News:

SMF 2.1.4 has been released! Take it for a spin! Read more.

Main Menu

PM Attachments MOD - NEED YOUR VOTE PLEASE!

Started by SoLoGHoST, August 10, 2009, 10:51:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Should Administrators be able to view all Attachments sent via PM by all users??

YES
11 (45.8%)
NO
12 (50%)
I DON'T CARE
1 (4.2%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: August 15, 2009, 10:51:07 AM

SoLoGHoST

Ok, My PM Attachments MOD is about to be APPROVED by the SMF Customization Team, and 1 suggestion they offered is to remove the ability for Administrators to browse through all attachments sent from members via Personal Messages, since this kinda takes away the Personal part of the Message.  As it is now, Administrator's have the ability to view and/or download any attachment(s) sent through a Personal Message from any member(s), please note, they can not see the message that was sent, just the attachments (refer to pic attached in this post please).  I have thought of this before since this could be a concern by Admin's for such content that would warrant a BAN/Dismemberment from that forum, etc..  However, if Admin's can not view attachments they have no way of knowing (other than if the member(s) receiving the attachment lets the Admin know of such content) that the content is deemed inappropriate.  And no way of knowing if such content breaches the Terms of Use Agreement for that particular forum.

So, in short, I would very much appreciate all of your votes on this as soon as possible so that I can make any changes, if needed, to the MOD before 1000's of people begin downloading it and installing it on their forums.

EDIT - I am not sure, however, there may also be action taken from the Server who is hosting the site, if they find material not suitable according to their standards.  In which case the Person who has bought the domain will be held responsible!  So, please also keep this in mind as well.

Thanks :)

RE-EDIT - Just occurred to me that I am asking you all to vote on something that you can't even see.  So attached is what the Browse Files -> PM Attachments looks like in the Admin Settings, and same thing applies for PM Thumbnails.  This is the extent of it all!  Clicking on each filename either pops up a window for you to view it (if image), or allows you to download it (if non-image).  Same exact thing as the Attachments in Posts.

Arantor

Considering that SMF considers messages between users to be private, such that there is no interface for it, I would have to argue that the same should apply to attachments.

If the server admin wants to manually examine posts and files, that's up to them, however.

SoLoGHoST

Yes, I originally felt this way from the beginning, however, after speaking with a collegue, and a Forum Administrator, on this about several issues that could arise from not allowing Administrator's this option, have changed my mind.  Now, I'm at the point of whatever you guys think is what I'll do.

Arantor

There are arguments both ways, just as there are arguments both ways about allowing admins to have access to PMs other than via raw DB access.

SMF's stance on PM access is unlikely to change, and thus I would have to argue that attachments in PMs would be the same, I think.

Uhura!

I voted "no" because of SMF's privacy policy.

Perhaps a happy medium would be disabling the ability to attach things to PMs if the concern is security.
:) Our Parenting Spot is an online parenting community for fathers, mothers, grandparents, teachers, and family service professionals. 8) We also provide low cost advertising options for authors, family service providers, and businesses with family friendly products and services. ;D Visit us @ www.OurParentingSpot.net!

Shortie

Okay and honest opinion from me

At the end of the day the Forum owner has responsibility for what is posted and displayed from his or her forum

So the owner has the right to view all content and the easier it is the better - This mod adds a serious amount of functionality to a forum and as so must be able to be policed

Just my view


Shortie

Quote from: Uhura! on August 10, 2009, 11:45:08 AM
I voted "no" because of SMF's privacy policy.

Perhaps a happy medium would be disabling the ability to attach things to PMs if the concern is security.

Sorry here but what is the difference from looking at the Database or having a nice front end to look at it

Shortie

#7
Sorry to keep going on here

Does any one think that GOOGLEMAIL cannot be read by the government if there is an issue


Okay I will shut up for now

SoLoGHoST

#8
No, keep going, these are very good points and I would like to hear others opinions on this as well. :)

EDIT:
Quote from: Uhura! on August 10, 2009, 11:45:08 AM
...Perhaps a happy medium would be disabling the ability to attach things to PMs if the concern is security.
The whole point of this MOD is to be able to attach things to PMs.  You can disable it after installing it, sure, but what is the purpose of having this MOD installed if you don't plan on using it.  The reason I created this MOD was started from a MOD Request here at SMF, so there is a need for it.  But just need to know how far that need goes via this POLL.

Thanks :)

Shortie

Cheers SoLo

If they are taken the wrong way I apologize so apologies all round

But having worked for large organizations and EMail providers what I say is true even if you do not want to believe it


SoLoGHoST

No need to apologize.  This is the start of something real man.  This is how mountains are made and babies are born ;)  This is what separates the men from the boys and the ladies from the girls.  In short, this is all GOOD STUFF!

Arantor

This has been discussed numerous times, both publicly and privately - at least the ability to browse PMs - and time and again the decision has been that SMF will not allow admins to browse PMs. I see no reason that they will change this stance for attachments, even if the litigious attack surface is larger.

Kays

I agree that the body portion of a PM should be private. but the site owner does have the ultimate responsibility for what's on the server. Most hosts do prohibit certain types of files. So the option should be there to at least view all files uploaded. At the minimum the admin should have the ability to notify the offender or to know who it is.

I do realise that SMF now encrypts file names and hosts seldom check. But still..  :)

If at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer. If that fails, read the manual.
My Mods

Shortie

Last one from me

QuoteEmail

When you send us an email you provide us with your name and email address, along with any other information you provide in the body of your email. This information may be shared with persons outside of Simple Machines only when they are required to receive this information in order to respond effectively to your query. We retain all email correspondence indefinitely in order to improve our services according to customer feedback.

So where does it say that this does not pertain to PM's

kaamaru

Yes if the person sending the PM knows about it.

SoLoGHoST

Quote from: Arantor on August 10, 2009, 12:13:40 PM
This has been discussed numerous times, both publicly and privately - at least the ability to browse PMs - and time and again the decision has been that SMF will not allow admins to browse PMs. I see no reason that they will change this stance for attachments, even if the litigious attack surface is larger.

Please note, don't want to cause any confusion here, but this was just a suggestion from the SMF Customization Team, not a demand!  That means, they suggest that I do this, however, if I don't, they will still APPROVE this mod.

Shortie

So you put in the Forum rules Simple from my point of view

Kai Summers

I vote yes, I would hate to think that it would happen but if a group of paedophiles exchanged inappropriate material through the use of an SMF PM, there would be a serious legal issue to contend and as an Admin I would want to discourage such behaviour by making people aware that attachments can be monitored.

Regards

Kai

Shortie

Yo Thank you, someone who sees my point of view

I am not a prude but just respect my members well being

SoLoGHoST

Good Point, on that note, I could even add underneath of where the user attaches file(s) to a PM, a sentence or 2 explaining that "PM Attachments can be monitored" or something along those lines.  So that all users of a usergroup that has the ability to add attachments to PM will know of this.  Sounds Good to me!

Shortie

Awesome idea

Even better if the Admin could write the words just a little bit of DB work there

Shortie

SoLoGHoST

Sure, that is very possible.  Can have a default sentence in case the Admin never gets around to editing it.  Then they can just change it in Admin -> Forum -> Attachments and Avatars -> PM Attachment Settings if they want to.

Shortie

Perfect

Just covers the Admin's Butt

Now we are getting there - and all should be happy

Just that I am a little paranoid sometimes


Arantor

I thought you were saying that it was a requirement. Certainly the official line is that PMs should not be exposed, so I am a little surprised that they are only making it a suggestion to disallow admin access.

SoLoGHoST

#24
Please re-read the first post Arantor.
Ok, here is the quote from the SMF Customization Team via my Personal Message received from them on this:
Quote•Suggestion: The browse area in the admin provides an easy way for users with necessary permissions to view any personal attachment. We feel that just like personal messages, attachments tied to personal messages are private too. So we suggest that you remove the ability to view any attachments even for users who can manage attachments. However, this is merely a suggestion just as the title suggests.

The reason I have posted this POLL and not submitted by MOD for approval just yet, is that I highly respect SMF's suggestions, though I'm not always agreeing with them either.  So I want all of your opinions on this which I also highly respect, since you are the targetted audience for this MOD, not the SMF Customization Team.

kaamaru

Quote from: Arantor on August 10, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
I thought you were saying that it was a requirement. Certainly the official line is that PMs should not be exposed, so I am a little surprised that they are only making it a suggestion to disallow admin access.

Good point im changing my vote!

Shortie

Okay I am standing down from my stump now as you have no integrity from an admins point of view


@ calumks


1. Cracked apps - You will never have to buy an app again!

Do you think this is a good link to have in your sig or should I report it

It is the same principle

Arantor

Quote from: SoLoGHoST on August 10, 2009, 01:10:16 PM
The reason I have posted this POLL and not submitted by MOD for approval just yet, is that I highly respect SMF's suggestions, though I'm not always agreeing with them either.  So I want all of your opinions on this which I also highly respect, since you are the targetted audience for this MOD, not the SMF Customization Team.

For the record, I am not on the Customization Team, and in fact I should note that in a recent debate I was very strongly arguing the opposite corner, in favour of admins having access to PMs since they already HAVE access anyway, just not through a nice UI.

I am also likely to use this mod on one site I use, so I am also the target audience.

Shortie

Thumbs UP Arantor

I think SoLo is just trying to be upfront and hence a little debate - This mod is AWESOME and works very well

But sometimes people just need to look beyond their comfort zone and look from an Admins point of view

I use SMF and very happy with it so much so that I even Publish my themes for everyone to use and again I think this is what SoLo is doing sharing his creations

SoLoGHoST

#29
Yes, Arantor, I really appeciate your opinions on this!  Trust me, they do not go unheard.  Especially coming from another MOD Author's standpoint.  Very Much Appreciated!! :)

EDIT:  Please note Arantor, I did not assume you were a part of the SMF Customization Team in that post, so where you got that idea, I don't know...

SoLoGHoST

#30
And, just for everyone here, here is the PM Message I sent back to SMF Customization Team and their response.

From:  SoLoGHoST
QuoteHello Again, I have created a POLL for this suggestion and have given it 5 days til it expires.  Despite my earlier PM sent to you, can you please hold off on approving this MOD until after the poll has expired, which will determine what I will do concerning this.

SMF Customization Team Replied back with
QuoteOf course, it would be fine for us.

So just so you all know that I am taking this POLL Very Seriously!

EDIT:  Attached a picture of the area of the Admin Settings that is what this POLL concerns.  In the very 1st POST you can see it there.

FiveSeven

I believe that since the data can be retrieved from the db anyway, a nice front-end mod for easy access certainly wouldn't be an issue for admin only access.  My vote is yes. 
DMHolt57

SoLoGHoST

#32
Thanks for your input FiveSeven, though, I do not feel that that is a strong, solid, argument for a YES, since just about all data can be retreived from the Database, though I think we all agree that Personal Messages, body area, should be kept private, even though we can extract it from the Database as well. 
Don't get me wrong, I thank you for your reply, however, I think the strongest argument IMO for a YES is that PM Attachments can lead to users abusing this:  paedophiles exchanging inappropriate material as Kai pointed out, not abiding by the Terms of Use agreement for that particular forum, letting users know, up-front, that PM Attachments can be/are monitored so that this could help to discourage any potential misuse of it, members sending viruses to other members, and many more areas of concern, that in the end, when all is said and done, the Site Owner is held responsible for such content, not the user who posted it.  So this makes a good Point, and in such a case, makes it very much necessary to have this feature!  Since, without this feature, how could you know of this happening at your forums?  Unless someone reports it to you, you are left in the dark as an Admin.

Well, just had to give my 2 cents. 

FYI:  I am neutral, I honestly don't care how this goes either way.  Honestly, just want you all to be happy using this MOD and have as much FUN using it as I did creating it.  So now I guess I am taking another request for the same MOD...lol, but atleast you get what you want, and nothing more or less.

Arantor

Quote from: SoLoGHoST on August 10, 2009, 03:30:59 PM
Don't get me wrong, I thank you for your reply, however, I think the strongest argument IMO for a YES is that PM Attachments can lead to users abusing this:  paedophiles exchanging inappropriate material as Kai pointed out, not abiding by the Terms of Use agreement for that particular forum, and many more areas of concern, that in the end, when all is said and done, the Site Owner is held responsible for such content, not the user who posted it.  So this makes a good Point, and in such a case, makes it very much necessary to have this feature!  Since, without this feature, how could you know of this happening at your forums?  Unless someone reports it to you, you are left in the dark as an Admin.

This is ultimately the same argument that you use to argue for useful UI for admins to the PMs. The same users can happily exchange links and related text right now, and the admin is just as in the dark unless it is reported.

I've asked about this before, the response was that it's still a privacy issue, but that unscrupulous admins can scour the DB. The subsequent argument raised was that admins who do use such features have questionable judgement, before leading into that the tools should not be made available in case of admins breaching user privacy (though if they have DB access they can do that anyway)

Other software allows this, SMF considers that it is inappropriate to do so in a core feature; note also that no mod exists on the mod site to allow admins to see PMs, nor will one be allowed. (This is not to say that they haven't been written - just SMF will not allow them on its site)

kat

#34
For what it's worth, I know how to read PMs and I have a notice on my forum, telling the members that I can.

I don't. Mostly out of priciple, but also, coz I can't be arsed!

Think is...

I DID read someone's, once.

Why?

Well...

My forum is for a clan in an online game and someone was heavily suspected of spying for a rival clan.

This was borne-out by the messages he'd been sending.

As I had that notice, warning them that I COULD read them, I was covered me, as far as I was concerned. Simply because I had something like "I CAN read them. If you don't want me to read a message, don't send it. It's the only way you can be 100% certain."

On a "Normal" forum, though (If there IS such a thing), I'd say that "Private" should mean exactly that.

SoLoGHoST

Quote from: Arantor on August 10, 2009, 03:48:07 PM
Quote from: SoLoGHoST on August 10, 2009, 03:30:59 PM
Don't get me wrong, I thank you for your reply, however, I think the strongest argument IMO for a YES is that PM Attachments can lead to users abusing this:  paedophiles exchanging inappropriate material as Kai pointed out, not abiding by the Terms of Use agreement for that particular forum, and many more areas of concern, that in the end, when all is said and done, the Site Owner is held responsible for such content, not the user who posted it.  So this makes a good Point, and in such a case, makes it very much necessary to have this feature!  Since, without this feature, how could you know of this happening at your forums?  Unless someone reports it to you, you are left in the dark as an Admin.

This is ultimately the same argument that you use to argue for useful UI for admins to the PMs. The same users can happily exchange links and related text right now, and the admin is just as in the dark unless it is reported.

I've asked about this before, the response was that it's still a privacy issue, but that unscrupulous admins can scour the DB. The subsequent argument raised was that admins who do use such features have questionable judgement, before leading into that the tools should not be made available in case of admins breaching user privacy (though if they have DB access they can do that anyway)

Other software allows this, SMF considers that it is inappropriate to do so in a core feature; note also that no mod exists on the mod site to allow admins to see PMs, nor will one be allowed. (This is not to say that they haven't been written - just SMF will not allow them on its site)
Some good points here...

First, we are not talking about links, and plain old text.  We are talking about full fledged attachments.  Attachments that can be anywhere up to what the admin has set in the settings.  Attachments that can also take up a ton of space on the server as opposed to just text and links.

I understand this and please know that this does not allow a user to see a PM, just the attachment that was sent.

Bytheway, all I'm saying is that you guys take all of this into consideration while casting your vote.  Since, if I make changes to get rid of the viewing/downloading PM Attachments, I will not go back to adding this in.  Since it will be FINAL!

Arantor

I realise where you're coming from, very much.

But the argument stands that a private message is considered private, and attachments just the same. Both take up space on the server. Both have the same issues with respect to impropriety (or not). The only difference is actually semantic; one is text, the other is binary, with the latter being bigger. There is no other difference.

In the context of a post, is the attachment part of that post, or is a separate entity? It's part of it, barring the technical nitty-gritty, very often a post and its attachments are related, even unified. Interface and tech details aside, they are a single item. Why is this different?

kat

Again, though, you could always put a notice on your forum, letting everybody know that this can be done.

karlbenson

As for can see from how this topic has been discussed there are a plethora of different opinions.
(much the same as with the requests that have been made for it to be core functionality within smf).

Some points I'd like to share.
a) It would be worth a visable notice to the effect that Attachments via pm are subject to potential perusal by the admins of the forum.  Its best to be upfront with your membership.
b) You may also want to consider the legal ramifications of asserting control/policing of the attachments.

Sometimes being blind is better than seeing if its going to require extra work for you.

SoLoGHoST

Arantor, I see you fail to see the difference between text and attachments, as anyone can see this, here are a few obvious examples:

1. Text can not have viruses (sure they can link to OFFSITE viruses, but than again, you won't be hosting it), Attachments can!

2. Text can not have naked pictures of little 5 years old (sure they can link to somewhere OFFSITE, but atleast we know that you won't be hosting it), Attachments can!

Anyways, like I said, It's all good to me!  It's just you guys that have to live with it, or without it.

Arantor

1. Actually, not entirely true. Unless you allow executable attachments, this won't work. And in fact, you can link to a dodgy website with TinyURL, bit.ly, is.gd or one of the many other similar services with 'Here's a picture of my cat.' as a random example.

2. True, they can. As can regular PMs with img tags.

I'm just trying to point out the consequences of allowing this - there are consequences either way.

SoLoGHoST

#41
Quote from: karlbenson on August 10, 2009, 04:04:49 PM
As for can see from how this topic has been discussed there are a plethora of different opinions.
(much the same as with the requests that have been made for it to be core functionality within smf).

Some points I'd like to share.
a) It would be worth a visable notice to the effect that Attachments via pm are subject to potential perusal by the admins of the forum.  Its best to be upfront with your membership.
b) You may also want to consider the legal ramifications of asserting control/policing of the attachments.

Sometimes being blind is better than seeing if its going to require extra work for you.

a. If the POLL says YES, wouldn't have it any other way.
b. hmm, never actually thought of it that way...

It's a pleasure to receive any comments from an actual SMF Developer.  Thank You for your time as I know it is very precious.

Like I said, you make some very good points there Arantor, so glad you joined into this conversation.  Though with .zip attachments, viruses can still live.  Not all viruses are in the form of .exe files.  There are .bat files, and many more, can be disguised as anything really.

Thanks, and we'll see how this turns out.  Still 4 more days and some odd hours to go before it's all over.  Perhaps I should've make it less time...lol

MoorMan

My vote is YES and I agree with all that has been stated by the other Yes voters.
Although not running a forum at the moment I have run them in the past and used to run a few BBS's in the very early days, ALL users were made aware that the sysop/admin could and can see all that was posted, this was not being nosey just covering my butt for legal reasons. The ball game has changed since those day's and the authorities seem more paranoid these days especially here in the UK, I inform all users that nothing is secret when posted. NO I do not spy, but I do  require the facility to inspect an attachment or anything else posted on my forum if needed.
Apologies in advance if on my high horse too long.

My vote is Yes Solo

kat

Just to follow-up what I've kinda said...

If there's a notice, telling the members that this can be done, I think it's perfectly OK. Especially if, as I have, you've included something in the "Welcome new member" message saying the same.

Sabre™

My belief is that the Personal Message area should remain just that, and to trust my users, as they have come to trust the sites integrity.
I understand the issue with 'bad' attachments being sent and breaching your hosts tos etc..  a 'reasonable' host would contact you first of any issue, and/or allow you to remedy the situation.    The db is your eyes anyways.

I know of a member which spreads a mod to read PMs, and believe this mod could help 'less knowledgeable' people to create similar mods.

That being said, I'd probably use it too lol ;)   This mod I mean

Quote from: Arantor on August 10, 2009, 04:12:03 PM
.... there are consequences either way.

Implementation of a message informing users of this action is the best suggestion I see thus far :)
Do NOT give admin and/or ftp details to just anybody, see if they are trust worthy first!!  Do your homework ;)


Arantor

Agreed, not all have to be .exe, but if you see .bat, .com, .cmd all of those are executable - and by default not enabled in SMF. I'm not sure by default you can upload .zip either.

Again this is more a case of how much rope you give the users of this mod. If an admin allows zip, rar, and other compressed archives to be uploaded, sure it's a risk. Which is why you generally don't allow it. But there is a safety factor though, you have to actually do something there to trigger it.

What about .doc files with viruses in? If you're going down that road, it's possible to create a jpg (and, last I heard a png too) that will trigger vulnerabilities in certain browsers' handling of such images.

Thus you can't protect all instances, but you can prevent the worst ones without lifting a finger; net result is that for any competent admin being able to browse the filelist is still unnecessary on its own.


tl;dr: There's not really a compelling reason to allow it on its own if you don't allow access to PMs too.

SoLoGHoST

At the moment, no notice is currently available for this other than any that you supply in the Terms of Use Agreement.

HOWEVER, if this turns out to be a YES, I will post any notices where you feel they should go.  And I will also, have a notice of this, as I already pointed out in a previous post in this topic, by default for when all users who are able to post attachments via PM, will see (just underneath the attachment area, unless you feel there is a better place for this) text explaining that all PM Attachments can be monitored by Administrator's, etc..  Or if you have an idea for some text to be inserted here and elsewhere on the forum, please let me know and I can do this in about 5 minutes flat!

Thanks :)

Aleksi "Lex" Kilpinen

There is a perfectly valid and good reason why attachments in PM's are not part of the core functionality - and that is just what this poll is about. If you have access to those attachments, you are breaking the users privacy - If you don't, you are risking a lot, since you will have no control over what is sent through your server.

This is why I personally think private attachments are to be done through a filehost or email, not a forum PM.
Slava
Ukraini!
"Before you allow people access to your forum, especially in an administrative position, you must be aware that that person can seriously damage your forum. Therefore, you should only allow people that you trust, implicitly, to have such access." -Douglas

How you can help SMF

SoLoGHoST

Yes, Arantor, you can upload .zip by default.

Sabre™

Quote from: LexArma on August 10, 2009, 04:34:38 PM
There is a perfectly valid and good reason why attachments in PM's are not part of the core functionality - and that is just what this poll is about. If you have access to those attachments, you are breaking the users privacy - If you don't, you are risking a lot, since you will have no control over what is sent through your server.

This is why I personally think private attachments are to be done through a filehost or email, not a forum PM.

x2
Do NOT give admin and/or ftp details to just anybody, see if they are trust worthy first!!  Do your homework ;)


H

A poll is not going to change our decision. We want private messages to be just that. Private. While someone who knows how to can easily violate this privacy, that is not something we want to encourage on this site either as a core feature or a mod
-H
Former Support Team Lead
                              I recommend:
Namecheap (domains)
Fastmail (e-mail)
Linode (VPS)
                             

Advertisement: