Should we have an expectation of privacy on this board when we use the private message system?
ANACONDA
Posts: 4,692 ✭
Should we have an expectation of privacy on this board when we use the private message system?
Collector's Universe probably could have access to our PM's if they want to and they might not need a reason or have to let us know that
they are looking at them.
They could use them for research or their own other purposes.
Murders could be solved. People could go to jail. People could be embarrassed. The New Federal Pre-crime Division might want access.
Do they have a policy regarding whether or not they read our private messages sent between us or not?
Just curious.
Collector's Universe probably could have access to our PM's if they want to and they might not need a reason or have to let us know that
they are looking at them.
They could use them for research or their own other purposes.
Murders could be solved. People could go to jail. People could be embarrassed. The New Federal Pre-crime Division might want access.
Do they have a policy regarding whether or not they read our private messages sent between us or not?
Just curious.
0
Comments
Food for thought; it's called a Private Message. Might that give anyone a reasonable expectation of privacy?
I don't expect them to read my PMs, but at the same time I feel they have a right to, as they run the forums and the site.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
I expect it to be just what they term it: Private. If someone PMs another member with harrassing or obscene messages, then the recipient would make it available to the admin folks at CU for action. Otherwise, they should not be reading private messages.
Bob
Vietnam Vet 1968-1969
I am sure that there is a standard disclaimer to that effect when one joins and is similar to an employer's privacy waiver release that is signed by employees as it pertains to email. Who knows, they may even build demographic and marketing cookies based on the transactions that take place between members or even some of the "Gmarguli-like" PCGS bashing that takes place in private. All I know is that I live in a society in which I expect almost no privacy, visa vi, email, financial records, medical records(no longer private in some states), marketing cookies, etc,etc. I have nothing to hide, even though the concept of this type of snooping is morally wrong, we live in a society where it is unavoidable , particullarly in this post 9-11 climate.
Brian
<< <i>The Post Office delivers our mail, but they don't have the right to open and read them. What's the difference?
I expect it to be just what they term it: Private. If someone PMs another member with harrassing or obscene messages, then the recipient would make it available to the admin folks at CU for action. Otherwise, they should not be reading private messages.
Bob >>
Federal law covers USPS mail. PMs are no different than email. They aren't sent via an encrypted or secure system. There is no guarantee of privacy, nor should it be expected.
<< <i>The Post Office delivers our mail, but they don't have the right to open and read them. What's the difference? >>
I think the difference is that the USPS is restricted by law from opening mail.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
There is no guarantee of privacy, nor should it be expected.
Wow. I'm not arguing with you guys, but it does bother me that there's not much of an expectation of privacy, generally speaking. Is this a generational issue, i.e., younger people don't expect it but older people do?
I agree that since 9/11 we have given up some liberties, probably rightfully so, but the slippery slope seems to be getting steeper and slipperier (new word?).
In looking through the FusionTalk guide for this forum, there's no mention of what "private" really means. Maybe a moderator could shed some light on this.
Vietnam Vet 1968-1969
I own many websites and they are MY property so I can do whatever I want with them.
My expectation of privacy here is that my PM messages shall not be divulged as a courtesy from the recipient and shall not be accessed by the site operators without a significant reason. To me, this is reasonable. If this were repeatedly violated, then this little community of ours would break down and this place would end up in a far worse state.
It seems to me that, for the most part, this community does a fine job of self-governance. The operators, the veterans, the newbies and even the trolls almost totally know how not to turn this place into a true mess.
I read somewhere that, in the real world, no set of laws, policies and practices would force a society into a suicide pact. The reasonableness test is one that our justices regularly use.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I would expect that any receipient would regard it as private.
As for CU, I would expect them to only examine the PM's, certainly under subpoena, but after that just as a result of a serious crime, or threat of same.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
Seriously......employer's right to "own" and read their employee's emails doesn't apply here........we're not CU employees! At least i haven't recieved my check yet!
Really......would you expect yahoo to be ably to just read anyone's email without a court order? What's the difference with this boards system? Most expect privacy except when safety issues and threats are involved. Otherwise.........keep your freekin hands off of my personal property!
<< <i>This is a coin forum man, I highly doubt any murders will be solved from reading our pm's
Once again resides with Legend, the original purchaser "raw" at live Eliasberg auction. Laura and i "love" the same lady!
<< <i>You agree that you will not use our forums to post any material, or links to any material, which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative(sic) of any law. >>
In this paragraph I agree not to invade someone elses privacy. CU's agreement not to invade someones privacy is not implied in this statement.
<< <i>These Forums reserves the right to edit or delete any message for any reason whatsoever, at our sole discretion. You agree that you are solely responsible for the content of your messages, and that you will indemnify and hold harmless these Forums, e-Zone Media (the software manufacturer) and their agents and >>
CU reserves the right to edit or delete any message. I guess "any message" would include PMs.
<< <i>In the event of any complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you, these Forums reserves the right to reveal your identity and any other information we may know about you. >>
Our personal information is left private only at the discretion on CU.
<< <i>one thing to remember is PCGS OWNS this website and can do whatever they want. If it was a federally owned website then the "post office mail rules" might apply.
I own many websites and they are MY property so I can do whatever I want with them. >>
Ditto.
And the Post Office does NOT own our mail. That's why they don't have the right to open our mail. But sometimes they do, and steal our stuff anyway.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
________________________________________________________________________________________
Written by: Elisa Nemiroff & D. Reed Freeman
Internet companies generally engage in deception by either: (1) failing to abide by their stated privacy policies; or (2) failing to disclose certain data collection that occurs at their Web sites. At both the federal and state levels, regulators are increasingly bringing actions for deceptive misuse of consumer information.
Private Enforcement
Electronic Communications Privacy Act: Illegal to Access Electronic Communications Without Authority or in a Way That Exceeds Authority.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") (18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2000), available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch119.html) prohibits the unauthorized use, disclosure, or interception (whether through an electronic, mechanical or other device) of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1) (2000). In addition, any person or entity that provides an electronic communication service to the public is forbidden from intentionally divulging the contents of any communication to anyone other than the intended recipient or an agent of the intended recipient while that communication is being transmitted. Id. § 2511(3)(a). There are several exceptions to these prohibitions. Id. §§ 2511(2)(a)-(h) and (3)(b)(i)-(iv). In particular, if a party to the communication provides consent, the communication may be intercepted or divulged. Id. §§ 2511(2)(d) and (3)(b)(ii). It is also important to note that the ECPA forbids unauthorized access to stored electronic communications. Id. § 2701. Subject to certain exceptions discussed below under Section III, the ECPA provides protection for employees that do not wish to have their employers access their electronic communications.
Complying with Agreed-to Third Party Privacy Policies
The FTC has charged one Internet company with failing to comply with agreed-to third party privacy policies.
FTC v. ReverseAuction.com: Failing to Comply with Third Party Privacy Policy.
The FTC alleged that ReverseAuction.com violated eBay's User Agreement and Privacy Policy after affirmatively indicating acceptance of the policy's terms. (ReverseAuction.com had agreed to comply with the User Agreement and Privacy Policy when it registered with eBay by clicking the "I Agree" button.) The FTC's intervention suggests that it will use the full power of the U.S. Government to enforce User Agreements and Privacy Policies between private entities, at least on behalf of major Web sites, and when it perceives widespread consumer injury.
If you want more information please go here if you want to see or contact the firm that wrote the above summary, please go here.
Copyright © 2002 Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
So, yes, CU cannot willy-nilly read our emails. There's nothing that I note in their User Agreement that would allow it, and if they did, it might certainly be a violation enforceable by the FTC. Also, if CU was aggressively collecting information about us via cookies and then selling that information to others, this might also be a FTC violation.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to my PMs and all of you should have as well!!!
Michael
<< <i>if CU was aggressively collecting information about us via cookies and then selling that information to others, this might also be a FTC violation >>
You do know there is a webtrends tracking cookie on this site, don't ya? I have it permanently blocked but it is included as a 1x1 pixel image. Common technique.
<!-- START OF WEBTRENDS LIVE TAG -->
<!-- Copyright 2002 NetIQ Corporation -->
<!-- For privacy concerns, check our Privacy Policy at http://www.webtrendslive.com/wtl_system/privacy_policy.htm -->
<!-- eCommerce Revenue Tracking (patent pending) -->
<!-- For eCommerce implementation, visit the following page: -->
<!-- http://www.webtrendslive.com/wtl_system/support/online_help/open_help.asp?helppage=techsupport_code_ecommerce&redirection=help -->
<!-- END OF WEBTRENDS LIVE TAG -->
<< <i>Hopefully this will clarify the issue for JB as well as others;
________________________________________________________________________________________
Written by: Elisa Nemiroff & D. Reed Freeman
Internet companies generally engage in deception by either: (1) failing to abide by their stated privacy policies; or (2) failing to disclose certain data collection that occurs at their Web sites. At both the federal and state levels, regulators are increasingly bringing actions for deceptive misuse of consumer information.
Private Enforcement
Electronic Communications Privacy Act: Illegal to Access Electronic Communications Without Authority or in a Way That Exceeds Authority.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") (18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2000), available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch119.html) prohibits the unauthorized use, disclosure, or interception (whether through an electronic, mechanical or other device) of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1) (2000). In addition, any person or entity that provides an electronic communication service to the public is forbidden from intentionally divulging the contents of any communication to anyone other than the intended recipient or an agent of the intended recipient while that communication is being transmitted. Id. § 2511(3)(a). There are several exceptions to these prohibitions. Id. §§ 2511(2)(a)-(h) and (3)(b)(i)-(iv). In particular, if a party to the communication provides consent, the communication may be intercepted or divulged. Id. §§ 2511(2)(d) and (3)(b)(ii). It is also important to note that the ECPA forbids unauthorized access to stored electronic communications. Id. § 2701. Subject to certain exceptions discussed below under Section III, the ECPA provides protection for employees that do not wish to have their employers access their electronic communications.
Complying with Agreed-to Third Party Privacy Policies
The FTC has charged one Internet company with failing to comply with agreed-to third party privacy policies.
FTC v. ReverseAuction.com: Failing to Comply with Third Party Privacy Policy.
The FTC alleged that ReverseAuction.com violated eBay's User Agreement and Privacy Policy after affirmatively indicating acceptance of the policy's terms. (ReverseAuction.com had agreed to comply with the User Agreement and Privacy Policy when it registered with eBay by clicking the "I Agree" button.) The FTC's intervention suggests that it will use the full power of the U.S. Government to enforce User Agreements and Privacy Policies between private entities, at least on behalf of major Web sites, and when it perceives widespread consumer injury.
If you want more information please go here if you want to see or contact the firm that wrote the above summary, please go here.
Copyright © 2002 Collier Shannon Scott, PLLC
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
So, yes, CU cannot willy-nilly read our emails. There's nothing that I note in their User Agreement that would allow it, and if they did, it might certainly be a violation enforceable by the FTC. Also, if CU was aggressively collecting information about us via cookies and then selling that information to others, this might also be a FTC violation.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to my PMs and all of you should have as well!!!
Michael >>
I KNOW THERE IS A REASON I DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL.
Further I don't think they sell your info, so if the above is correct and there's no disclosure, they I think it's fine to track for internal purposes. Its when privacy is being trampled on there's a problem.
Michael
I agree and think it would be good for all of us to know. I gues i have an expectation of some degree of privacy but do agree with one poster that if an issue of harassment or safety or something like that comes up, PCGS should feel free to look at PM's.
I think it would be good if they had a policy of some sort that was articulated to the users. I'm not holding my breath, though.
adrian
P.S. anaconda2 did his first coin show with me today. It was a whole lot more fun with him there with me!
Com on! guys you know Im just joking
Good thread, I have been wondering this myself. I would like to know in writing the SOPs. Until then I will put a wink next to everything so I always have a way out with the judge
about anything , to anyone , anywhere, at any time.
Camelot
what's going on on the boards to worry about PM's. Certainly if the PM's
were relevant to determining the cause of a problem that would be a-
nother issue. It might not be wise to put crucial or dangerous information
in a PM anyway though.
Message and privacy are mutually exclusive terms anyway. PM is an oxymoron.
Businesses are abusing the trust of internet users to the point where everyone will use some type of cookie blocking to prevent from being identified/spammed/ or monitored. If you walked into a store and someone greeted you at the door asking where had you just come from and where were you going next, would you tell them? Each and every time? That's what cookies and tracking does. It is invasive and violates privacy.
The good thing about having multiple personalities is that there's always a designated driver.
Yes, I'm an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial.
and intercept our E-Mails. Whether it is under the umbrus of National Security, a court order
or the patriot act. PCGS as the owner of this site as well as bussinesses, have the right to moniter
PMs . Companies in fact have the right to moniter the usage of the computer, web sites visited and time
spent at each web site.Any company can install undetected monitering equipement at any time.
Camelot
You heard it from me first:
Newport Beach -- A breakthrough was made today in the identification of Al Quada operatives here in the United States. Collectors Universe, a California Corporation, discovered that terrorist operatives in several US "cells" were using their the Collector's Universe public message board as a way of avoiding detection by US authorities armed with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, put into place immediately after the 9/11 bombings, allows the US Homeland Security authorities to monitor terrorist activities through emails and internet activity. The Collector's Universe message forum is not a part of the internet even though it is accessed through similar methods.
According to David Hall, CEO of Collector's Universe, they were tipped off by message board users by posts that were made by individuals who were obviously not well acquainted with the fundamentals of numismatics, the subject that the Collector's Universe message board concerns itself with.
Hall stated "While we knew that our servers were not a part of the internet, as most message boards aren't, we had no idea that our system would be used by terrorists in communicating with each other. We have since put protections in place that will prevent any further use by any terrorist groups."
Three unidentified forum members have been arrested and several more have been questioned by authorities. The arrests took place at a coin show in Long Beach, California. According to Hall, some of the operatives developed an interest in numismatics and were lured to the coin show by authorities promising to arrive at the show with cash to buy bags of silver dollars.
is this true or total BS ?
Camelot
<< <i>Should we have an expectation of privacy on this board when we use the private message system? >>
no
K S
Edited to Add: Of course if it catches a terrorist I'm all for it. I just don't expect any NON-criminal behavior to be paid ANY attention too.
In other words, clarification would be a good thing. But I believe it is smarter to clarify that the sys admins reserve the right to review anything posted on their forums.
I think we should have an expectation of common courtesy, common decency, and common sense in our communications.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry