[1eyedjack]

Those with Orwellian fears would be protected under my proposal: They just disable the logging of private chat and avoid those tourneys where the host has overridden it. Those without such fears could play in those tourneys, and even enable private chat logging in tourneys where it has not been enforced by the tourney host.

[doofik]

The world is not perfect. Why should BBO strive to be perfect?

In real life, disputes are settled in court often with "she said/he said" evidence. In BBO, disputes are settled by @abuse. If screen shots, logs and comments of those involved are not enough to assure the evidence to be real, then nothing will help it.

We live in an imperfect world, try to get used to it. Don't make a sterile environment where all fantasy has to be gone because someone's "watching". Colorful language notwithstanding people seem to get into petty squabbles that escalate into stratosphere. Perhaps what is needed is more mediating help that really really listens to both sides.

Jola

[farfie]

i like the way paolo "turbin" answers this question...my vote is NO too

[1eyedjack]

doofik, on Sep 7 2004, 08:17 AM, said:

The world is not perfect.  Why should BBO strive to be perfect? 

There is nothing wrong with striving to improve. In all walks of life, if you do not make that effort then you will fail in the end. Your competitors will certainly make that effort and eventually leave you behind. If you see an improvement, why would you not take it? As I have said before but clearly have to repeat: the first stage is to determine whether it is or is not an improvement (however marginal). The second step is to determine whether, if it is a net improvement, it is one worth pursuing over and above the other demands on the programmers. I don't understand where perfection entered the argument. Impossible to define, and impossible to achieve, but irrelevant to the goal of improving on what went before.

doofik, on Sep 7 2004, 08:17 AM, said:

In real life, disputes are settled in court often with "she said/he said" evidence.  In BBO, disputes are settled by @abuse.  If screen shots, logs and comments of those involved are not enough to assure the evidence to be real, then nothing will help it.

This totally misses the point. The proposal has less to do with the reliability of evidence than it has to do with making the maximum amount of information instantaneously available to the TD. Information which, I suggest, would largely be uncontested but which, without the logging of chat, would have to be repeated to the TD in a belaboured manner at a time when demands on his time are at a premium.

[uday]

We only have about 50 responses, but enough of them don't want this that I will not implement an across-the-board chat log.

However, I have another thought, based on something hrothgar said.

What if

1) I logged all chat, encrypted, so that not even I could read it without effort
2) Daily, I erased all chat older than (say) 3 days
3) I supply a web screen that allows each user to examine his own chat logs
4) This screen would allow a user to send chat ( from/to user) to an email address (example abuse@ ) without the ability to edit the chat first.


The effect of this would be to allow people to easily back up accusations of abuse while maintaining a high degree of privacy.

It is true that I would be able to tap into the users login session, extract his password, and use it to decrypt his chat. Until we switch to completely encrypted sessions, it is difficult to see a way around this. I can say that we could log private chat now, or sniff it, if we wanted to (it does pass thru our servers in plain text) -- we don't , of course, not least because the volume is overwhelming and the content would be overwhelmingly mind-numbing.

I think this is a reasonable solution to my basic problem, which is the need to deal with disputes without forcing non-tech users to take screenshots. Objections?

[paulhar]

No objections here.

[doofik]

"This totally misses the point. The proposal has less to do with the reliability of evidence than it has to do with making the maximum amount of information instantaneously available to the TD. Information which, I suggest, would largely be uncontested but which, without the logging of chat, would have to be repeated to the TD in a belaboured manner at a time when demands on his time are at a premium. "

And I don't think you quite understood my post to which you replied. It is my understanding that this whole effort is being proposed to resolve disputes. Are these disputes of such magnitude that we should surrender our expectation of privacy? That if screenshots and logs are provided by both parties, that we absolutely positively need a TD or an Administrator to search for verification?

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.


TO UDAY:

I still object as I don't quite understand what is so important that we should be subjected to a treatment with suspicion.

Jola

[uday]

All i'm suggesting is that each user can decide when to release his or her personal chatlogs to abuse@bridgebase.com in a tamper-proof fashion.
Maybe down the road for TDs, but i'm not worrying about that now.

Why? It is not an uncommon situation for abuse@ to receive a complaint like

xxx said "fxxx you and your mamma", while xxx denies it ever happened.

[doofik]

Uday,

I must be having a weird day and when I look at what's happening all over the world, everything else becomes minimal.

It is my experience that when someone says "fxxx you and your momma" to one person, they'll do it again. Does it really take a surrender of private chats to find out that this is so? Perhaps an easier answer might be that all clients log chats and with a timestamp, things will be easier for @abuse also?

I'm just arguing for the preservation of privacy, nothing else.

Jola

[uday]

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.

[TimG]

uday, on Sep 7 2004, 12:40 PM, said:

Objections?

No objection. In fact, I would encourage you.

[jtfanclub]

uday, on Sep 7 2004, 03:15 PM, said:

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]

doofik, on Sep 7 2004, 12:52 PM, said:

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.

doofik, on Sep 7 2004, 12:52 PM, said:

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]

pozeracz, on Sep 7 2004, 06:50 PM, said:

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.

[1eyedjack]

pozeracz, on Sep 7 2004, 08:10 PM, said:

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.

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 Bravo

Jola

[paulhar]

1eyedjack, on Sep 8 2004, 02:14 AM, said:

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?