Should we log some private chat?

[TimG]

Objections?

No objection. In fact, I would encourage you.

[jtfanclub]

chat logs are easily doctored (we have seen people try this).

chat logs are not always available.

Screenshots are harder to doctor, but most users don't know how to take screenshots.

 

I claim that my proposal preserves privacy; a "surrender" is not called for.

How about a compromise?

 

Rather than send the chat log to you, an encrypted copy of the chat log is sent to the user. The user won't be able to open and read it, and therefore can't alter it. If he wants to send it to you, he can send it via email (NOT via BBO), still encrypted, and you can decrypt and read it.

 

It would mean that if a person wished to prove what he said, he could, but nobody else could read that file since it's on his hard drive.

[pozeracz]

Hi all

 

Amazing... Log private chats? Whatfor? To prove that someone was rude? User chat log is not enough? Alt+print screen is not enough? I think it would be braking limits of privacy. Read George Orwell "1984" again pls, than do what you have to do.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S. The hell is paved with good intentions

[1eyedjack]

It is my understanding that this whole effort is being proposed to resolve disputes.

So far you and I are in agreement. In fact from Uday's second post it seems that I was at cross purposes with his original thoughts (he appears to be concerned about reporting to abuse where I am more concerned about TD functionality), but I do not see that that diminishes the point that I was trying to make.

 

The possible purposes of logging chat MIGHT be

a) to aid TDs in giving early and more accurate rulings in tourneys (my principal concern)

b) to make it easier for members to report (to abuse or whowever) what can already be achieved by way of screenshots (anything that makes life easier sounds good to me, and there appear to be no downsides if it can already be achieved by a less convenient method) and

c) to provide more reliable evidence as to the facts of what happened (this is a red herring as far as I am concerned. To be of any value it would have to be logged on the server rather than locally, and I would prefer that the available server space was reserved to hold a larger database of MyHands.)

 

The possible objections that I can think of are

a) invasion of privacy and

b) more important improvements to implement.

 

I don't intend to enter the argument about the prioritising of improvements. As Uday raised the issue in the first place I presume that he has the resources available and motivation to follow it through.

 

Privacy is to a large extent protected by educating individuals that (if implemented) chat (through BBO software) is not private even if directed at a named individual. So you guard your "tongue" and your privacy is secure. Your ultimate defence against invasion of privacy is not to say something that you do not want propagated. This is in fact good practice anyway, on the Internet. The recipient of any so-called private chat has the power to distribute it without your control to prevent it. There have been some high-profile corporate sackings resulting from "private" emails multiplying over the net. As has already been mentioned both the sender and recipient can personally log chat and take screenshots already, and you have no control over the recipient. I do not wish to belabour this point because it is only the second line of defence, the primary one being:

 

Privacy is further protected under my proposal by giving individuals the opportunity to disable any SERVER logging of private chat and, should the tourney host have the ability to override (which option could be excluded if sensitive) , avoiding such tourneys (just as you can currently choose to avoid tourneys that allow or, for that matter bar, kibbitzers). If the notion is that unpopular then TDs will not choose to override, and market forces will apply. The worst that could happen is that the provision of the facility turns out to be a waste of the programmer's time.

 

So, having demolished the concerns about privacy, and accepted Uday's interest as indicating that the management has the will and resources to progress this issue, that appears to dispense with all objections. There may be additional objections that I have not thought of, but if so they have yet to appear in this thread. Now that I have dispensed with your objections I trust that you will now support the idea.

 

How do you envision a TD going thru the mountain of chat that will surely be logged?  And during a tourney?  I don't think so.

I expect the TD to do his job, and I expect the software to be developed to facilitate that end. You do not expect the TD to do his job. Fine, you are entitled to that point of view, as long as we are clear on that point.

 

One of the more common and aggravating situations that a TD has to rule on is the occasion when a bid is apparently inconsistent with the explanation provided or with other expectations. You have repeatedly said that this is so uncommon as to be unworthy of any time spent on addressing it. I happen to disagree, and on that point we shall have to agree to differ. In such cases, if he were to do his job properly, the TD should determine the relevant facts, namely the information provided to opponents. A very limited amount of this information can be attached to the bids in the bidding dialog box, but it is far from uncommon for such explanations to be enhanced by private chat (not least because of severe limitations on the number of characters that can be attached to the explanation in the bidding window).

 

At present it is almost impossible for the TD to do his job of collecting facts. He has very little time in which to make a ruling at the time. After the event the players may have disappeared, and during the event but after the incident it is not exactly desirable for the TD to badger players for chat when they are thinking about another hand.

 

Under my proposal the TD would have the opportunity to scroll through the private chat that took place at the table. You say that this is impractical. Perhaps you are right but I think otherwise. You refer to a "mountain of chat", when with a modest amount of practice, particularly if the software is properly developed, he should be able to identify the relevant section almost immediately. Even under existing arrangements it will likely be the last few lines of chat that took place at the table in question.

 

I acknowledge that my proposal requires server logging of tourney chat, else it would not be instantaneously available to the TD. I would personally prefer to avoid that necessity, but even then (a) it can be encrypted as Uday suggests and (b) it can be deleted from the server a very short time after the tourney is concluded (earlier, in fact, than as proposed by Uday).

[1eyedjack]

Hi all

 

Amazing... Log private chats? Whatfor? To prove that someone was rude? User chat log is not enough? Alt+print screen is not enough? I think it would be braking limits of privacy. Read George Orwell "1984" again pls, than do what you have to do.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S. The hell is paved with good intentions

Ouch! I felt that knee jerking from way over here.

[pozeracz]

Need first aid kit, Jack? ))) Imho it is not simple and it is not funny, what we are talking about here. I think many people does not undarstand that our privacy is a part of our right to be free. Not many years ago some of us lived in countries where we had communist system. Phone calls were taped, letters read through. And it was everything normal and official, there were designated officials to do this job. Do you ask why? Explanation was always the same „we do this for welfare of all of us” Will you ask: „why? Those private calls were 99% Innocent, no doubt” Yes, it is true. On the other hand, what if one of those letters, or private conversations will be dangerous? Dangerous for system, but we are the system. So if something is harmful for system it is bad for all of us as well.. Do you understand? Many people lived their whole life in free world. They do not appreciate what really means “privacy”. No one ever demand to intercept when they called to their girlfriends or boyfriends. I know these are two different matters… Are they? So, is it worth of its price, what we are trying to do here? Just answer yourself. Forgive me pls, scale is not the same of course, but one may compare principles.

 

Take care of your knees. :P

[1eyedjack]

Need first aid kit, Jack? ))) Imho it is not simple and it is not funny, what we are talking about here. I think many people does not undarstand that our privacy is a part of our right to be free. Not many years ago some of us lived in countries where we had communist system. Phone calls were taped, letters read through. And it was everything normal and official, there were designated officials to do this job. Do you ask why? Explanation was always the same „we do this for welfare of all of us” Will you ask: „why? Those private calls were 99% Innocent, no doubt” Yes, it is true. On the other hand, what if one of those letters, or private conversations will be dangerous? Dangerous for system, but we are the system. So if something is harmful for system it is bad for all of us as well.. Do you understand? Many people lived their whole life in free world. They do not appreciate what really means “privacy”.  No one ever demand to intercept when they called to their girlfriends or boyfriends. I know these are two different matters… Are they?   So, is it worth of its price, what we are trying to do here? Just answer yourself. Forgive me pls, scale is not the same of course, but one may compare principles.

 

Take care of your knees. :P

I also have concerns about privacy, where those concerns are real. But I recognise that as a principle it is flexible. I don't see anyone giving up their internet connections despite that there is scope for their emails to be read by their ISPs. Why not? Because they perceive the risk of abuse to be low and the benefits of relaxing their principles to be high.

 

You can form your own opinion about the likelihood of server logging of chat being abused. I regard it as low. I have set out the benefits, which I regard as sufficient. You, and others, may think otherwise. However I have set out my reasons for thinking that the benefits are strong, and I have not yet seen a convincing argument otherwise.

 

I suspect that abuse@BBO gets a high traffic of emails as it is, placing some strain on BBO staff. A system of streamlining that traffic may be an additional benefit that I did not mention previously, largely invisible to the members (except indirectly by freeing up staff to program other improvements), but visible to the staff. On the other hand, if you make it easier to report to abuse then perhaps you will increase the incidents of such reports. Then again perhaps that is no bad thing, despite the strain on resources, if there are currently actions that should be reported to abuse that currently are not being reported.

 

You have chosen to ignore, presumably because they cannot be refuted, my arguments repeated in this thread that no loss of privacy results from my suggestion. You are not alone. No-one else has addressed the specific points that I raised. Instead, like the others you have latched onto the two key-words "logging" and "private" and rejected the ideas on autopilot. That is why I classed the response as knee-jerk, and why I remain of that opinion.

 

The point is moot. Irrational fears are no less frightening than rational ones. If, as is apparent from this thread, members have a critical fear of loss of privacy and perceive, however irrationally, that logging private chat constitutes such a loss, then there is no point in pursuing it. It is more important to retain the membership.

[pozeracz]

It is just like implanted spy-chip in head for everyone. Just in case... Feel discomfort?

What we are really talking about? I try to say, I do not wont any implants in my head. Some of us delibarate, how large should this implant be, and try to persuade this "xtra small design" will be quite comfortable. I do not belive this. It is very good idea in this topic to place special button in bb window to make screenshots. And I do not think we need anything else to protect bridgebase against rudeness.

Yes, we agree to some restrictions of privacy in many areas of life. But usualy it has to be very reasonable. In this case it is not. We do not sell drugs on bbo, we just play bridge.

[doofik]

Pozeracz:-)

 

Your analogy is so descriptive :P Bravo :P

 

Jola

[paulhar]

I don't see anyone giving up their internet connections despite that there is scope for their emails to be read by their ISPs. Why not? Because they perceive the risk of abuse to be low and the benefits of relaxing their principles to be high.

I personally like this analogy.

 

Allegedly, BBO perceives a problem and are trying to solve it. I have seen some proposals in here that don't invade privacy at all, such as (I might be adding some):

 

- encryption of private chats (perhaps only the user has the encryption key, and can send it to abuse along with the chat log that he can read)

 

- sending the email to the BBO user and letting him send it to abuse if he so desires

 

- requiring permission from both sides of the argument to view the chat

 

They are not trying to create a fascist state here - they are trying to make a more friendly BBO community. It appears that they would be receptive to any and all suggestions that would satisfy privacy issues.

 

Are some of you afraid that BBO management will lie and say that they are not looking at the private chats when they are, or that they will say only the user has the encryption keys when they have access to them also? If so, you should quit BBO now because they could very well be logging the private chat now and asking for permission! I don't think this is happening - but c'mon - if you don't trust them to be prudent, what's stopping them from being prudent under the current software structure?

[1eyedjack]

Pozeracz:-)

 

Your analogy is so descriptive :P Bravo :P

 

Jola

Actually it is not that great an analogy.

 

With a spy-chip in the brain you would have two concerns

1) a lack of control to limit the information that passes from the brain to the chip

and

2) a lack of control to disable the chip.

 

Those would be justifiable concerns. I would greatly fear a spy-chip in the brain for these reasons and, were they analogous to my proposal for BBO then I would sympathise.

 

In fact neither control is lacking in my proposal.

 

Back to the drawing board.

[spwdo]

Hi,

 

I thought BBO was logging chat already, i had once a discussion about booting someone from a tourney where yellow of bbo copied and paste the exact chat /conversation i had with that person. It was in an ongoing tourney so , minutes after the booting took place, he told me he looked the chat up so i m confused from this poll.

 

Can also remember someone telling me if u coud give exact time chat occurred it coud be looked up.

[luke warm]

monocled one: i'd be against private chat being logged for any reason... all you will accomplish is drive people to use messenger, yahoo, icq, trillian, etc

 

paul: it isn't about fear of or trust in the bbo management, the same as i (presently) don't fear and do trust the fbi... that's a non sequitur imo

 

i haven't changed my mind about this, but it seems that uday feels there is a necessity for some action here... so given that there will be action, his suggestion sounds the most fair... i don't believe, as someone suggested, that permission from both parties should be a prerequisite for an encrypted log being open... why would i, if i whispered sweet nothings to doofster and she got peeved about it, give my permission? neither do i think it would work for me to have my own encryption key, for the same reason...

 

i guess, since something is gonna be done, maybe a firm set of rules or criteria needs to be set by uday that must be met before he opens a log

[1eyedjack]

monocled one: i'd be against private chat being logged for any reason... all you will accomplish is drive people to use messenger, yahoo, icq, trillian, etc

I have no objection to that. Indeed I would encourage it.

 

A player might want secure private communication for one of three reasons:

 

a) to be unethical or cheat. This requires a conspirator. You might as well ignore this class of person for the purpose of this discussion. Objecting to the proposal simply because it does nothing to solve a problem that it is not designed to solve is a wasted objection.

 

b) to be abusive. This requires some cooperation by the recipient of the abuse, if it is to be transmitted by some means outside of the BBO interface. If you want to be privately rude to someone via ICQ it is not much use if the recipient will only accept communication through BBO.

 

c) for benign purposes. I see no harm in private chat for benign purposes being transmitted through ICQ or whatever.

 

Indeed, this development would enhance the BBO experience of ethical and benign players. So-called "private" chat to opponents in the course of a tournament that is transmitted through BBO could then be made freely and instantaneously available to TDs (and indeed to kibbitzers, to enhance their kibbitzing experience), without players being concerned that the opportunity for entirely private chat (via ICQ etc) is denied them.

[rona_]

Marc, are you sure it was private chat? Maybe they log private chat in tournaments? I thought this whole thread was about getting views on whether to log private chat or not, so I have to assume there must be a misunderstanding somewhere. ;)

[uday]

bbo currently logs some forms of public chat (MBC tables, Tourney tables, and that is all, i think).

 

We do not log chat I consider private, such as person->person chat, or ( IIRC) chat at a table in a private club or chat in a chatroom.

 

This has handicapped us when it comes to dealing with abuse. Abuse is a big issue here for many reasons and a prevalent form of abuse . To get rid of the nastier element of our society, we have to be able to look at chatlogs.

 

When the offence involves private chat, we currently ask for screenshots, or chat logs.

Many of us can't be bothered, or don't know how to do this.

 

So, many offences undoubtedly go unreported because the process of reporting abuse is needlessly difficult.

 

I would like to log private chat (for a day or so) for later retrieval in a manner that protects it from casual scrutiny by the sysadmin ( uday ) and that allows a user to decide when to release his own private chat to abuse@ , presumably as part of a complaint about someone else.

 

It is true that I have the power, if not the will, to log all private chat now, and all you have is my assurance that this is not happening now.

 

Unfortunately, the notion of logging private chat raises some people hackles.

 

I'm still leaning towards logging private chat, encrypted with the users password, then supplying a screen which the user can use when reporting to abuse@

 

Yellows (with one exception: U) won't have the ability to look at this log.

[doofik]

Well, here's my problem with this whole thing. Some comments exchanged between me and my friends are not fit for anyone else's eyes, neither for language nor for content. I'm a fiery sort, when provoked, given to some, how shall I term it, unlady-like comments. Would I want you to read them? Hell no ;)

 

Jola

[uday]

Jola,

 

so don't send them to abuse@ and no one will read them

[doofik]

Uday,

 

After your last comment I feel like Gilda Radner's "nevermind" mode. What am I missing here? Isn't your position that you'd have the ability to read all chat (if so inclined) even the private stuff?

 

Enlighten me please :D

 

Jola

[uday]

For the last time :D

 

only YOU will get to decide whether to forward YOUR private chat to abuse@ or not. If YOU do not forward it, no one (*) will be able to read it.

 

Make sense ? If you do not CHOOSE to forward your chat to abuse@, nothing is different, and no one(*) will be able to get read it.

 

 

(*) = Since all chat passes through my servers, you are not protected from me. You have never had this protection, beyond my assurances and disinclination. Logging the encrypted chat changes nothing.

[sceptic]

Personally, I would not like to see private chat logged, *edited the rest, Rain*

 

 

 

I would hate to see that start in here, I realise that you have an excellent censorship policy here and it seems to work.

 

DO NOT log private chat, if you dont want to talk to someone because they are rude to you, black list them and click ignore enemies, that works perfectly.

 

As for resolving abuse issues, then they do it once and then they are on ignore. problem solved. if to many people report them then may be just log that individuals private chat and inform them that you are doing so

[scoob]

bbo currently logs some forms of public chat (MBC tables, Tourney tables, and that is all, i think).

 

We do not log chat I consider private, such as person->person chat, or ( IIRC) chat at a table in a private club or chat in a chatroom.

 

This has handicapped us when it comes to dealing with abuse. Abuse is a big issue here for many reasons and a prevalent form of abuse . To get rid of the nastier element of our society, we have to be able to look at chatlogs.

 

When the offence involves private chat, we currently ask for screenshots, or chat logs.

Many of us can't be bothered, or don't know how to do this.

 

So, many offences undoubtedly go unreported because the process of reporting abuse is needlessly difficult.

 

I would like to log private chat (for a day or so) for later retrieval in a manner that protects it from casual scrutiny by the sysadmin ( uday ) and that allows a user to decide when to release his own private chat to abuse@ , presumably as part of a complaint about someone else.

 

It is true that I have the power, if not the will, to log all private chat now, and all you have is my assurance that this is not happening now.

 

Unfortunately, the notion of logging private chat raises some people hackles.

 

I'm still leaning towards logging private chat, encrypted with the users password, then supplying a screen which the user can use when reporting to abuse@

 

Yellows (with one exception: U) won't have the ability to look at this log.

this sounds like an alternative perfectly acceptable to people on both sides of this argument.

[epeeist]

....

DO NOT log private chat, if you dont want to talk to someone because they are rude to you, black list them and click ignore enemies, that works perfectly.

....

[excerpt only quoted]

 

I used to have ignore enemies selected. However, when I was in a tournament where an "enemy" was opponent, I didn't understand why I was getting no answer to my question about the meaning of a bid... :)

 

Similarly, if I recall correctly I've once or twice had an "enemy" as a partner in an individual tournament. Makes no sense to ignore chat (sayc p? 2/1? why won't you answer?! :) ).

 

I think Uday's proposed system, logging even private chat for a day or so, retrievable if necessary but otherwise deleted, is very reasonable. I had occasion, unfortunately, to make a report for the first time this evening and it was a pain to copy multiple screenshots to the clipboard, paste into a document, e-mail it to abuse, etc.

 

Thus, with Uday's proposal, the ONLY situation in which anyone other than the recipient would see private chat is if either you or they reported abuse. And if they reported abuse, then they could (by more tedious means) send exactly the same private chat as would be accessed under this system.

 

The only problem is if you don't trust BBO. And if you don't trust BBO, why are you sending chat they could access? :(

[peefco]

Uday, can you send me all private chats my wife have had with other guys then me ? I'll apreciate that.

peefco