Posting contents of an email or pm

Discussion in 'General Topics' started by rws, Feb 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rws

    rws Guest

    Why this nearly perfect joke is not quoted with smilieso_O
    Otherwise, hypotetically, somebody could take it seriously and then it could cause damage to reputation of Eset.
     
  2. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    It's not a joke, it's actually forbidden to disclose exact transcription of communication with Eset without prior consent.
     
  3. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    But we could paraphrase? Or communicate generally the concepts or similar unless confidentiality is requested?

    :)
     
  4. rws

    rws Guest

    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    Ok, but...

    Is it forbidden here in the forum? If so, I must have agreed with something I didn't notice. Search "forbidden" in FAQ didn't return any hits.
    Could you please clarify.

    Or, is it forbidden by some law even outside this forum? If so, how is it possible? Law of which country is it? To whom does it apply?
    But it cannot be this, because in that case probably offended party would be entitled to sue offender, not delete posts.

    Thanks.
     
  5. Happy Bytes

    Happy Bytes Guest

    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    Don't make laugh... So you really suggest that we should first sue our own customers instead of telling them that we do not like that emails getting published here instead of kept confidential?

    I repeat it the last time: DON'T POST 1:1 EMAILS HERE exchanged with anybody from ESET OR SOMEONE ELSE, EVEN IF THE EMAIL CAME DIRECTLY FROM HELL. Period!
     
  6. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    That is a good question and my following response is based solely on what I as a Wilders Security Forum Global Moderator will do if contents of an e-mail is posted in a thread regardless of the Forum it is posted in.

    As per our Wilders Security Forum TOS I will always remove anything that can be construed as "invasive of a person's privacy". To me there is no grey area and as such this action will be taken irrespective of the Forum it's posted in.

    Given the above explanation you agreed to it when you posted to the Wilders Security Forum in accordance with Wilders TOS.
     
  7. rws

    rws Guest

    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    So, it IS in the forum ruleso_O
    What if I hypotetically would want to post 1:1, would I get banned? If yes, then according to what?
    May I have some information, please, instead of threats? Dark ages were supposed to be over. Or not? :D
     
  8. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    Posting the contents of an email without both parties permission is considered an invasion of privacy. see the screen shot of the forums tos
     

    Attached Files:

  9. AshG

    AshG Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2005
    Posts:
    206
    Location:
    East TN
    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    The rules debate is one that will never end, given the way many people think about online communications outlets.

    Whether or not we are members of a forum, we post at the leisure of the board's owners. Even if something is not covered specifically in the ToS, the owners and those charged with maintaining the community's viability (usually called "mods") have the leeway to do what they deem necessary to protect the forum and its participants.

    There is no completely free speech at a forum like this. There can't be. Posting an email 1:1 or posting NDA/private information could be ruinous to a company, an employee, or even Regular Joe Poster. If such information was allowed to be posted, it would unfortunately be in many companies' best interests to cease sponsorship and/or participation. There may also be legal recourse to the forum (for allowing private communication to be posted) and the poster (for posting said private information).

    There will never be a list of rules that covers 100% of the situations that may occur. The owners and mods of this board exercise a good (and, sadly, rare) amount of common sense in the decisions they make. To keep this as an effective community, they have to expect a similar level of maturity and common sense by the posters as well.

    I think the easiest way to sum this up would be thusly: Fighting this battle is like pissing into the wind - it's a losing battle. This isn't a fight worth trying.
     
  10. rws

    rws Guest

    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3

    *Communication with Eset* has nothing to do with person's privacy. It could be confidentiality, which is not mentioned in the forum rules and should be more like Eset employee's concern.

    So if I receive email from Eset support, I cannot quote it here?
    Or, after all it, will be - if Eset doesn't like something, it's forbidden?
     
  11. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Re: Usman(Shanijee) talks Eset about Nod32 v3


    Your question has already been answered, it is against the forums tos (rules) to post the contents of an email or pm without BOTH parties permission. I can't make it any clearer than that.

    bigc
     
  12. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    Since this topic is more about Wilders Forum policy than a Nod32 Forum wish....I have taken the liberty to split the relevant posts out of this ongoing thread and continue this discussion in a more appropriate Forum.
     
  13. Happy Bytes

    Happy Bytes Guest

    I have to add something more that people understand that it is not only a rule just for the sake of having another rule.

    It's more than only a disrepect infront of the email sender. You can bring the sender into serious trouble with such actions. The email could become a official statement of the company once it's published. If somebody asks for example a distributor regarding product release dates or new product features and the distributor replies with his personal oppinion then this leads to the fact that it looks like an offical statement when this gets published. Such things producing a lot of trouble - everyone would get involved into this from the headquaters to the distributor, maybe even the user who published this.

    Personally i wouldn't mind if someone would forward a email regarding virus analysis to a friend or even to some other AV company ala "ESET says this is a virus". THAT is normal behavior. The difference is there that almost every AV professional knows each other. (at least from the core engine or VirusLab) But i would get pissed too if someone publishes such emails without asking me in some forum.

    I wasn't affected by the latest problem with this - Marcos was. And i do understand and support him regarding this. People do destroy their own superior support step by step by themself. Now just imagine what happens if you post a Real Name followed by email address in a public forum. There are enough so called email spiders just for collecting emails. 2 days later you have daily 5000 more spam emails. This forces a company to other support methods - maybe even with temporary email addresses. In our case we try that one support issue is handled by one supporter - this makes sure that the problem is solved fast as possible instead of catching up from scratch every time another person gets involved.

    Next thing is, that you avoid with such cases the normal work flow.
    Someone saves this email and writes directly to this person regardingless what problem he has. This email would have been addressed in the first instance to someone else if done in a regular way. No suprise here if some requests keeping unanswered here.

    Mike
     
  14. rws

    rws Guest

    Of course, I completely agree with what is said, but I was not talking about that. If the comment was something like *please do not...* and the contents snipped, of course I wouldn't say anything. But something like *forbidden* is asking for explanation.

    It was attempted to turn it into privacy issue. But, emails in the company's name have no privacy(it was clearly said *communication with Eset* - not personal communication with Eset employees)! It could be confidentiality, but that is more the problem of company itself. Such emails, if not specifically stated, actually are official statements of the company. If they just *look* so, it is a problem of the company too. If you do not want it to become public, simply keep it inside your company!

    That said, it of course would be ridiculous if company would be harmed in its own forum. That means that it would be really better if it was not allowed to publish any emails (and clearly stated in TOS.).
    But covering own mistakes by shouting *forbidden*, when it is not, should not be tolerated by anyone.
     
  15. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Hi rws,

    In a nutshell: we do regard all email addressed to an individual as private, no matter the source.

    regards,

    paul
     
  16. rws

    rws Guest

    I am NOT arguing with this, neither I am going to violate - even though it is not properly stated in the TOS, explanation by administrator or moderator should be enough for everybody to comply.

    But,
    Please note disclose(not - post in this forum!).
    THIS is what I am arguing about, because laws of my country do not forbid anything like that.
    So, I was asking a question - which law is regulating disclosure(not posting in this forum) of communication with Eset, because I believe that all moderators taken together cannot forbid something that is not forbidden by law.

    And, to be even more clear, I was asking this mostly to make sure that if (hypotetically) I decided to ridicule some company's support in public, I wouldn't end up in the jail, in case that strange law really existed.
    Sorry, I can't make it any clearer than that.:D :D :D

    Of course, I was taken away by the possibility to just argue, sorry for that :oops:
    And, just to add some oil in the fire - what is this -
    Isn't that a real name - i.e. violation of privacy? Or, some joke I didn't really understand?o_O
     
  17. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    We don't and will not provide into detail what's intended by ...false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane.... Those terms do speak for themselves and we don't feel the urge to have a TOS up ten pages in total ;)

    No offense intended, but we do focus on the rules set over on this board. And those rules are plain and simple: not allowed. As for general legal issues: that's out of our reach and subsequently no issue to be discussed over on this board.

    See my comment above as for general legal issues. Once more: that's no board issue.

    Nice try - but let's keep issues separated, as you have been doing until now. Seems you do have an axe to grind on overall legal issues. In case you also do have a problem with our board/TOS: please drop one of our Administrators a PM or email.

    regards,

    paul
     
  18. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,179
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    o_O In the United States of America, there is such a thing as the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States (freedom of speech). To what extent, if any can a public forum regulate this? The laws pertaining to this have been fairly well established, and the F.C.C., in the United States has outlined what can and can not be put out over public communications, I would think that no other rules or regulations would be upheld in a federal court of law.

    Thanks
    Wildman
     
  19. snapdragin

    snapdragin Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Posts:
    8,415
    Location:
    Southern Ont., Canada
    Hi Wildman,

    I'm afraid you've asked a question on a subject that if you did a search on Freedom of Speech (or better suited, Freedom of Expression), you'd find that it is not absolute, in that it applies in some areas but not in all. And you'd be sitting at your computer for a month of Sunday's reading every example ever written trying to find information in layman terms to figure out where it fits, and where it doesn't. :doubt:

    Let's make it more simple. Say you invite a friend over for dinner. He's your guest for the weekend in your home. Suddenly, for reasons unknown to you, he starts acting like a jerk and begins to trash your house and use profanity towards your family members. Of course this would anger you, so you'd ask him to stop, or leave.

    Say he replies with, "No! I have a Constitution that gives me Freedom of Speech. So I can say what I want, where I want, when I want, and to whom I want."
    You reply... "Not in my house you can't!"
    He replies... "You can't stop me. I have rights!"
    You reply... "You have no rights in my home to disrespect me and my family and abuse my hospitality."
    (afterall, you too have a right to protection)
    He replies... "Try and stop me!"
    You contact the proper authorities, and he is removed.

    Same thing applies here. This forum is personal property, and the members here are guests of the owners of this forum. When they enter our 'house', there are house rules that apply, which they do agree to before entering. Now, some change their mind and decide they don't want to abide by our house rules any long. Maybe they think because they can come here freely, there's many people here they don't know, so it must be a "Public" place where they can do what they want, where they want, when they want, and to whom they want.

    Of course that's not the way it is because this is NOT a publically owned and operated forum. No one's government owns this forum. No one's government pays the bills here. No members are asked to pay or donate in order to register and participate here. This is a non-profit, privately owned and operated forum, where people are invited to come to discuss computer security and help each other. In other words, private property with house rules - TOS.

    And just like your home is privately owned and financially supported by yourself, you would expect other people to respect your private property, and your right to protect it. After all, your 'home' is not publically owned and operated. So those that you would invited into your home would be expected to respect you and your family, and abide by your house rules while they're there (and hopefully while they are outside of it, but then, they could be on someone else's private property and you don't have any say in in the matter. Though, they might not be welcomed back in your home again.)

    Respect and consideration for your host, their property, and their house rules, really isn't too much to ask.

    Here's an article written by Kathy, an Admin at theadminzone forums, that explains it quite well.

    Regards,

    snap
     
  20. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,179
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    :D I would agree with a good deal of what has been said in the previous post if I believed that any forum open to the public could be truly considered private. However once a post is made that is available to the public, I think this no longer applies, I don't think any one individual or company can own the public air ways or the inter net for that matter. Now in most countries the laws are not made by private individuals. We may not always agree or even like the law, but the way I look at it is we have three (3) choices. (1) Obey, (2) Disobey and (3) Work to have the laws changed.

    If an individual or company breaks the law then he/she/it is most assuredly held accountable, and that would apply in private as well as in public. As in all cases ignorance of the law is never held as an acceptable excuse.

    To use the above post analogy, let's say a private individual were to show a porno movie in his/her home, now while some may find that very objectionable, no laws would have been broken. Now lets say that this was done but the movie went out over the net where it was available to all for viewing, I think this would be an entirely different matter.

    Thanks
    Wildman
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2006
  21. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,179
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    o_O I heard a decision today on a talk radio station in regards to freedom of speech. The host made the statement that in and of it's very nature freedom of speech entailed the right to offend. Now that got me to thinking, this is a very true statement. While we may not always like what others have to say, they should still have the right to say it. Many people have given their lives over the years to defend this right.

    Thanks
    Wildman
     
  22. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,764
    Location:
    Texas
    A lot of companies add a message to their email communications similar to the following:

     
  23. MikeBCda

    MikeBCda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Posts:
    1,627
    Location:
    southern Ont. Canada
    The point was made, a couple of times, that every website in the world is owned and operated by someone. And whether you like it or not, the "in my own house" rule applies everywhere -- the site operator has the final say on what is or isn't acceptable.

    As for free speech, it's also been pointed out that there's no such thing, at least not unrestricted, even in the US. If you violate the anti-hate laws, or yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you will -- and quite rightly -- be charged with a serious criminal offense.
     
  24. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,179
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    :D So is almost every news paper owned by some one, but freedom of speech sure applies to them. Yes house rules can apply, but let those rules violate the law and see how long they stand up as someone is either fined or hauled off to jail. Freedom of speech has been debated and defined in courts of law and in houses of government, and not been determined at the will of those who pick and chose when to apply it.

    Ask any individual who has served in the U.S.A. military and they will tell you that they have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I leave it up to you to figure out exactly what that means. I would also remind quiet a few people that because of these principles they enjoy the freedom they have today, and it was not that long ago that this could have all come to an abrupt end. No I do not take this subject lightly, and flat state that I and quiet a few other individuals have put their lives on the line to ensure that they remain.

    Thanks
    Wildman
     
  25. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I served in the US military, fought and killed to defend the constitution and our way of life and I believe in free speech but there has to be limits to everything.

    bigc


    Now we don't want to get to political here ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.