As I was randomly surfing around today, I came across a discussion wherein someone complained that they sent someone a private e-mail and they were very pissed that their e-mail was quoted in the recipient's blog. There was much consternation about "they shouldn't have done that, since it was private - I thought I could trust that person", etc.

Unfortunately, I didn't keep the link to the post, and I was off my blogroll at the time, so I don't remember how I got there. If anyone thinks they know the post I'm talking about, drop a link in the comments.

Now, discussing the right-wrong, good-bad of this situation is difficult without a specific example to work off, so I'll keep this fairly general.

I think this is about DEGREES of courtesy.

The highest degree one can show is to assume that any e-mail sent to you is completely private, and not to be referenced on one's blog in any way without getting specific permission from the e-mail's author. Sometimes that permission is granted in the original e-mail. If it's not, then the recipient should ask the author for explicit permission.

A lesser degree is to quote the e-mail, but keep the identity of the writer hidden. Something like "a friend of mine said in a recent e-mail..."

Below that is to assume that anything in an e-mail may be quoted unless the writer states otherwise.

The lowest - or "Michael Moore" - degree is for the recipient to presume that anything that's put into writing is blogfodder. Period. Very few people are this callous, but they do exist.

Any one of these is, technically, fine, as long as that person makes publicly known what their e-mail policy is. For example, Lynn of Reflections in d minor has her policy on the sidebar of her blog as follows: "FAIR WARNING: Any hate mail that is sufficiently entertaining will be published."

So in the original example the blogger probably breached ettiquette by not letting the e-mailer know ahead of time that he/she considered the e-mail postable.

The victim should feel free to spend as much time as he/she wants being mad about that.

Or he/she can be gracious and chalk it up to a failure to communicate clearly. Their life, their choice.

But now that the e-mailer is aware of the potential problem, they need to play a stronger defense in the future.

If you're not sure which level the recipient regularly adheres to, your should assume it's the second-lowest level (unless you're e-mailing Michael Moore), and include a line specifically stating whether and how much your private e-mail may be quoted. Most folks have a good sense of decency and fair play, so you can expect your wishes to be followed.

On the other hand, ANY time you put something in writing, stop to consider the worst-case scenario: if what you wrote were to show up on the front page of the New York Times, could you live with having those words associated with your name? If the answer is "no", hit delete. The internet is a leaky bucket, and can't be trusted to hold secrets.

Myself, I'm just glad that everyone I've e-mailed naked pictures of myself to is a rock-solid level 1.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:49 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Well, that. And the fact that their eyes were seared out, means they don't spend much time on the computer anymore anyways. Hmm. I wonder what Harvey sent... (Click) AHHHHHHH MY BRAIN! IT BURNS!!!!! ;-p

Posted by: GEBIV at September 20, 2004 11:10 PM (BQDCT)

2 Yeah, I posted an E-mail disclaimer on Frizzen Sparks for exactly that reason. If someone puts "don't post this" in a mail: it doesn't get posted. Period. Unless it's hate mail.

Posted by: Graumagus at September 21, 2004 02:41 AM (GOj/i)

3 After dealing with you blog types, I personally felt nothing was sacred anymore and any e-mail, or snail mail, or phone calls (which were being recorded by the blogger for latter fodder on their site), and even video recordings of person doing something where open to be posted with out my permission or even a warning to me.

Posted by: contagion at September 21, 2004 07:41 AM (Q5WxB)

4 It's like my mom always said; "Never put anything in writing that you wouldn't want read over the school P.A system".

Posted by: Kathryn at September 21, 2004 10:40 AM (KK07M)

5 Oh, that's just my policy for YOU contagion

Posted by: Graumagus at September 21, 2004 01:03 PM (KuYBE)

6 Which reminds me, I need to post that video of Contagion with that... Well, YOU'LL see... :-P

Posted by: Harvey at September 22, 2004 05:58 PM (ubhj8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A regular kvetch that I hear about this year's Presidential campaign is that all the talk about Viet Nam & service records is irrelevant. It happened 30+ years ago, so what does it matter?

I can see the point in that argument, and I actually tend to agree. I was a very different person when I was in the Navy, and I'd hate to be judged today on the basis of some of the more foolish things I did back then.

Because people change.

... But, then again, some people don't.

So when you look at the candidates' service records, you have to compare them to their more recent activities and see whether those records are anamolies, or whether they're part of a consistent pattern.

I don't know a lot about W. I never followed his career as Governor of Texas. But, if I take the worst of the rumors about his service performance as true, I get a picture of him as a reckless and adventurous sort (hey, he's a pilot, it goes with the territory) who tended to shirk his duties a bit and not follow orders well. He probably pissed off his superiors frequently, but never enough for them to put black marks in his official record. As prior military, I consider this an important distinction. There's a fine line between independent and derelict, which is drawn by one's superior officers. As far as George's records tell the tale, he never crossed that line, even if he WAS a little flaky in his youth.

Now, I have kept a close eye on W's performance as President since 2001, and I don't see any of his youthful flakiness. He's acted with steadfastness and determination on the War on Terror, and - except for some inconsistencies on free trade - he's pretty straightforward on what he stands for. You know what you're getting with this man.

I think he's learned from his past mistakes and youthful indiscretions, assuming he made them in the first place.

Kerry... not so much. Even if I discount the Swift Boat Vets as liars and assume that Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam, he's still shown through all his publicly recorded acts that he's willing to do whatever it takes to follow the popular and politically expedient course of the moment. Doing the hard thing because it's the right thing isn't a value he holds, and that pattern is consistent.

I like convenience foods, but I don't like convenience politicians. Kerry has a soul of Jello and a spine of Play-Doh. I don't trust him to keep his promises.

Let me re-phrase that. I don't trust him not to weasel out of his promises with lawyerly nuances that allow him to claim - in the finest tradition of what the meaning of "is" is - that he kept his promises, even though a reasonable person would consider the promise broken.

So go ahead and ignore both candidates' service records. It won't hurt. Because in neither case do you need to know what happened then to understand the man as he stands before you today.

The last 3 years since 9/11 should be all the proof of character you really need to decide who is more fit to lead this nation.

Posted by: Harvey at 11:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 3 kb.