PMs being turned off from June 13

[hamsterball1]

edit: @droleary, can you link to the non-sticky thread about this that you mentioned? Couldn't find it.

Keep Private Messaging function, please help and post

The solution to people who want to be contacted directly remains fairly easy: set up one of the external links that is supported for accounts.

Thanks for the link. (And what a thoroughly unpleasant read.)

One question: is there any way to tag or notify a person of a post? Does quoting a previous post notify the original poster? Does tagging with @[username] notify the user?

[Imperf3kt]

edit: @droleary, can you link to the non-sticky thread about this that you mentioned? Couldn't find it.

Keep Private Messaging function, please help and post

The solution to people who want to be contacted directly remains fairly easy: set up one of the external links that is supported for accounts.

And if I don't want millions of people and spambots accessing my facebook? Then what?

[bensimmo]

edit: @droleary, can you link to the non-sticky thread about this that you mentioned? Couldn't find it.

Keep Private Messaging function, please help and post

The solution to people who want to be contacted directly remains fairly easy: set up one of the external links that is supported for accounts.

And if I don't want millions of people and spambots accessing my facebook? Then what?

tough.

using the signature for it is not the way.
using the built in profile buttons is.
but I couldn't tell you if the addresses are protected without clicking on this forum.

off course, you can just call people out in a new post.

unfortunately subscriptions to a topic, even the original poster, is not automatic.
the poster is responsible for checking the topic unless they opt in an tick/select notify.

[Imperf3kt]

You may say "tough" or "deal with it", but I call it a security issue.

'think of the children' - damn kids ruin everything.


Personally, I have not used the PM system here, but I most certainly would prefer access to it should I one day want to. I much prefer telling one person, who I am directly conversing with, my contact details (even if it is another service) than to put it where anybody can access it.
Wasn't the whole reason PMs were disabled because anybody could pretend to be something they're not? Congratulations, you've removed that necessity and now these types of people can get my social media accounts and other personal details, without my consent.
I feel much safer now!

[Z80 Refugee]

I agree, and this is the only forum I use that has taken this approach.

[jamesh]

If we get legal confirmation that we are in the clear, then I guess we would reopen PM's, until then, stays as it is.

You can use info@raspberrypi.org to contact us directly.

[bensimmo]

You may say "tough" or "deal with it", but I call it a security issue.

'think of the children' - damn kids ruin everything.


Personally, I have not used the PM system here, but I most certainly would prefer access to it should I one day want to. I much prefer telling one person, who I am directly conversing with, my contact details (even if it is another service) than to put it where anybody can access it.
Wasn't the whole reason PMs were disabled because anybody could pretend to be something they're not? Congratulations, you've removed that necessity and now these types of people can get my social media accounts and other personal details, without my consent.
I feel much safer now!

the 'tough' is, just don't give the information.

[klricks]

....
One question: is there any way to tag or notify a person of a post? Does quoting a previous post notify the original poster? Does tagging with @[username] notify the user?

If the user has enabled notifications in control panel then they will get 1 email notification each time someone replies to a subscribed thread. The user is automatically subscribed to any thread that they have made and after making any reply in a thread. The user can also manually subscribe via a link at the bottom of each thread. The user will only get one notification until they visit the thread again no matter how many replies are made. The user can also view notification in their control panel.
There is no other way, nor should there be any other way, to directly contact any user on the forum.

[droleary]

One question: is there any way to tag or notify a person of a post? Does quoting a previous post notify the original poster? Does tagging with @[username] notify the user?

I don't know of a way (other than what klricks mentioned), but I'm not an expert on the forum software. But, really, that's the wrong way to look at it. People are not and should not be obligated to pay attention to you just because it is what you want them to do. If you want help for something that you're not getting in the natural course of a discussion, post in the Wanted section and offer something in return.

And if I don't want millions of people and spambots accessing my facebook? Then what?

Then . . . you don't understand how Facebook works.

And, realistically, it likely was only a matter of time before spambots showed up here and started clogging up the forum with both public and private messages (Heck, it might already be happening to some extent behind the scenes).

People need to stop being silly about this. Either you want there to be a way for random people to contact you "directly" or you don't. If you don't, then the random person you want to contact needs to allow random people to contact them. If neither of you want that, congratulation, you both have mutual privacy.

[jamesh]

One question: is there any way to tag or notify a person of a post? Does quoting a previous post notify the original poster? Does tagging with @[username] notify the user?

I don't know of a way (other than what klricks mentioned), but I'm not an expert on the forum software. But, really, that's the wrong way to look at it. People are not and should not be obligated to pay attention to you just because it is what you want them to do. If you want help for something that you're not getting in the natural course of a discussion, post in the Wanted section and offer something in return.

And if I don't want millions of people and spambots accessing my facebook? Then what?

Then . . . you don't understand how Facebook works.

And, realistically, it likely was only a matter of time before spambots showed up here and started clogging up the forum with both public and private messages (Heck, it might already be happening to some extent behind the scenes).

People need to stop being silly about this. Either you want there to be a way for random people to contact you "directly" or you don't. If you don't, then the random person you want to contact needs to allow random people to contact them. If neither of you want that, congratulation, you both have mutual privacy.

The spam filters are pretty effective but I still (and I presume the other mods too) have to delete probably 5 or so spam emails a day.

[Bakul Shah]

Is there a way to get an archive of my past PMs (and responses to them)? Thanks.

[Imperf3kt]

If we get legal confirmation that we are in the clear, then I guess we would reopen PM's, until then, stays as it is.

You can use info@raspberrypi.org to contact us directly.

Is it possible to point out the particular law or reason they were locked off for in the first place?

I don't mind consulting with a law student friend of mine to try and estsblish a conclusion.
After all, I'm the one complaining here, so I don't mind pitching in to help sort it out.

[davidcoton]

Is it possible to point out the particular law or reason they were locked off for in the first place?

Read the first post of the thread.

[Imperf3kt]

Is it possible to point out the particular law or reason they were locked off for in the first place?

Read the first post of the thread.

Thats as useful as telling someone looking for a specific tree species, to look in a forest.

[davidcoton]

Is it possible to point out the particular law or reason they were locked off for in the first place?

Read the first post of the thread.

Thats as useful as telling someone looking for a specific tree species, to look in a forest.

Oh come on -- if you really need spoon feeding, here:

An important part of this effort is making sure that we comply with relevant regulation, like the GDPR in Europe, and COPPA in the United States.

[Imperf3kt]

Read the first post of the thread.

Thats as useful as telling someone looking for a specific tree species, to look in a forest.

Oh come on -- if you really need spoon feeding, here:

An important part of this effort is making sure that we comply with relevant regulation, like the GDPR in Europe, and COPPA in the United States.

Not what I am looking for. Please don't insult my intelligence, I'm not so dumb that I cannot read the first post.

Could you perhaps point out, where, in the linked document, it stated private messages on a forum are a safety threat to children:
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/federal-regi ... ule-safe-1

Here also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General ... Regulation

[bensimmo]

That's what your law student should be able to point out eventually, hence why they have turned PM off by the Foundation and their lawyers.

They are unsure and are working on it to see if they are fine with their current lack of age verification (and hence safeguarding as another thing).
They are just not risking it at the moment, they couldn't afford the problems if they are non compliant. (Not just the fine, but publicity too may well cripple a company built on it's trust especially around children.)

Hence they are working on it and do hope to reinstate some PM functionality.
We just have to wait and suck it and see at the moment.

I would assume their lawyers know what they are doing.

one solution would be an age verification system, but does that actually cover their back when it is just a tick box exercise.?
if someone is sold alcohol or cigs and they just say they are old enough isn't good enough iirc and the shopkeeper is still responsible and can be fined.

[joan]

As I pointed out years ago children can not use this site. They can not agree to the terms and conditions.

[Mortimer]

As I pointed out years ago children can not use this site. They can not agree to the terms and conditions.

That doesn't mean that they don't though, and I recall that we have had people under the age of 14 posting here in the past.

That would be like saying building site contractors don't need to worry about child safety because they shouldn't be there.

[bensimmo]

the problem is they can agree to the terms and conditions, there is nothing to check or prevent them from doing that.
so from a legal point of view, I would guess the question would be, have the foundation put in reasonable* measures to prevent that, especially given children are a massive target audience for the Pi and their work.


*I use reasonable , but the law could be stricter than that, I do not know.

[davidcoton]

Not what I am looking for. Please don't insult my intelligence, I'm not so dumb that I cannot read the first post.

But it was what you asked for:

Is it possible to point out the particular law or reason they were locked off for in the first place?

I won't try to help you again.

[jamesh]

OK, so it's all getting a bit silly. So in précis.

We have turned off PM's on legal advice, because we cannot be sure it won't be used for inappropriate communications. This is down to the GDPR and COPPA. Since these are both new laws, there are very few test cases (if any) or precedent, so legally it is a very grey area, so even very experienced legal eagles are unsure of the implications. This is clear in all the dealings I've had with the GDPR, I'm a school governor, and Parish Councillor, and in both areas it has been extremely difficult to determine what we actually need to do.

So at RPF(T) we are simply taking the approach of better safe than sorry. We certainly don't want to be a test case.

Not sure why people find this so objectionable. When it comes down to it, it's our forum, paid for by us, and the rules are determined by us.

[n67]

Not sure why people find this so objectionable. When it comes down to it, it's our forum, paid for by us, and the rules are determined by us.

This discussion exists on two planes - as usual, these planes are "is" and "ought".

I think by now everyone understands "is" - which is, as you say, that the RPF has made its decision, on the advice of counsel, and nothing any forum wonk has to say on the subject is going to change their minds (nor should it).

So, I'm going on the assumption that all discussion on this and similar threads is in the realm of "ought" - i.e., is academic. Not that that means it isn't interesting and fun, but it isn't "is".

[hippy]

Not sure why people find this so objectionable.

Some people will always have objections when something is done which doesn't necessarily have to be done. Their view of necessary, or appropriateness of doing it, differs from those doing it.

It's a bit like not allowing dogs and pets ( except guide dogs ) into shops in the UK. It's not AFAIK a legal requirement that they are not allowed in, but there's no legal obligation to allow them in either.

So no matter which way a shop decides someone will likely find that the wrong decision, unjustified, objectionable.

Ultimately there are two incompatible views of how things should be when it comes to risk; allow it unless it's proven unsafe to allow it, don't allow it unless it's proven safe to allow it.

The forum is walking the second path. Some think it should be walking the first.

[bensimmo]

and one way is playing it safe, the other could be quite costly.