Ya, they are called private because they are private from OTHER members and not PUBLICLY posted. Most privacy policies say what you will use the info for...not that you don't have access or won't access the info at all. People who think this encourages admins to read their user pms need help. Most of us have enough of a life to not just have some desire to read user pms unless a need or problem occurs. We don't have the time or the will to just go crazy and read pms, especially if you run a busy site. I currently don't have this installed on my new board simply because there is NO problem currently and its still very small so no need. I WOULD NOT count on other users, nor place the burden of them having to forward me certain pms that should not be floating around. The legal aspect was covered in the other thread too and as the wording of the law goes it wouldn't even seem to apply to this....

I guess the "absolute height of internet nerdism" is a relative speculation. To me, that label is more appropriately applied to someone who takes time out of their day to post on a thread they have no interest in only to whine about the fact that other people are discussing something he disapproves of, while contributing nothing of actual substance to it.

So you don't care about respecting the privacy of your board users. So what? That doesn't make you special, it makes you ordinary. That's why organizations like the ACLU exist. To protect us all from the erosion of our civil liberties that results from ordinary people making ordinary decisions. And yes, we're only talking about an Internet discussion board here. You're right. That's the worst part of this. If you can't be bothered to stand up for the rights of your discussion board users, what are the odds you'll stand up for anyone's rights in real life? Slim to none, I'd guess.

All that aside, as I said and as Dean and others have pointed out repeatedly, the ethical argument isn't even relevant to whether you should warn your board users that this hack is installed and that private messages are not private to protect yourself from litigation. Bira said it best here. Even if you don't have the slightest respect for your users privacy, you should at least have the sense to protect yourself.

Yes but Bira also said this:

"However, once you take measures that actively violate the privacy of a user -- for example, install software that will allow you to read their personal communication - you are no longer within the bounds of "reasonable violation".

Guess nobody is allowed to install PHPMyAdmin because that would allow them to read your personal info...I also used Bira post OF the law and believe I referenced the points on how this hack does NOT even fall under that law....

BTW..you may be interested to know that it would seem a privacy policy does NOT constitute a contract between your users and yourself. Northwestern airlines outright VIOLATED their stated policy and the judge threw the case against them out...and those people SHARED their data with OTHER COMPANIES.....read more here:

http://news.com.com/Judge+tosses+onl...l?tag=nefd.top

And as Bira explained to you then (which is the reason I already told you on the last page that I don't think your phpMyAdmin argument is effective):

That is interesting, thanks. It illuminates a pretty serious failing of American privacy law IMO. However, where in that article does it say "a privacy policy does NOT constitute a contract between your users and yourself"? All I found is that the judge deemed the case had no merit "in part because the privacy policy posted on the airline's Web site was unenforceable unless plaintiffs claimed to have read it. " Obviously that doesn't apply to vBulletin, since in order to register people have to click a box that indicates that they have read the policies.

Bira didn't explain anything then, you are not referencing the post I am talking about...I don't even think you looked in the right thread actually. He posted the law...I quoted his post and showed which parts of the law seem to render this moot. Maybe find that post and check again...

It also still applies to vbulletin because you are making the assumption that ever vb owner leaves that checkbox and message working the default way which is not a good thing to assume...still applies here. Whether you think my argument is effective really isn't the point...it's up to whatever judge looks at it and with the wording you guys have used it would still stand...not every host has PHPMyAdmin installed...installing it would still be an active motion to get into the database....at any rate.

Its funny how half or more of these arguements don't even apply when you are on private property or attending say a school....where'd the privacy go there? It's private property, both the software/forums and the server they are on. I didn't get any notice when I went to school that my freedom of speech rights were limited but they were, and are legally limited. I'll wait for the first court case to test this as I'd love to see some personal user try and sue a non commercial personal website owner over this.....I would LOVE it!

I referenced the post you quoted her from. If you want to discuss something else she said you should've quoted it.

I never made that assumption, but that is the default configuration of the software. The possible outcome of a case against a hypothetical board with a hypothetical non-default configuration is a little too ambiguous of a discussion for me. Why don't we stick to the subject.

Whether your argument is effective is exactly the point. You keep comparing a piece of software that's used for database administration and happens to allow admins to read PM's with a piece of software designed for reading people's PM's. How do you not see the difference there?

And of course bira destroyed that argument too, when she said:
This isn't rocket science, JTMON. As you pointed out yourself, it all depends on how the specific laws are interpreted by the judge if someone decides to sue you for violating their privacy. It's up to you whether you want to err on the side of caution or stand firm by your "right" to do whatever you want with your board. I'm just pointing out that the smart thing to do is the former.

You did NOT reference the post I made or am talking about. For your info she never even responded to the post I am talking about. You are the one rehashing an old old old argument and making the EXACT same points as others so you should go digging I think. I replied to the actual law, which she posted, you are replying to replies..

Since this whole forum is about changing the default configuration of your board I wouldn't think that coversation would be that far fetched. As for the differences in the software...the software is not illegal by iteself..it may or may not be depending on how you use it. The same should/would go for PhPMyAdmin....if the sole reason someone installed PHPMA was to read user PMs then I believe it would fall under that same law....You can't tell me you wouldn't still be arguing your point if this hack was just part of some bigger hack with more features which would then make it more like PHPMA soley because it also has OTHER uses.....at any rate I'm done arguing the same arguement for the third time I think it is during the life of this hack...As for the checkbox saying you read the privacy agreement, it's about as binding as software EULAs....

What are you talking about? You said:

This is the post where she said that, the same post I referenced where she defeated your argument 3 years ago. If you are now talking about some other post or thread find it and quote it, and I'll respond to that.

I already went digging at your suggestion, and yes I am making the EXACT same points you didn't get three years ago, with the hope that you will get it now. I am commenting in this thread in case anyone comes across this hack in this thread and isn't aware of the serious liability it incurs and/or thinks you have made anything resembling a valid point that there is nothing to worry about.

And you have been arguing for what all this time? That people shouldn't take a simple precaution against the possibility of litigation? What do you hope to gain? What is the benefit of convincing a single person that they shouldn't worry about the possibility of losing a lawsuit compared to the benefit of convincing people to be cautious?

I don't know if you're just being stubborn or if you really don't get it, but rest assured that you are wrong. It's a matter of logic, not opinion. You have made arguments and they have been defeated. The fact is that installing this hack increases your liability as a forum administrator and anyone who intends to install it would be wise to forewarn their forum users that their "private" messages aren't private.

this doesn't work for me, just times out

i agree with Dean,
and i am thankful for the bug fixes
as already it was requested from a couple of people, abt the bugs in the earlier release.

thnx for sharing.

Regards,