An Explanation

[TinCow]

Absolutely disgraceful. There are no words to properly express my disappointment in staff.

I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with it. I think the situation was handled entirely appropriately. This is not a blanket change in policy, it was simply an incredibly unusual circumstance involving a very specific member whose past behavior needs no elaboration. As it was, we were unsure whether the person had actively stolen the account or had appropriated it with the permission of the owner. We attempted to contact the true owner via email, and the response that we got back did not clarify the issue for us. I believe that determining the identity of the person using a potentially stolen account is important and is a very good reason for doing what was done.

In addition, I was the only person who read the PMs. I am probably the last person on this forum that needs to be informed of the importance of privacy. My job involves reading volumes of confidential personal and medical records on a daily basis, much of which is exceptionally sensitive and would be embarrassing if it became public. I would face felony charges and jail time if I were to even misplace the documents I work with, let alone publicize them. I would also lose my bar license. Then there's also the fact that the attorney-client privilege has been drilled into me as part of my legal brainwashing. I am very experienced with handling confidential information in a proper manner. I accessed only one account and only read PMs whose subject lines and dates made them appear relevant to the information search, and I only passed on those PMs which contained the information that was necessary to make the determinations that were needed.

I believe what was done was entirely appropriate and reasonable under the unusual circumstances that we were presented with, and I would advocate for them again in the future if the same situation arose.

[Monk]

Well that certainly eases the tension a bit, but not fully in my mind. I trust you, TC, I always have. I respect you immensely not only for who you are personally but for every ounce of energy you poured into this place despite that it was never required of you.

But not all of those who make up the staff on this site are as honorable as you. I'm not gonna sit here and name names who tell you who is on my naughty and nice lists, that'd just be melodramatic, silly, and overall pointless. Rather, this news now forces me into the unenviable position where I can never be quite sure of my privacy on this site, especially in that there are those on staff whom I find rather questionable. I do not trust every member of the staff on this site to act "honorably", and haven't for quite some time. This being in the open only makes that feeling all the more amplified. It's not a nice feeling and is a pointless addition of internet silliness into my life that I'd rather be without.

Given the general lethargy this has inspired I guess I'll just man up and not use the PM feature if it upsets me so much.

[Jolt]

I agree with the decision, given the unprecedented situation.

[johnhughthom]

Do you really see private messages on an internet forum as being that sacred, Monk? To me the "private" part is interpreted as "not public" rather than "100% private", I've always thought that there is a possibility of forum staff reading them in certain circumstances, and wouldn't really have a problem with it.

[Monk]

Do you really see private messages on an internet forum as being that sacred, Monk?

Please. I might've taken your post seriously if not for your first line there. Regardless. I believe i expressed my stance well enough as to not reiterate once again, and since I seem to be the only one with a dissenting opinion, will refrain from making too much of a ruckus about it.

[johnhughthom]

I really wasn't having a go, I actually thought you were joking when I read your first post earlier, it was a genuine question. Personally, I found the use of 'mod/member privacy trust' earlier as over the top as my use of 'sacred', but I've always thought you a good guy so didn't mock you over it. Whatever though, like you say no point in making a ruckus.

[Monk]

I really wasn't having a go, I actually thought you were joking when I read your first post earlier, it was a genuine question. Personally, I found the use of 'mod/member privacy trust' earlier as over the top as my use of 'sacred', but I've always thought you a good guy so didn't mock you over it. Whatever though, like you say no point in making a ruckus.

I agree. I think you're the right sort too. Apologies for expecting the worst in my reply