|
|
|
|
|
by Others
3804 days ago
|
|
I think you are slightly misrepresenting the author. His sarcastic comment about "bulletproof moral guidelines" seems to indicate that he isn't proud of this particular moral transgression. And while I don't think he was right to read the messages, you have to consider that the people using the service literally had no idea who they were sending messages to. I think that makes it a bit different from reading messages that were intended for one person that the speaker knew well. Not that that excuses the behavior, but I do think it explains some of the rationale. Also, who didn't make stupid immoral decisions in high school? |
|
Now, if he'd implemented a mechanism to give users keys they could send him should they consent to him reading the log for moderation purposes, he would have been able to do the moderation job and not violate people's privacy. Or made structured data fields that users could consent to make public and also be used for data analysis purposes (like interests, societies, year, etc). But no. He just read their messages. He didn't even have a commercial incentive to analyse data, he just did it out of sheer voyeurism.