Edmund Storms wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, privacy has no rights in the US nor
on the internet.
No, I meant that as a practical matter, an Internet discussion group
is a lousy place to store secrets. This is like keeping your cash
money in a box on a busy street. Electronic messages are easy to
copy. Once you distribute a message to a large number of people on a
discussion group, it is likely that one or more of them will copy it
to other people.
If you want to keep something secret, send it by regular mail or
e-mail to people who have signed NDA's
I'm talking about being able to discuss science without having to
worry about whether parts of the discussion will be extracted and
used to make public pronouncements that are not correct and not intended.
You cannot expect to conduct an electronic discussion with this many
people and keep it secret. That runs counter to human nature. Also,
without NDA's you have no legal standing to insist that it be kept
confidential. It does not fall under your right to privacy.
Discussions on CMNS are not that important.
I agree. That being the case, why does it matter if they are copied
to other people?
What is important is an expectation of not having to worry
about statements taken out of context or used for other purposes.
Steve wants the right to publish excerpts from these discussions.
He has that right, legally and morally. It is a boorish thing to do
but he can do it if he wants to.
Normally, a good journalist will honor a request that information
not be published or at least clarify what is to be published to be
sure it is complete and correct. I did not get the impression from
Steve he is willing to do this.
Obviously he isn't. Everyone who knows him is aware of this by now. I
wouldn't say that all "good journalists" do this. A British newspaper
publisher once said that news is defined as information that someone,
somewhere does not want you to know.
The issue is with Steve, not with people sending Steve copies of the
discussions.
They are the only ones breaking the informal rules.
Steve would be welcome to join the list if he agreed not to publish
the information without permission.
He does not agree, so he is not welcome.
Instead, he resigns from the list and then has someone else send the
information to him. This contrived arrangement does not change
Steve's obligation to honor
the rules.
Steve has NO obligation to honor the rules! None whatever. He is not
a member. It is like making fun of the Pope when you are not Catholic.
In fact, such an arrangement is a more serious breach of trust. Now
the action becomes a conspiracy to avoid rules that Steve finds inconvenient.
It is not a breach of trust! Steve never said he would follow the
rules in the first place. He has not asked anyone to trust him. On
the contrary, he made it clear that he will NOT follow the rules, as
did I. He has every right to engage in a conspiracy, as long as it
breaks no laws. People conspire every day in business, politics,
academic research and everywhere else in society. It is boorish
behavior but perfectly legitimate and legal.
The basic issue is trust. Do we trust Steve or do we not trust him?
You would be crazy to trust someone who has explicitly declared he
will not follow your rules! If someone shows you a trick coin with
heads on both sides, would you bet tails?
- Jed
