heart. > > If it is private it is private. Period. Then it is private and the staff should not be involved. Once you involve another entity other then the orignal two you no longer have privacy. And you do realize you can send a private message to 10 people at the same time right and bcc them as well? How private is that? > > So you are just using the word private to mean what you want it to mean to bolster your argument. This is just a silly semantics game you are playing. You staff members have my sympathy for having to deal with this silliness. > > I can’t imagine anything I would say in a PM that I wouldn’t be comfortable sharing with anyone. I think PM’s are side conversations that don’t derail a thread and nothing more. If you want privacy and confidentiality go see a priest or your lawyer. Do tell who is this excluded middle you speak of? Do you have support that most of the board wants the PM’s to be private to the extent you say they should be? It has no more privacy then an email I send out, even if I put ‘confidential’ on it, once it leaves my computer all privacy is off the table. This gives me pause. Great pause. You’ve brought up such profound complications and conundrums with my position that it will take my full powers to fully appreciate them, not to mention even _attempt_ to sort them out. So, if you have more observations along these lines, and you should feel fit to share them with me, please do so with all due urgency. If, perchance, I don’t get back to you right away, rest assured that it is solely because I will be attempting to have each synapse-spark that my being expends fire with the singular goal of working through the profound problems that you and your brilliance have placed before me. Wish me luck. —Oh, and feel free to ignore any previous statements of mine which have already addressed your concerns. They were written “pre-enlightenment”, if you will. In the meantime, tell Colonel Mustard I said “hi”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/138 "2009-09-22T04:10:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Sorry. I bowed out. I responded to your question of associations with real world conversations with direct ties to actual real world situations. Which is NOT the same as the virtual world, which was a main point of that post (#99). Your response was quite unresponsive. > [@tomndebb](#): > > You waved away my comparisons, insisting on some odd definition of your own. I didn’t “wave away” your comparisons, I pointed out the _limitations_ of looking to the real world for analogies, as helpful as they can be. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Since I have seen no other poster join you on your quest, I figured we just disagreed and see no reason to continue to disagree for another dozen posts. Oh, so now a position needs the support of others before it deserves your attention? For future reference, just how much of a crowd must I have supporting me before you deign to respond? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/139 "2009-09-22T04:15:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. I agree. But there _was_ harm. What was harmed was the board itself. PMs served(d) a function. I don’t agree with this idea of harm, and PMs serve the same purpose they always did. The only thing that’s potentially changed is your understanding of what they do. > [@](#): > > You admit that they generally remain private. They do. > [@](#): > > So, there _is_ an _expectation_ of privacy. I felt there was until the last time we discussed the subject, when I learned many people on the board felt differently. > [@](#): > > No you’re just making stuff up as you go along. I’ve read this style of response from you too many times in this thread. I won’t be wasting any more time with you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330/140 "2009-09-22T04:28:23Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > You have not, for reasons discussed at great length, both in this thread and the one that triggered it. Let me recap, one last time. > > [ul] > [li]What if you claim that someone posted something you said in a PM, and they say no, you said it in an email, or a text message, or mailed it to them on a postcard? You have no way to prove they revealed the contents of a PM, and we can’t cite them for breaking a rule.[/li][li]How about if you claim someone sent you a threatening PM, and you send me a copy as proof. How do I know you didn’t just sit down and type it yourself? Since I can’t read your PMs, I have no way of knowing whether you made it up.[/li][li]As I’ve said here at least three times, you can’t safely assume your PMs are private anyway. This board software could hiccup and make them public. Someone could look over the recipient’s shoulder. Having such a rule would give you false confidence.[/li][/ul] As I’ve said, just because you can’t enforce every instance of an infraction doesn’t mean that taking a strong position against it isn’t worthwhile. Again, take my example using speeders. > [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > In a nutshell, every single case of someone crying “she revealed the contents of my PM” could swiftly degenerate into a “he said/she said” situation, making the rule completely unenforceable. You enforce when you can. The point is to set a tone. There are probably a couple hundred thousand people speeding right now and will get away with it. Do you suggest we do away with laws against speeding? Heck, I guess about the law gets only about 1 in 1,000 speeders, if that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/twickster-what-part-of-private-dont-you-understand/510330.md?page=8)