good thing it wasn’t (source: i was the third party recipient of those shared DMs; they were fully irrelevant to admin/mod action, abusive or otherwise)
How so? On Lemmy, at least, they are absolutely not private. It is just a way for two users to communicate without cluttering up a thread or something. Not a way to communicate in secret.
EDIT: Oh, I missed the joke. DM = Dick Move. Woosh
It’s private in the sense that the DMs were made between 2 people. They are public in the sense that the admins of the instance(s) can read the DMs. Just like admins of any server can read anything that’s not encrypted at source.
No. Admins can read any mail. And everyone has access to their own mail?! And I mean everyone can disclose anything in their posession. It’s just not allowed and unethical. Though in most cases you’re allowed to publish what you wrote yourself. You just may not publish other people’s secrets or info publicly.
You’re a shitposter, and I’ve told you I disagree with you more often than I agree. But fuck me, Drag is verifiably a piece of shit. When you don’t, and i say this with love, have your head up your ass…I’ll have your back.
I’m being catty. Hoping you vibe with the teasing. Work drinks, last joke before bed. Hope I nailed it… Just like I nailed your mum!
Not sure where you live, and I don’t know much about US law, but for me, it’s §203 and §206 StGB. Get’s you either fined, or up to a maximum of 1 or 5 years in jail. And especially §206 is super clear and specifically mentions electronic letters. I can assure you, I’m 100% correct on that.
If this is an accurate translation of the laws, 203 is about doctors, lawyers, government officials, etc. sharing priveledged information they had access to because of their jobs and 206 only applies to owners/employees of telecommunications or delivery services.
Edit: and to go one step further, Section 201: Violation of Privacy of Spoken Word means you can’t record phone calls without everyone’s permission, but Section 202: Violation of Privacy of Correspondence is about opening other people’s letters.
Uh, yes. I messed up the numbers. It’s §201 for audio recordings, §201a for private pictures, §202 for documents and letters with added paragraphs for “data” and electronic data and §206 specific for communication. Idk why I wrote §203, that’s for officials and doctors as you said. I meant §202. But yeah, the translation seems pretty accurate. Thanks for the link, I didn’t know we had that available. 😊
I included §206 since that’s likely what an admin is concerned with. And we mixed that in earlier in the argument. But I believe that paragraph is just a specialized and more harsh version of §202, to increase the maximum penalty from 1 year to 5 years, if it’s your job to handle other people’s communication. Which might apply to Fediverse admins, but it’ll fall back to the other paragraph anyway.
And by the way, there are some interesting quirks baked into those paragraphs. For example the one with pictures and videos is a lot more specific than the one with audio. So we get cases where it’s okay to record a video, but it has to be without sound.
It depends on the state. My state is a one party state, meaning any person that is party to a private conversation can legally reveal everything in it to the public.
Yeah, I figured we’d need to track the criminal down to a specific contry and state and then ask a lawyer to make sure. We’re super strict here. If someone uses the voice recorder app or takes a video with sound in a private conversation, that’s already a serious thing. Of course similar restrictions apply to phone calls, letters and electronic conversation.
Reading US law isn’t easy for me, I mean there’s always a lot involved and then there are laws on two or three levels plus exemptions and additional rules… I wonder if such a freedom in a one party state applies to people like whistleblowers and other unruly people as well…
I’m from Canada and live in the UK. You’re allowed to, barring some very specific circumstances, record or repeat any conversation you are party to. If you were posting a DM convo that your friend was having, taking pictures of their screen while they were out of the room and then putting it online. You’re fucked. If you are an active participant of a conversation/DM chain then as party to said communication you have the legal right to tell anyone, record it for reporting to the news, or the cops, or your gf.
The internet seems to suggest it’s illegal in the UK, for example to share recorded phone calls. According to the first page of Google, recording itself is fine, while sharing or making them public isn’t. But I haven’t looked up the specifics.
since the text is too small to be readable, nobody can tell; but in any case, privacy matters regardless of the classification. If drag cared they could’ve asked Ada beforehand if it would be okay.
Sharing DMs is a dick move.
Strangers on the Internet don’t owe you jack just because you send them a DM.
Not if it is exposing admin/mod abuse.
good thing it wasn’t (source: i was the third party recipient of those shared DMs; they were fully irrelevant to admin/mod action, abusive or otherwise)
it absolutely is.
How so? On Lemmy, at least, they are absolutely not private. It is just a way for two users to communicate without cluttering up a thread or something. Not a way to communicate in secret.
EDIT: Oh, I missed the joke. DM = Dick Move. Woosh
It’s private in the sense that the DMs were made between 2 people. They are public in the sense that the admins of the instance(s) can read the DMs. Just like admins of any server can read anything that’s not encrypted at source.
so… only admins can read the mail but the counterparty can’t disclose their own mail?
wtf sort of logic does this rely on
No. Admins can read any mail. And everyone has access to their own mail?! And I mean everyone can disclose anything in their posession. It’s just not allowed and unethical. Though in most cases you’re allowed to publish what you wrote yourself. You just may not publish other people’s secrets or info publicly.
Almost everything you said isn’t true. Point to the rule that says someone can’t disclose a DM they were part of? Unethical? Sure.
Make up your mind.
Also Drag is a troll. Has suggested that several people commit suicide. Drag doesn’t get a pass. Drag is a piece of shit. Don’t be Drag.
Killing it with this one…
Also, drag didn’t feel genuine and that’s a deal breaker for me
You’re a shitposter, and I’ve told you I disagree with you more often than I agree. But fuck me, Drag is verifiably a piece of shit. When you don’t, and i say this with love, have your head up your ass…I’ll have your back.
I’m being catty. Hoping you vibe with the teasing. Work drinks, last joke before bed. Hope I nailed it… Just like I nailed your mum!
OK, I’ll stop for real.
I think the best I am do is 30%, take it or leave it!
NO MUM
Not sure where you live, and I don’t know much about US law, but for me, it’s §203 and §206 StGB. Get’s you either fined, or up to a maximum of 1 or 5 years in jail. And especially §206 is super clear and specifically mentions electronic letters. I can assure you, I’m 100% correct on that.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html
If this is an accurate translation of the laws, 203 is about doctors, lawyers, government officials, etc. sharing priveledged information they had access to because of their jobs and 206 only applies to owners/employees of telecommunications or delivery services.
Edit: and to go one step further, Section 201: Violation of Privacy of Spoken Word means you can’t record phone calls without everyone’s permission, but Section 202: Violation of Privacy of Correspondence is about opening other people’s letters.
Uh, yes. I messed up the numbers. It’s §201 for audio recordings, §201a for private pictures, §202 for documents and letters with added paragraphs for “data” and electronic data and §206 specific for communication. Idk why I wrote §203, that’s for officials and doctors as you said. I meant §202. But yeah, the translation seems pretty accurate. Thanks for the link, I didn’t know we had that available. 😊
I included §206 since that’s likely what an admin is concerned with. And we mixed that in earlier in the argument. But I believe that paragraph is just a specialized and more harsh version of §202, to increase the maximum penalty from 1 year to 5 years, if it’s your job to handle other people’s communication. Which might apply to Fediverse admins, but it’ll fall back to the other paragraph anyway.
And by the way, there are some interesting quirks baked into those paragraphs. For example the one with pictures and videos is a lot more specific than the one with audio. So we get cases where it’s okay to record a video, but it has to be without sound.
It depends on the state. My state is a one party state, meaning any person that is party to a private conversation can legally reveal everything in it to the public.
Yeah, I figured we’d need to track the criminal down to a specific contry and state and then ask a lawyer to make sure. We’re super strict here. If someone uses the voice recorder app or takes a video with sound in a private conversation, that’s already a serious thing. Of course similar restrictions apply to phone calls, letters and electronic conversation.
Reading US law isn’t easy for me, I mean there’s always a lot involved and then there are laws on two or three levels plus exemptions and additional rules… I wonder if such a freedom in a one party state applies to people like whistleblowers and other unruly people as well…
I’m from Canada and live in the UK. You’re allowed to, barring some very specific circumstances, record or repeat any conversation you are party to. If you were posting a DM convo that your friend was having, taking pictures of their screen while they were out of the room and then putting it online. You’re fucked. If you are an active participant of a conversation/DM chain then as party to said communication you have the legal right to tell anyone, record it for reporting to the news, or the cops, or your gf.
The internet seems to suggest it’s illegal in the UK, for example to share recorded phone calls. According to the first page of Google, recording itself is fine, while sharing or making them public isn’t. But I haven’t looked up the specifics.
Nah. It doesn’t fucking matter.
Not exactly something that requires top secret classification, yeah?
since the text is too small to be readable, nobody can tell; but in any case, privacy matters regardless of the classification. If drag cared they could’ve asked Ada beforehand if it would be okay.
But I guess courtesy is a one-way to drag.
Drag is sorry to Ada for sharing the screenshot of her saying she’d talk to spujb. Drag won’t do it again.