Word of advice to MNHQ

[Hahahahaha123]

The next time you send an email about a poster to that poster by mistake. Probably best not to refer to your users as 'these people'

I know it might seem obvious, but I would have expected private messages to be private.

Does mumsnet have a little copy of the terms and conditions of the website so we can see where it says this is the case. I just really hadn't considered it

I sent a lot of PMs - private messages - recently to a specific poster, discussing our DC at university. I didn't give MNHQ permission to access that information.

Our DC knew about the conversation, btw, that was going on between me and the other mum.

Interesting one on the privacy / permissions front, should someone at MNHQ decided to have had a peek.

I think MN the business needs to have it writ large banner style that they'll read your private messages if they want to. It's not clear as it stands tbh.

But people must realise that no private messages on any webpage is completely private. Facebook can access your messages, twitter can, etc etc.

Of course they can. But what motivates a website owner to do?

@NerrSnerr

But people must realise that no private messages on any webpage is completely private. Facebook can access your messages, twitter can, etc etc.

That's correct, we really do not look unless we have strong cause to.

There's nothing wrong with agreeing "we have reached the stage where engagement is pointless". There's quite a lot wrong with couching it in the terms in that email.

On another forum I'm on, the question was asked if mods/staff could read PMs:

They are not visible to the mods with two exceptions.

1. I have direct access to the database where the info is stored.
   I cannot see titles or contents unless I get a query about a specific broken/problem conversation, and then it is only for diagnostic/fixing purposes.

2. Reported Conversations

We use an add-on for [hosting site] which removes the conversation subject from the URL so we can't even see the titles by looking at URLs.

So, really, not impossible at all.

Do posters really think that what we put in our PMs are completely hidden from MNHQ? That seems naive at best

What I mean is, let that poster, or ex poster, know that's where you're up to, not just gossip about not letting them know that you know because you've trawled through their PMs.

Recently users were asking MNHQ to access someone's private messages when it was reported that they might have sent dodgy messages...

Olenna - I don't think anyone is quite that naive. But I assumed that the same rules applied as they do in other fora. It appears not.

There's nothing wrong with agreeing "we have reached the stage where engagement is pointless". There's quite a lot wrong with couching it in the terms in that email.

Quite. Very unprofessional to refer to posters in such a manner, suspended or not.

I think it's a bit shaky ground when they are reading them to catch people out though. Employers aren't even able to do that without very good reason ie loss of business. Trying to catch a suspended, not pbp, out doesn't feel like proper justification to me.

@LineysRun

Of course they can. But what motivates a website owner to do?

If a poster is reported and their posting history/IP and email are 'clean' but we keep getting reports then we may have a look when we have a more thorough dig.

Often if many poster's spidey senses are going off, it is worth a look to see if the reported poster is being consistent and a high percentage are not.

It is one of the tools that we have that we use when needs be, not all that often at all.

And that means they have read the PM's of people who have replied to the suspended poster. Not very cool at all, especially as it's just to get one over on someone by the looks of it.

I'm pretty sure that employers have the right to access / read anything you do using their equipment, no justification required.

And of course if MN one of the checks MN would do on a "suspect" poster is to read their PMs. They are private to the rest of the users, not to MNHQ.

Some people are very naive about the internet and how it works - most things are not private to the provider if they wish.

I must say I assumed a pm would be completely private. Otherwise why would they be called a private message.

I'm really surprised that so many people don't know that if you post anywhere on a site, even if it's not viewable to the general public, that the site has access to it.

I'm really surprised that so many people don't know that if you post anywhere on a site, even if it's not viewable to the general public, that the site has access to it.

Some people are very naive about the internet

Not really - I run a successful website of my own. The practices on MN, however, are pause for thought now.

Due to data protection employers have to be clear on why they are monitoring emails etc and in most cases they have to let the employee know they are being monitored. So, yes , they do have to provide some justification.

Obviously mn are not an employer but I'd be surprised if the same dpa doesn't apply. Perhaps it's in teeny tiny print somewhere granted.

When all the furore was going down a few weeks ago, didn't MN say they couldn't read PMs hence they couldn't verify if any dodgy ones were sent? Or have I misremembered that?

I wonder how many people are hurriedly deleting their private messages right now