Privacy of PMs

[tippy]

Since this issue was discussed just now in another thread, from my own point of view I think anything that I send in writing to another person becomes theirs so to speak and I write with that awareness and had GS or Scott wanted public exoneration from me, I wouldn't have had a problem with it - I just thought the timing was bad but the thread came up ANYWAY so - but I would like to highlight two features of PMs that conradict privacy

a) The autoquote - I always think it kind of strange in a PM to see my inquiry reposted like my attention is so deficited that I wouldn't remember what my question was from 5 minutes ago; in combination with

b) the bcc feature - what is THAT about exactly - but an open invitation to copy all your friends.

I guess there is so much reporting going on that both features serve in the main to alert administrator?

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by tippy

Since this issue was discussed just now in another thread, from my own point of view I think anything that I send in writing to another person becomes theirs so to speak

Technically, I believe any kind of private correspondence is considered the intellectual property of the writer (while alive), and the recipient does not have carte blanche to republish it without permission. It's hard to enforce, of course.

[tippy]

yeah, well that's cuz you're a writer.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Technically, I believe any kind of private correspondence is considered the intellectual property of the writer (while alive), and the recipient does not have carte blanche to republish it without permission. It's hard to enforce, of course.

Or even with permission.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Or even with permission.

I was speaking in general, not about the policies of a specific website.

[tippy]

So, Rachel, what is the bcc for?

[Pete C]

There may be an ethical question about BCCing, but it's not a potential copyright issue, since the writer controls who receives the message. It does, of course, lack transparency. Ultimately, there's no practical difference from a BCC or sending a separate message saying "Hey Pete, look at what I just sent Scott ," followed by a copy of the original PM.

[Gary Sisco]

There's a reason they're called "personal" it would seem to me. There's no controlling what other people are going to do, though, clearly. It'd be very strange to see a writer's letters published while still alive, for example. I know I'd be damned pissed off about it. Enforcing anything is a much harder thing that most would realize, though. Expensive, too.

I've had friends have songs ripped off before. One got eighty grand in a settlement once, but no one else ever got anything but insulted.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Pete C

There may be an ethical question about BCCing, but it's not a potential copyright issue, since the writer controls who receives the message. It does, of course, lack transparency. Ultimately, there's no practical difference from a BCC or sending a separate message saying "Hey Pete, look at what I just sent Scott ," followed by a copy of the original PM.

no I don't have an issue with it for that very reason. I agree with you about the transparency. I'm just saying that if you want to send the message that PMs are private you don't do it with an obvious bcc button that facilitates non-transparent distributions.

[Rachel G]

Originally Posted by tippy

...I would like to highlight two features of PMs that conradict privacy

a) The autoquote - I always think it kind of strange in a PM to see my inquiry reposted like my attention is so deficited that I wouldn't remember what my question was from 5 minutes ago; in combination with

b) the bcc feature - what is THAT about exactly - but an open invitation to copy all your friends.

I guess there is so much reporting going on that both features serve in the main to alert administrator?

To be honest, I don't see what "a) The autoquote" has to do with privacy.

I really have nothing else to say about a) or b) except that

They're default features of our vB software. (I checked, as best I could.)

All JC members have the same PM features (I checked that too), so a) and b) don't appear to be primarily for admins' benefit. I didn't really understand the last sentence of your post #1 - "alert administrator" etc.

As Pete said about b) (BCC- blind copies),

Ultimately, there's no practical difference from a BCC or sending a separate message saying "Hey Pete, look at what I just sent Scott ," followed by a copy of the original PM.

Tippy, if you'd like Lois in particular to see this thread, please wait a while for her to get to it, okay?

[Monte Smith]

Are you typing things into your TV?

OK, it's not private.

[Sandi22]

.
.
.Send me a letter I don't like, I'll share it. Be forewarned. Ha. I've done that.

If you ask me not to share it, and I say I won't, then I won't.

I won't post a bullying letter, or any others written to me, but I will share one attacking me with those I consider to be friends, or with people I believe to be above such things.

.
.
.

[tippy]

It was the a) with the b). I really don't have an issue at all, Rachel. I just thought I would try a different part of jazz corner mostly and the issue came up today and it was simply a nitpick about how one could more closely align the software to reflect policy. That and nothing more. As Pete said, you have only to forward.

[Lois Gilbert]

This is just like email except it goes to other board members. Do you wonder why you have the blind copy feature on email

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by tippy

no my outlook doesn't have the bcc - but it has the cc. I could add it but I don't use it.

FYI, Tippy, the BCC feature is there in Outlook Express. If you click on To or CC, you'll see the option.

OK, I'm done with this subject, too.

[tippy]

I was referring to the set up of the form - you know how you can select which features you use and then leave the rest hidden. Honestly, we could have dropped it days ago. I didn't mean to start another scandal.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by tippy

I didn't mean to start another scandal.

You didn't/haven't.

[Pete C]

[clinthopson]

I have considered the PM as something that the writer doesn't want splashed around or is of such arcane information that only the recipient would care about the information, i.e. phone numbers or addresses or maybe some wild sexual offers.

If the writer wants wider promulgation of the message, posting it on a board is always available.