Add-on Monitor Private Conversations...

[Yugensoft]

I don't see how there's any expectation of privacy from the admin. The conversations are stored in plain text in the database, so even if he doesn't have a tool, he can just query it directly if he wants to. So too can his web host, no doubt. Perhaps this is why it's now called "conversations" instead of the old fashioned "private messages", to more accurately reflect the truth.

A tool like one mentioned here makes sense. For instance, sometimes spammers try a PM based spam attack, and the admin doesn't necessarily want to know about that through thousands of PM reports, instead of it being cut off automatically.

 

[ŽivaAkcija]

most needed option for admins, so i hope someone develop this add on

 

[mkucuksari]

most needed option for admins, so i hope someone develop this add on

It is already done But not free

https://xenforo.com/community/resources/conversation-view.6043/

 

[kbryant414]

Not sure it has all the features you'd want, but I just remembered this one: https://xenforo.com/community/threads/conversation-view-paid.140594/

If these massages are to be monitored, then don't call them Private Conversations and be up front with that fact with the members. And, if someone is that worried about illicit activity in Private Conversations, then Private Messaging should should be disabled and all forum communication should be public. You don't lead members to think their conversations are private and then monitor those conversations; it really doesn't matter what the content of the forum is. It is unethical.

Well, they're not called Private Conversations to begin with. They're just Conversations. As an owner or administrator, you sometimes have a responsibility to review this information, which is openly stated in the default XF Terms that all users agree to on registration (and the same on your own forum unless you've modified it).

All content you submit, upload, or otherwise make available to the Service ("Content") may be reviewed by staff members. All Content you submit or upload may be sent to third-party verification services (including, but not limited to, spam prevention services). Do not submit any Content that you consider to be private or confidential.

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws. You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.

 

[Ozzy47]

Not quite the same, that allows for reading, not monitoring.

 

[MoonShadows]

Well, they're not called Private Conversations to begin with. They're just Conversations. As an owner or administrator, you sometimes have a responsibility to review this information, which is openly stated in the default XF Terms that all users agree to on registration (and the same on your own forum unless you've modified it).

I know what they're called, but he called them Private Conversations, and let's face facts, when used, no one who uses the Conversation function has the expectation that anyone else but the recipient is seeing the message, so let's not play semantics here. Yes, they can be found in the data base, but I'll bet the overwhelming majority of forum owners don't do that. However, if you are looking for a tool, than you are looking to do that. Anyone who decides they should be snooping around on their forum looking at messages that members assume are private should either state up front they are not private or should delete the function. People can justify all they want about why they "need" to have a tool to do this.

BTW...aren't you the one who stated in your first post here that this isn't the place to debate this, and than got involved with the debate?

 

[kbryant414]

I know what they're called, but he called them Private Conversations, and let's face facts, when used, no one who uses the Conversation function has the expectation that anyone else but the recipient is seeing the message, so let's not play semantics here. Yes, they can be found in the data base, but I'll bet the overwhelming majority of forum owners don't do that. However, if you are looking for a tool, than you are looking to do that. Anyone who decides they should be snooping around on their forum looking at messages that members assume are private should either state up front they are not private or should delete the function. People can justify all they want about why they "need" to have a tool to do this.

BTW...aren't you the one who stated in your first post here that this isn't the place to debate this, and than got involved with the debate?

You are correct, and I'm trying not to debate right or wrong here. My last post was merely to let you know that what you called for ("don't call them Private Conversations and be up front with that fact with the members") was actually the default state. I'll just stay out of it going forward, though.

 

[SamJakob]

Is there still an interest in this?
I might develop it...

 

[Nirjonadda]

Is there still an interest in this?
I might develop it...

Yes

 

[MoonShadows]

UNETHICAL if you are going to call them private conversations. If you are going to call them monitored conversations, then that's fine.

 

[SamJakob]

UNETHICAL if you are going to call them private conversations. If you are going to call them monitored conversations, then that's fine.

To be honest, if you think that when you have an unencrypted 'private' conversation on the internet that nobody can or will read it, you're a bit naive.

Though, I'll agree that in some circumstances it might be unethical (I mean - on most forums, nobody is going to discuss private things about their life and the feature could be used to protect some users.)

 

[SamJakob]

Yes

Okay, I'll make it

 

[Mr Lucky]

It’s how it’s used that may or may not be ethical, not the concept per se. However I agree the use of the adjective “private” is not a good idea

 

[MoonShadows]

I know no conversation on the internet is "private" unless encrypted as do most people using the internet today, but to call them private conversations and then actively monitor them is two different things. While forum users know someone could read their private conversations, they do not expect and should not have someone monitoring them. That's just downright wrong.

 

[SamJakob]

I know no conversation on the internet is "private" unless encrypted as do most people using the internet today, but to call them private conversations and then actively monitor them is two different things. While forum users know someone could read their private conversations, they do not expect and should not have someone monitoring them. That's just downright wrong.

Yeah but this isn't necessarily active monitoring.
It could be if they received a report about a user scamming or abusing other users - then they would check out the user that was reported.

 

[MoonShadows]

The concept is unethical unless you let your members know that their conversations are not private. It's sneaky. Tell them up front that these are not private conversations if you are going to monitor them.

 

[SamJakob]

The concept is unethical unless you let your members know that their conversations are not private. It's sneaky. Tell them up front that these are not private conversations if you are going to monitor them.

Actually, in XenForo 2, they're just called 'Conversations'.

 

[MoonShadows]

I don't buy that. I think it is a control issue IMO.

 

[MoonShadows]

Even though they are called conversations, members have expectations of privacy. Tell them upfront that is not the case.

 

[Mr Lucky]

How about this addon

https://xenforo.com/community/threads/conversation-search-plus-paid.149100/