***The fish saga continues***

He lives! When I woke up this morning I was almost hesitant to go and check on the fish, but Rags was still alive and looking active. There are still spots on him but I'm hoping after a few days treatment, he'll get rid of them and be on the path to recovery. I'm keeping my fingers crossed but time will tell.

~~~Today's Agenda~~~


Take shower
Unpack more boxes
Go to grocery store
Take oldest to doctor


.....and not necessarily in that order. I live the exciting life!

My oldest developed a cough a couple of weeks ago. Just when I was about ready to take her into the doctor, it seemed to get better. Then the next day she woke up with a roaring cold, poor kid. This time, I'm not waiting. Hopefully, the doctor can give her something that will help her get better. I don't like to dive into antibiotics, but this has gone on for far too long. First the cough, and now this. I don't want it to get worse.

***Reading Private Messages***

I've been following a debate over on a vB board regarding the legality of admins reading private messages on forums for a while now. It comes at an interesting time. As you may or may not know, I'm an active participant in distributed computing. I'm a member of what I consider to be one of the best teams around. I'm an administrator there, and also help out on a few different boards that are not DC related, including my own. In some discussions with some other administrators, it was divulged that there were some owner/admins of a certain DC forum that regularly practiced reading of private messages. As I've had dealings with this team in the past, I must say that this bit of information did not come as a complete surprise to me. We all agreed that reading someone's private messages was not a practice that we believed in.

The question is this. Do the owners/admins of a forum have the right to read PMs? Is there a particular reason for them to do so? Did the members pose a threat? Were they planning something that would harm the forums or the team? In this particular instance, no. It was believed that it was brought on by sheer paranoia, mixed in with a cupful of needing to have complete control. Granted, the legalities of the issue are somewhat gray, but, it's not a practice that is looked favorably upon. It's been a pretty hot topic among a few of us lately and a very interesting one to study.

Here is something written by an IT manager on the subject:

I have been an IT tech and manager for over 20 years and have had to design systems to comply with the law. (3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection,a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication other than one to such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient. (b) A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication - (i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a)or 2517 of this title; (ii) with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication; (iii) to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or (iv) which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency. (4)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. It doesn't get any clearer than that, folks. In the US, installing and using this hack is a federal offense that can earn you prison time. Here is the law. It also bears mentioning that individual states also have privacy laws that may or many not be violated by reading your users' private messages. One would also be subject to prosecution under state laws as well. Given the privacy concerns relative to the Patriot Act, this is an extremely sensitive issue to many people. I have no further need to continue to try to convince anyone further. I've given you the best advice I can. If you choose to do something stupid and put yourself at risk, that's your business.

Definitely gives you something to think about. Of course, many people are of the belief that nothing is private on the internet, which, logically speaking, is true. If an administrator is going to read your private messages, does he/she need to warn you of the fact when you register? Would you be safe if you just changed the title to "Messages."

And now...a look at it from a lawyers point of view.....

He may not be a lawyer, but I am. Of course this requires me to say we are not in an attorney client relationship, I am offering generalized advice, it is worth what you paid for it, yadda yadda. I've actually been watching this debate for a while. Find it pretty interesting. All I can say is this, and you'll pardon me if my tone is blunt. There are some recent cases that might suggest that this could be a violation of the act in question. Normally the cases involve reading other people's emails or putting key caps programs on people's computers without their permission or knowledge. If people believe, reasonably, that their private messages are private, you could have a problem. Now a lot of you will say they don't reasonably believe that, nothing on the Internet is private. My response is you need to take a look at the type of people who use your site. Are they aware enough to appreciate this fact? A court will look at what is reasonable based upon the knowledge base of the people. So if you have a hacking board or something your argument is a good one. Not so good for a board where the people don't know the first thing about vbulletin, how it works, what can be read, so on and so forth. Yes, we can view the PMs by going through the databases. Sysadmins can also view emails easily. And without proper cause, if a sysadmin for an email provider started reading your email, he'd be liable for all sorts of things. It's a definite no no. Once you place something out there for people to use it becomes more complicated then it is my property so tough to you. And if you had a problem and you went into court and said hey, it is my board, it is my property I can do what I want, I promise you that answer won't cut it. On the other hand, if you can say, I had a problem with a stalker or with someone trading warez, and I had a note on my sign up page that said you are consenting to being monitored with just cause, then you have a very good argument. Is it a winnable argument? Honestly, I don't know. Any more then I know for certain you would be found liable for violating the Act(s). In the end, I'd suggest that if you want to install this hack and you want to protect yourselves, it probably wouldn't hurt to put something in your TOS noting that they are consenting to monitoring or that nothing posted through the board is private or what have you. It is not a difficult thing to put in your TOS and it is better to be safe. I would also be very careful to limit your reading of pms to when it is a necessity. Of course, this only applies to US law. The EU has even more stringent privacy laws. Your mileage my vary. By the way, if you are wondering if I, as an attorney, would ever install this hack, the answer is no. I think it is unwise, and I think, as our IT person thinks, that it could get you in a lot of trouble, even with warnings to the users.

It's an interesting topic that bears some serious thought. It's not a practice that I believe in myself, but then again, it's my choice. Any thoughts?????



Mood: Relaxed
Background Noise: Voices discussing electric fences