A question about PMs ...
 

Sorry about this if it has been covered earlier!

I haven't posted this in DSC Topics because I'd like a wide response from members and non-members alike.

PM stands for Personal Messages ...

... what do you understand Personal to mean?

If I send you a PM and you then publicly display its contents what does that say ... is that an abuse of trust, the system, what ... ?

Debate please to help decide whether I turn the feature off! I don't actually need it - e-mail works just as well I suppose.

If you wish to respond please ONLY debate the point above.

I deleted this thread and started again because I realised there was a misspelled word (one of my cardinal rules is to adhere to good spelling and grammar) in the title and I couldn't change it.

Unfortunately deleting took TP's reply with it so here is his reply;

I guess the fact is that they aren't private.

But neither is e-mail. If the recipient is going to post up your PM then what's to stop them from posting up your e-mail in the same manner?

E-mail won't be read by WT/MT though, unless you send it to them or the recipient forwards it on.

Oh the wicked webs we weave ....

Our company employee directive is:
'We reserve the right to monitor telephone, email and internet use. Any abuse of these systems may result in disciplinary action.' Meaning that the contents are theirs to do with what they like.
I guess I've always assumed this is a standard and fair principle.

The title name can be changed easily by simply dropping any of the webteam a line, I was about change it myself anyways....

Frank

Hhhmmmmm ... not sure this is what I meant?

I accept that things need to be monitored as long as contents are not aired publicly if you have sent something with the assertion that you are using a Personal (or Private ... interpretation?) service.

I think Frank is going the right way as this is a messaging system which is not Personal.

If someone decides to publicly display what you intended to be private/personal it says more about the person than the system.

Does it?

I don't think you can be so black and white on the issue.

IMO it depends on the contents, the nature of it and who it's from. I would view it in that context but agree that it would be the norm to keep it private and a last resort type action to make it public.

I'm with TP on this. It depends of content. General data protection rule of thumb would be race, politics, religion, health, sex:devil:, financial, is taboo.
Publicising recipes for shepherds pie is ok.
There's a whole grey area. What one person thinks is sensitive, another could see as fair game.

Simply use the telephone - HTH ;)

HTH – Thanks Tim :rolleyes:

Thank goodness for www.acronyms.com

Well that doesn’t help me either :lol:

HTH =

Happy To Help
Head To Head
High Test Hypochloride
High Test Hypochlorite
Hit The Hay
Hold The Horse
Hollywood Tower Hotel
Hope That Helps
Hope This Helps

this is at the bottom of EVERY PM you send.. where's the discussion exactly ? the rules are laid out in black and white. Whether you THINK they are private or not.. they are NOT.

Those points I accept as stated above.

I'm not looking for a debate on that point.

Let's forget the webteam can read them for the moment - they are unlikely to publish anything publicly - more likely they will delete!

TP is closer to the mark - if I send you a PM at what point do you take on the responsibility to make it public when I originally meant it for your eyes/ears only?

aaahhhh,.


when i want to pi55 someone off :)

i have no morals :)

Second from bottom - HTH ;)

:lol:

Dave
The rule I use is simple - I never send a PM or email that contains anything where I absolutely do not want the contents of which to be made public. You cannot control what happens to a PM or email after it is sent. A similar rule applies for word of mouth - there is nothing to stop someone passing on what you have said to a wider audience (although there is probably no proof that you said it short of a recording of the conversation).

There are times when I would prefer the contents of my PM/email to remain confidential, but once it's sent, it's out of my control. You just have to accept this as a fact of life.

If the recipient (or someone able to intercept the message) makes public something you sent, yes, that is an abuse of trust - unless the message you sent is abusive/threatening/etc. If your message contravenes the Terms and Conditions under which you use the message system, you are fair game as far as I'm concerned. That said, I would never make public the contents of a confidential message, whatever it contained - that's just my personal opinion(although I would consider reporting such a message to the appropriate authorities).

PMs just mean private message to the recipient, if they make the contents public I'd say it means you can't trust 'em, especially if you make it clear in the message itself.

Private message means just that to me, a private message between me and the adressee.

These days e-mails end up in the paper, remember the "good day to bury bad news" saga or the more recent thing when instructions about a parties ended up in the press?

Is there any such thing as "private" these days?? the communication method used can make it very easy for a "private" communication to end up round the world in seconds.

Now wheres me quil pen and lemon juice:D

Ray.

I think that private message should mean private message.....It cant be that difficult to understand.