But that would be a responsible thing to do. Letting people decide if they agree that. Maybe they go look to the translation thread and see how it looks. Then they can decide based on truthful information.
I think they could also be aware of not writing too much information, how the messages can be published, and work as a general warning too.
And your reasoning would be proven wrong, if you went looking the thread, and consider it as minimal as now.
If the card came through the forum, yes, they can.
If it is an official one, no, they cannot, or not in a simple way - there is no possibility of attaching an image of the back of the card in a PM on the official site. I would think no sender remembers every word they wrote on each card they have sent, so they would not be able to help without seeing that backside. The solution would be to exchange e-mail addresses but I wouldnât feel comfortable doing that with a complete stranger.
I mentioned the facts stated by me that were ignored or not answered properly:
The whole thing can be reduced to the academic question if you should stick to the rules of data protection to 100%, or if its OK to make a tiny exception out of sense of practicability.
I wonât repeaty my arguments. 
Maybe the receiver will try more, to read it (now there have been messages written in capitals letters too, published, maybe just out of lazyiness).
They could be or join the forum to send the image if they want.
Pros: the sender will know their message is unclear/âwrongâ language
they can start taking a photo of their message for the possible future need
they can start writing more clearly and/or pay attention what language receiver understands
the message is not published here
But yes, I understand giving e-mail address can be uncomfortable, just like all the information published here without permission or without the person knowing about it
so a pro: you can choose what information you share
Sender can also give their permission to publish it somewhere, if they are unwilling to help.
And sometimes, some messages are not understood 
The sender should join the forum to explain what they wrote on the card?
Thatâs not necessarily a pro. If the sender is disabled and canât write more clearly, what then? It could make them feel bad.
Why bother? Personally, I would never do that, too much hassle to keep every message.
As a sender, if my message is not understood, well, tough luck (for me). Iâll take my chances. If the receiver wants to ask someone for help with reading it - without notifying me - they can.
A general observation - I think we can be going in circles here for a long time. There are two opposite views and neither side is getting convinced by the arguments of the other
On a side note - the guidelines also donât state that the admins can tell you not to register something you have received if they deem it was not a postcard. In the guidelines itâs only written to contact the admins if you receive an item that you deem is unsuitable and it will be looked into. Should the possibility of non-registration be clearly mentioned? I donât think so, no. Not every single thing needs to be clearly stated in a general document.
No they donât have to. (They can already be here too.)
Then thatâs what it is. They probably know it. They can also feel bad when their message is published and people perhaps make comments of their bad handwriting and how they make no effort.
I wouldnât either, of every card but I know some do. ( I take a photo if they mention they know a little Finnish, and I write in Finnish, and they need a translation - few times itâs asked, and I appreciate itâs asked from me :+1 )
(About the side note: I knew I only need to register postcards, because it was clear to me in some other part, so I knew mine wonât possibly be registered if I send a ticket, but it could be added more clearly, just in case, but thatâs another problem. Maybe own topic to that.)
I have this very same feeling.
Part of this is of course the different weight of the pro and con arguments in the eye of the beholder. If there is one argument that is very prominent to you, no number of repetitions or adding new (and often similar/related) arguments or nuances will change that.
Same here 
I think I answered to the amount point already, right?
But the other part, do you mean this:
Do you want this to be reacted and feel this is ignored?
I think this is another problem, and maybe ignored because of that.
This isnât another problem, but a concern I voiced about varnâs idea that the pictures of postcardsâ backsides should be shared by private messages instead of being posted in the translation topic.
He only wrote this:
I took the burden to read his initial post again, but it doesnât contain anything about my question why storing the private data in other membersâ private messages infinitely should be preferred to sharing it in a topic where it will be deleted after a short time.
Data protection isnât just about sharing data, but also about how, where and how long it is stored.
Precisely. And there is A LOT of private data already stored in messages on the forum, forever. That is why it bothers me that there is no possibility to delete PMs here and also why I donât remove myself from the messages. That way I at least know they exist and can go back to them if necessary.
I think it is, because solving the problem you present doesnât solve the original problem (which is discussed here). These problems might overlap, but can be treated as separate problems too.
But yes another point, if the translation thread is banned, and not as many photos are sent via pm as now published here (some people try more reading the message, donât care if they donât understand every word), it benefits, as there is less private information visible, where maybe is screenshots taken, google lens used to translate and same message published again, maybe left to this senders phone too.
(From my memory @varn did answer you, that anything that is published in the Internet, can be somewhere forever, therefore itâs not safe to have it here either. )
No one is denying this.
Itâs another problem.
Simplified:
Problem: Apples are poisoned, we must inform about it or remove the apples.
âCounter-argument/solution/distractionâ: But what about bananas, you must think bananas too. The apples are not problem because there are other fruits, and apples are just so few, it doesnât harm me if few people get sick of an apple. You must think of bananas too.
Does anyone understand what I mean?
I donât know if people are intentionally distracting, or they really donât understand the topic.
Or did I not understand.
I didnât bring in this problem, itâs part of @varnâs suggestion! It would be his part now toâŚ
deal argumentatively with the concern of data storage, if he wants to keep up with the idea of sharing pictures by private messages instead of posting them in the topic;
or admit that this is a problem he hasnât seen and draw back his suggestion.
If youâre responsible for the data stored for your website, you have to decide for the solution which has less impact on the rights of the persons using the website. And my argument is that itâs better to delete the data in a topic in due time, versus letting it slumber eternally in private messages.
Now Iâm curious if Iâll get a responsive answer to this legal issue.
Thank you @xxxyyy for your rebuttal! This will generate a lot of redundancy but I wish to follow up again.
Thank you @Cassisia elaborating on your position, which I think is basically âAlternative 2 â Keep status quoâ. Please understand the OP is my summary. I try and add important points relevant to the three arguments that have emerged so far. However, I admit Iâm biased in the sense that I donât diligently include the points that I considered less relevant and responded individually by saying so or other points that I didnât manage to follow up. So let go through your replies one by one.
If the answer is the same, Iâll quote the full text for your ease of reference. If the answer is different, Iâll type it out.
Noted.
I donât think you are a member of either of the two groups.
I didnât mean to give you such an arrogant impression so Iâm sorry I did. I repeated the same answer because it was indeed my answer to your question even if were asked before others.
I donât wish to see a âreal victimâ to come forward just to make the case valid. Be it before or after those offended or affected complain, the structure of the problem doesnât change. Youâve provided calculations on the miniscule scale of postcards affected by translation. Granted, the people affected would be fewer in this specific case. Returning to the principles I based my argument on, I wish to prioritize the senders in this case: assume unwillingness to share. This privacy assumption is what I think makes Postcrossing special. So my proposal is a trade-off between efficiency and fairness.
Iâve heard you.
Sound, valid or logical reasoning is most welcome. As Iâve said many times and in the OP, I hope the discussion will help identify as many major points as possible. Also, to facilitate discussion/debate, I broke my argument into parts and parcels such as principles, pros and cons for different groups, or more precisely, different roles (senders, recipients, translators, etc).
Personally, Iâm drawn to merit in the argument. As I stated in the OP, I hope the admins will consider alternatives and concerns raised here.
This actually a higher-level concept. I didnât say people deserve to know how Postcrossing works, especially when it comes to the treatment of the postcards they send, because I take the right to know for granted and because I think itâd be a more responsible thing for an organization to do.
Same as above. I take the right for granted to know how Postcrossing handles the exchange process. I think itâd be a more responsible thing for an organization to be transparent about it, even if there is discretion, at least say what the exception is.
I didnât quote these in my OP but provided a summary and a link. I will never be able to collate all your posts in a more authentic way than your original posts.
I agree with you it is in the gray area of juridical discretion. Glad to have found some common ground! I do believe my OP is my best and most honest response. So here it isâŚ
I donât see a distraction here. I understand this: There is already so much data stored in private messages that we really donât need to instigate more storage, of postcardsâ backsides exchanged for translation (varnâs suggestion).
It doesnât matter who brought in the problem, you said it isnât another problem, I pointed why it is.
Yes, data storage can be discussed. Maybe you will open another topic to that?
Also, if you see faults in one solution, it doesnât mean we should forget the original problem and only discuss the faults of a solution. (This is how I see it. Again sees as an attempt to distract from the original problem.)
I really hoped to get a real response instead of a mere confirmation of receiptâŚ
No, I wonât, because Iâve just stated a counter-argument to @varnâs suggestion. I really wonder why you dismiss it as âanother problemâ. Itâs a problem tightly knotted to his suggestion, and if he wants to stick with it, he should try to find a convincing answer why storing data longer than necessary is preferable.
I think data storage merits another thread for discussion. But to compare the two, I think we can compare the risk, the average exposure time. I donât know exactly how likely an image stored on the server would be leaked but should be very unlikely. The period of time for a postcard is published on the forum is a certainty.
My concern is not only about storage time (which btw the mods can control in a topic but not in private messages), but about the fact that your suggestion will lead to uncontrolled, unnecessary data storing. I have a right that my data isnât stored in unknown places for infinite time.
This was the second part of my concern : you canât just dismiss the risk that people treat the shared data in irresponsible ways, like sharing it further, even if the purpose (translation) is already fulfilled and the data should be deleted. Directing people to exchanging data in private messages would be irresponsible in my opinion.