4508  secrecy

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:51:04 -0500
From: "Melanie Eskoff" <melanieeskoff@austin.rr.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] secrecy
To: <tango-l@mit.edu>

I find it interesting that people like this little thing that goes,"if it's a private post, then it's private." I have never knowingly shared a private post until now. I found this one too off topic to justify honoring the code of silence. Alberto was the one who didn't respect the differences between us. I do not know him and he dosen't know me from Eve. If it makes anyone feel better to think I'm a prude, good. Perhaps that will help balance my reputation. ;-)

I think what really rubs some people the wrong way about it, is that it exposes too much. It ruins the illusion that allows them to give themselves into an embrace with a stranger, or even an acquantance. We assume that we have a lot in common, because we share a love of dance, when that may or may not be true. It is disconcerting and upsetting to have the awareness that we're sharing something that can feel so intimate with someone, who if we knew them better under everday circumstances, we would choose not to associate. The whole unvarnished truth can be icky indeed. Best to keep it behind closed doors, huh? You know what they say about sex, politics and religion.

Alexis' post attributed to me about about "When on the above occasion one of them presses the other's body forcibly

> against a wall or pillar, it is called a `pressing embrace'.
>

was actually his own post to me. I'm not that witty.

ME

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:04:02 +0200
From: Alexis Cousein <al@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] secrecy
To: Melanie Eskoff <melanieeskoff@austin.rr.com>
Cc: tango-l@mit.edu

Melanie Eskoff wrote:

> I find it interesting that people like this little thing that goes,"if it's a private post,
> then it's private." I have never knowingly shared a private post until now.

> I found this one too off topic to justify honoring the code of silence.

Then you're mistaken. Private e-mail doesn't have to be on-topic, and it is even *illegal*
for you, stricto sensu, to forward it, given the original author has copyright on it.

Of course, there are no monetary damages, and if he's really written the mail, he can't
sue you for libel either, but that doesn't mean it's left to your judgement to decide
whether it's ethical to forward private mail without permission: it is not, under no
circumstance, unless for some reason the content of the mail is such that you would have
to alert authorities to avoid harm to others than the author of the mail.

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:13:12 +0200
From: Alexis Cousein <al@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] secrecy
To: Melanie Eskoff <melanieeskoff@austin.rr.com>, tango-l@mit.edu

Melanie Eskoff wrote:

> Actually that area of the law seems to be rather debatable.

Wiggle, wiggle, little weasel. If you don't understand the law,
err on the side of caution.

> Many

> governments are now posting all email, in an attempt at being
> "transparent".

Those mails have a different status, and there are strict rules
for their disclosure. And it's the government itself publishing
business e-mails from employees (in the US, in some cases,
the copyright on those implicitly lies with the government).

Note that in Europe, those employee emails are still copyrighted
by the authors, but they are giving their employer a license to
publish them (under strict rules).

I wasn't under the impression Alberto gave you any such license.

> Don't think that

> a district attorney or prosecutor can't confiscate your "private"
> emails in their search for the truth (sic). Ask Scooter Libby!

<grin> Subpoenas are quite a different matter - and there are many
cases in which these will remain under seal, and the manner in which
you disclose information obtained under discovery (or under a subpoena)
is also strictly regulated - you'll hear about them in a court of law,
or sometimes see mention of them in a public filing in a court case.

I don't think you'll find a lot of attorneys who'd be foolish enough
to publish information obtained through discovery or subpoenas in
a public forum.

Besides, if you use someone else's server to send you mails (which
you do), you should feel bound by RFC 1855, which says, quite clearly:

# If you are forwarding or re-posting a message you've received,
do not change the wording. If the message was a personal message
to you and you are re-posting to a group, you should ask permission first.
You may shorten the message and quote only relevant parts,
but be sure you give proper attribution.

> I suppose I'll have to clean up my emails to my husband at work.

No, you won't (at least not unless someone subpoenas it or asks for
it in discovery and it becomes admissible evidence) . Unless, of course,
you're sending them from you're employer in violation
of a clear policy not to send them, and with a policy that gives the
employer a license to redistribute it.

In short, it's never *YOUR* choice to redistribute mail that someone
else sends you.

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:29:36 +0200
From: Alexis Cousein <al@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] secrecy
To: chrisjj@chrisjj.com, tango-l@mit.edu

Chris John Jordan wrote:

> Alexis
>
>> Note that in Europe, those employee emails are still copyrighted
>> by the authors, but they are giving their employer a license to
>> publish them (under strict rules).
>
> No longer. E.g. in the UK see the 1988 Act, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 11
> paragraph 2.
>

I see. It's definitely not like that in some other countries in Europe,
though (even though there is usually a quite broad implicit license for the
employer).

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:45:53 +0200
From: Alexis Cousein <al@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] secrecy
To: Alexis Cousein <al@sgi.com>, tango-l@MIT.EDU
Cc: Chris John Jordan <chrisjj@chrisjj.com>

Alexis Cousein wrote:

> Chris John Jordan wrote:
>> Alexis
>>
>>> Note that in Europe, those employee emails are still copyrighted
>>> by the authors, but they are giving their employer a license to
>>> publish them (under strict rules).
>> No longer. E.g. in the UK see the 1988 Act, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 11
>> paragraph 2.
>>
> I see. It's definitely not like that in some other countries in Europe,
> though (even though there is usually a quite broad implicit license for the
> employer).

Duh! My apologies to Chris for having posted his message to the list without
having asked permission <slaps self on head>.

Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:18:56 -0400
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] secrecy
To: tango-l@mit.edu

Melanie Eskoff wrote:

>I find it interesting that people like this little thing that goes,"if it's a private post, then it's private." I have never knowingly shared a private post until now. I found this one too off topic to justify honoring the code of silence.
>

Code of silence. Hmmmm. Code you say. So this is all the honor system?
Well yes and no. One comment here. When I was younger, my mother worked
for a very senior judge on the US Court of Appeals (this is the last
stop in the US judicial system before the Supreme Court). He once
commented that really much legal machinery for rights was aimed at
trying to legally define privacy. I think that it is still one of the
better summations I have heard and it bears thinking about in every
context. [Privacy means "free from public scrutiny", as opposed to
"secrecy".] Many of the outstanding issues in this day take on a very
different timbre when thought about like this. Take the contentious
issue of homosexuality. What a lot of moralizers want is to criminalize
it. In their zeal what they propose is to make private relations a
matter of public law enforcement. Once in place the police will possibly
be obliged to pre-emtively investigate any suspicious activities just
like they would a possible robbery in progress. So regardless of what I
feel on the topic, regulating human relations this way is out of the
question -- do you want the police checking you out the next time you
make nooky-nooky? Best not to start on that slippery slope at all.

The philosophical question here is when/if we should jump into the
public arena. I think what should apply is a "call for help" standard. A
mugger should not be able to claim you must give her the privacy to rob
you, should she? Sour grapes or a desire for embarrassing someone aren't
really grounds for abrogating privacy and in this invasive age we must
be careful not to just give it away. This is an especially grievous
problem in the modern world where a company can ask for all sorts of
personal data as a prerequisite to their services. If you give it up
voluntarily then they have not invaded your privacy, you eschew it. The
simple truth is that people lack privacy mostly because they give it
away. This erodes where the boundaries are and it gets easier to pass
laws that encroach on it.

As for the topic at hand, Melanie felt uncomfortable. Alberto probably
meant no harm, at least judging by his other activities. Does the "call
for help" apply here? Only Melanie knows for sure, because she is the
one who felt that way. Personally I would have handled it differently,
such as writing back to him for a clarification. Of course, I'm old
fashioned and think that in most cases everyone should be given a chance
to be good, since erring is human and it is what we do afterwards that
shows our character. Don't forget now that if Alberto just made a bad
decision compounded by linguistic difficulties he now has a black mark
against him and it doesn't matter what he does or says, he will be
treated as guilty by a goodly portion of the It is doubtful he will live
this down for a long time to come. With the information glut of
contrasting reports we see the final paradox of the Information Age:
Myth and perception are now more important than truth precisely because
they are alluring and not bound by the same slow standards of proof.

Jeff