How to ask a question
Created | Updated Nov 4, 2004
STOP PRESS
I have this morning, Monday November 26th, received an answer from BBC Legal. It is reproduced below in full.
Dear Mr [my name],
Thank you for your e-mail of 8th November 2001.
First of all I have offered to discuss this on the telephone with you - however in the light of your most recent e-mail and request that I put my answer in writing I am prepared to do so.
1. No - my department did not advise Ms Haigh on the wording. My
department is the litigation department. However, I understand that Ms Haigh was advised by another lawyer within the BBC who customarily advises BBC On-line.
2. There is no simple yes or no answer. The answer is that if the
e-mail contains confidential information, in some circumstances a recipent would not be entitled to discuss it. Of course, the position in each case depends on the contents of the particular e-mail.
THANK YOU BBC Legal, for that answer. It's not exactly cut and dried, and to be honest I would suggest that if something is so confidential that the recipient wouldn't be entitled to discuss it, it shouldn't be going out in an email. I can't even think of an example of such a message, and I welcome suggestions. However, I have my answer, for which I am grateful.
------------------------------------------
Go here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683&thread=127664&skip=992
and check out the editors' reply here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683&thread=127664&skip=994.
They said go to it, so I did. Here's what happened...
Summary: on the 7th of September, I sent an email to [name of Legal Department customer service person] at BBC Legal. It was completely ignored. A week later, I sent it again, with a bit of text on top noting that even an acknowledgement of receipt would be nice. Again, completely and utterly ignored. So on the 8th of October, I sent it a third time, this time with some more text on top asking for the basic courtesy of a reply. Despite having asked specifically for a written answer (a very short one), I was fobbed off with a phone number. I wrote back to point out that I could not conveniently ring in office hours, and that a very short email response would be fine. No response at all. I ended up not writing on actual paper due to certain well-advertised problems I was having at the time. But on November 7th, I sent another email (the fifth). This elicited an automated reply telling me that the recipient would be on holiday until two days before I had sent the message. I've heard nothing since. I don't honestly know why the BBC's lawyers should be unwilling or unable to answer in a short email three simple questions which I've been encouraged by the Editors to ask. I leave it to the reader's imaginations, as I'm giving up trying to get any answer out of them, and unsubscribing from this thread, which had pretty much died anyway, it seems. RIP.
FULL TEXT OF REPLY TO EMAIL 5, INCLUDING FULL TEXT OF EMAIL 4, 3, 2 AND 1.
[received 18:18 GMT November 7th 2001]
[name of Legal Department customer service person] is currently out of the office on leave until 5th November
2001. Should you need to speak to someone in the Litigation Department
please contact [name of another Legal Department customer service person] on [publically available phone number of BBC Legal Deparment)).
[sent 18:20 GMT on November 7th 2001]
Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
Exactly two months ago today I wrote you an email asking for a brief
response to three simple questions on a very minor legal matter to do with
the BBC's correspondence with its customers. Two weeks later, having had no
response, I wrote again. A month after the original message, have still had
no response at all, I wrote again, then again in response to the brief
acknowledgement I finally got.
So far I've written to your department four times, in each case asking only
for a very, very short written response to the three questions below. I'm
slightly concerned and very surprised that you seem unwilling or unable to
provide such an answer. Just in case the last four messages were somehow
misinterpreted, all I would like you to tell me is this:
1. YES or NO did your department advise [name of H2G2 staff member], Community Editor of
H2G2, a subsection of BBC Online, to use the exact wording given below in
emails to customers?
> > "The information in this email and in any attachments is
> > confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named
> > addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written
> > permission."
2. YES or NO does that text, appended to an email, truly limit the legal
right of the recipient to discuss the contents of the email with anyone?
3. IF and ONLY IF the answer to query (2) is YES - in what way is the BBC
different from every other service I pay for in that it seeks to limit the
right of its customers to discuss its correspondence in this way?
All I ask is for someone to give me a *very* short written answer to those
three questions, preferably by email (more convenient and quicker for both
you and me) or failing that by post. I've been specifically instructed by
the Editors of H2G2 to ask you these questions, so I'm very surprised that
you have been unwilling or unable to answer them at any time in the last two
months. I'm asking now for the last time. Please respond, preferably by
email. Please do not ask me to telephone you as I am unable to do so during
office hours. Thank you.
[my name]
----- Original Message -----
From: [me]
To: "[name of Legal Department customer service person]" <[name of Legal Department customer service person]@bbc.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Legal question re:confidentiality
> Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
>
> Thanks for the acknowledgement. Unfortunately, I'm unable to telephone
> during office hours. A very brief email response would be more than
> sufficient, addressing the three short queries regarding the following
> confidentiality warning:
>
> > "The information in this email and in any attachments is
> > confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named
> > addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written
> > permission."
>
> (1) Is the confidentiality warning wording reproduced above in fact, as I
> have been told, exactly that suggested by your department?
>
> YES/NO
>
> (2) Does it limit my right to discuss or quote verbatim, emails I may
> receive from the BBC with that warning appended?
>
> YES/NO
>
> (3) If the answer to (2) is "Yes", can you explain in why and in what way
> the BBC is different from any other organisation, in that it is allowed or
> attempts to limit the conduct of its customers in this way?
>
> Thanks again for the acknowledgement.
>
> [my name]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "[name of Legal Department customer service person]" <[name of Legal Department customer service person]@bbc.co.uk>
> To:[me]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:46 PM
> Subject: RE: Legal question re:confidentiality
>
>
> > Dear Mr [my name],
> >
> > Thank you for your e-mail, please could you ring [name of head of Litigation], Head of
> > Litigation on [telephone number in legal department of BBC], who will be happy to talk to you.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > [name of Legal Department customer service person]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [me]
> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 9:39 PM
> > To: [name of Legal Department customer service person]
> > Subject: Fw: Legal question re:confidentiality
> >
> > Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
> >
> > Any acknowledgement of receipt of the email message below, posted
> > one month ago, and the subsequent request for acknowledgement posted one
> > week later, would be basic courtesy. The question contained herein
should
> > take no more than five minutes to read and for a qualified solictor
surely
> > no more than a minute to answer. If I have to write to you on actual
paper
> > in order to get a response, I shall do so in one week. This would take
> both
> > longer to do and longer to respond to, so I'd rather not waste my time
and
> > yours.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > [my name and full postal address]
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [me]
> > To: [name of Legal Department customer service person]
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 5:06 PM
> > Subject: Legal question re:confidentiality
> >
> > Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
> >
> > Any acknowledgement of receipt of the email message below, posted
> > one week ago, would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > [my name and full postal address]
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
> >
> > Please pass on this on to the appropriate person in your department.
> > Thank you.
> >
> > I have a query regarding the legal position of the confidentiality
> > notices attached to emails sent by employees of the BBC (specifically,
the
> > "Editors" of the h2g2 section of BBC Online). I received an email of
this
> > kind just the other day, and the confidentiality message read as
follows:
> >
> > "This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have
> > received
> > it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or
> > disclose
> > the information in any way, and notify me immediately. The contents
> > of
> > this message may contain personal views which are not the views of
> > the
> > BBC, unless specifically stated."
> >
> > This is very similar to the confidentiality notice attached to
> > emails I send from my place of work. I interpret it to mean that the
> > contents are personal to me, and if anyone else should receive it they
are
> > prevented from disseminating its content. I note that it places no
> > restriction whatever on what use I may make of the contents. This is as
I
> > would expect.
> >
> > It has today come to my attention that emails are being sent out by
> > BBC employees with a very different confidentiality statement attached,
as
> > follows:
> >
> > "The information in this email and in any attachments is
> > confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named
> > addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written
> > permission."
> >
> > This seems to attempt to place the recipient in the position of
> > being unable to discuss the content of emails from BBC staff without the
> > written permission of said staff. A specific enquiry to the persons
> > concerned was answered by the statement that this wording was exactly
that
> > suggested by BBC Legal. I find this extremely surprising, and a little
> > worrying.
> >
> > First of all, the only possible reason I can think of why a BBC
> > employee would issue such blandishments would be that they want to say
> > something in an email to a customer which they would be unhappy having
the
> > customer repeat to anyone else in a way that the original author could
not
> > control. I find that attitude worrying and unprofessional in the
extreme,
> > and if you can suggest any other reason for a confidentiality statement
of
> > this type I would be interested to know it.
> >
> > Secondly, it seems to make the ludicrous sounding suggestion that
> > the BBC has the power (or believes itself to have the power) to control
> what
> > I or anyone else do with the contents of their email inbox. I freely
admit
> I
> > am no legal expert, which is why I am writing to you. My understanding
of
> > the law in this area is that correspondence to me from the BBC is no
> > different than, say, a bank statement. That is to say, it is personal
and
> > confidential to me, and the employee writing/sending it is required to
> > maintain that confidentiality. However, if I choose to make it public, I
> am
> > at liberty to do so without seeking any permission from anyone. There
> seems
> > to me to be a basic misunderstanding on the part of the people involved,
> in
> > that they believe that confidentiality statements can protect them, the
> > employee, whereas I understand them to be there to protect me, the
> customer.
> > My insurance company cannot discuss my details with any Tom, Dick, or
> Harry,
> > but if I have a grievance with a letter they send me I can send it to
Ann
> > Robinson and ask that she broadcast the contents nationwide without fear
> of
> > legal action. How is BBC Online different?
> >
> > I would like you to confirm to me please that, if I should receive
> > an email with the above warning appended, I remain free to discuss it in
> > public, quoting verbatim if I choose to, as I could any other email from
> an
> > employee of any company or public service. The implication of this
warning
> > is that the BBC, or at least some portions of it, are attempting to
limit
> my
> > freedom of speech, in clear breach of the Human Rights act, among other
> > things.
> >
> > In summary:
> > (1) Is this wording in fact, as I have been told, exactly that
> > suggested by your department?
> > (2) Does it limit my right to discuss or quote verbatim, emails I
> > may receive from the BBC?
> > (3) If the answer to (2) is "Yes", can you explain in why and in
> > what way the BBC is different from any other organisation, in that it is
> > allowed to limit the conduct of its customers in this way?
> >
> > I would appreciate your expert legal advice on this matter, by email
> > or letter. Thank you.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > [my name and full postal address]
I have this morning, Monday November 26th, received an answer from BBC Legal. It is reproduced below in full.
Dear Mr [my name],
Thank you for your e-mail of 8th November 2001.
First of all I have offered to discuss this on the telephone with you - however in the light of your most recent e-mail and request that I put my answer in writing I am prepared to do so.
1. No - my department did not advise Ms Haigh on the wording. My
department is the litigation department. However, I understand that Ms Haigh was advised by another lawyer within the BBC who customarily advises BBC On-line.
2. There is no simple yes or no answer. The answer is that if the
e-mail contains confidential information, in some circumstances a recipent would not be entitled to discuss it. Of course, the position in each case depends on the contents of the particular e-mail.
THANK YOU BBC Legal, for that answer. It's not exactly cut and dried, and to be honest I would suggest that if something is so confidential that the recipient wouldn't be entitled to discuss it, it shouldn't be going out in an email. I can't even think of an example of such a message, and I welcome suggestions. However, I have my answer, for which I am grateful.
------------------------------------------
Go here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683&thread=127664&skip=992
and check out the editors' reply here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683&thread=127664&skip=994.
They said go to it, so I did. Here's what happened...
Summary: on the 7th of September, I sent an email to [name of Legal Department customer service person] at BBC Legal. It was completely ignored. A week later, I sent it again, with a bit of text on top noting that even an acknowledgement of receipt would be nice. Again, completely and utterly ignored. So on the 8th of October, I sent it a third time, this time with some more text on top asking for the basic courtesy of a reply. Despite having asked specifically for a written answer (a very short one), I was fobbed off with a phone number. I wrote back to point out that I could not conveniently ring in office hours, and that a very short email response would be fine. No response at all. I ended up not writing on actual paper due to certain well-advertised problems I was having at the time. But on November 7th, I sent another email (the fifth). This elicited an automated reply telling me that the recipient would be on holiday until two days before I had sent the message. I've heard nothing since. I don't honestly know why the BBC's lawyers should be unwilling or unable to answer in a short email three simple questions which I've been encouraged by the Editors to ask. I leave it to the reader's imaginations, as I'm giving up trying to get any answer out of them, and unsubscribing from this thread, which had pretty much died anyway, it seems. RIP.
FULL TEXT OF REPLY TO EMAIL 5, INCLUDING FULL TEXT OF EMAIL 4, 3, 2 AND 1.
[received 18:18 GMT November 7th 2001]
[name of Legal Department customer service person] is currently out of the office on leave until 5th November
2001. Should you need to speak to someone in the Litigation Department
please contact [name of another Legal Department customer service person] on [publically available phone number of BBC Legal Deparment)).
[sent 18:20 GMT on November 7th 2001]
Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
Exactly two months ago today I wrote you an email asking for a brief
response to three simple questions on a very minor legal matter to do with
the BBC's correspondence with its customers. Two weeks later, having had no
response, I wrote again. A month after the original message, have still had
no response at all, I wrote again, then again in response to the brief
acknowledgement I finally got.
So far I've written to your department four times, in each case asking only
for a very, very short written response to the three questions below. I'm
slightly concerned and very surprised that you seem unwilling or unable to
provide such an answer. Just in case the last four messages were somehow
misinterpreted, all I would like you to tell me is this:
1. YES or NO did your department advise [name of H2G2 staff member], Community Editor of
H2G2, a subsection of BBC Online, to use the exact wording given below in
emails to customers?
> > "The information in this email and in any attachments is
> > confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named
> > addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written
> > permission."
2. YES or NO does that text, appended to an email, truly limit the legal
right of the recipient to discuss the contents of the email with anyone?
3. IF and ONLY IF the answer to query (2) is YES - in what way is the BBC
different from every other service I pay for in that it seeks to limit the
right of its customers to discuss its correspondence in this way?
All I ask is for someone to give me a *very* short written answer to those
three questions, preferably by email (more convenient and quicker for both
you and me) or failing that by post. I've been specifically instructed by
the Editors of H2G2 to ask you these questions, so I'm very surprised that
you have been unwilling or unable to answer them at any time in the last two
months. I'm asking now for the last time. Please respond, preferably by
email. Please do not ask me to telephone you as I am unable to do so during
office hours. Thank you.
[my name]
----- Original Message -----
From: [me]
To: "[name of Legal Department customer service person]" <[name of Legal Department customer service person]@bbc.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Legal question re:confidentiality
> Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
>
> Thanks for the acknowledgement. Unfortunately, I'm unable to telephone
> during office hours. A very brief email response would be more than
> sufficient, addressing the three short queries regarding the following
> confidentiality warning:
>
> > "The information in this email and in any attachments is
> > confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named
> > addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written
> > permission."
>
> (1) Is the confidentiality warning wording reproduced above in fact, as I
> have been told, exactly that suggested by your department?
>
> YES/NO
>
> (2) Does it limit my right to discuss or quote verbatim, emails I may
> receive from the BBC with that warning appended?
>
> YES/NO
>
> (3) If the answer to (2) is "Yes", can you explain in why and in what way
> the BBC is different from any other organisation, in that it is allowed or
> attempts to limit the conduct of its customers in this way?
>
> Thanks again for the acknowledgement.
>
> [my name]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "[name of Legal Department customer service person]" <[name of Legal Department customer service person]@bbc.co.uk>
> To:[me]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:46 PM
> Subject: RE: Legal question re:confidentiality
>
>
> > Dear Mr [my name],
> >
> > Thank you for your e-mail, please could you ring [name of head of Litigation], Head of
> > Litigation on [telephone number in legal department of BBC], who will be happy to talk to you.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > [name of Legal Department customer service person]
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [me]
> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 9:39 PM
> > To: [name of Legal Department customer service person]
> > Subject: Fw: Legal question re:confidentiality
> >
> > Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
> >
> > Any acknowledgement of receipt of the email message below, posted
> > one month ago, and the subsequent request for acknowledgement posted one
> > week later, would be basic courtesy. The question contained herein
should
> > take no more than five minutes to read and for a qualified solictor
surely
> > no more than a minute to answer. If I have to write to you on actual
paper
> > in order to get a response, I shall do so in one week. This would take
> both
> > longer to do and longer to respond to, so I'd rather not waste my time
and
> > yours.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > [my name and full postal address]
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [me]
> > To: [name of Legal Department customer service person]
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 5:06 PM
> > Subject: Legal question re:confidentiality
> >
> > Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
> >
> > Any acknowledgement of receipt of the email message below, posted
> > one week ago, would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > [my name and full postal address]
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Dear Ms. [name of Legal Department customer service person],
> >
> > Please pass on this on to the appropriate person in your department.
> > Thank you.
> >
> > I have a query regarding the legal position of the confidentiality
> > notices attached to emails sent by employees of the BBC (specifically,
the
> > "Editors" of the h2g2 section of BBC Online). I received an email of
this
> > kind just the other day, and the confidentiality message read as
follows:
> >
> > "This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have
> > received
> > it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or
> > disclose
> > the information in any way, and notify me immediately. The contents
> > of
> > this message may contain personal views which are not the views of
> > the
> > BBC, unless specifically stated."
> >
> > This is very similar to the confidentiality notice attached to
> > emails I send from my place of work. I interpret it to mean that the
> > contents are personal to me, and if anyone else should receive it they
are
> > prevented from disseminating its content. I note that it places no
> > restriction whatever on what use I may make of the contents. This is as
I
> > would expect.
> >
> > It has today come to my attention that emails are being sent out by
> > BBC employees with a very different confidentiality statement attached,
as
> > follows:
> >
> > "The information in this email and in any attachments is
> > confidential and intended solely for the attention of the named
> > addressee(s). It must not be disclosed to any person without my written
> > permission."
> >
> > This seems to attempt to place the recipient in the position of
> > being unable to discuss the content of emails from BBC staff without the
> > written permission of said staff. A specific enquiry to the persons
> > concerned was answered by the statement that this wording was exactly
that
> > suggested by BBC Legal. I find this extremely surprising, and a little
> > worrying.
> >
> > First of all, the only possible reason I can think of why a BBC
> > employee would issue such blandishments would be that they want to say
> > something in an email to a customer which they would be unhappy having
the
> > customer repeat to anyone else in a way that the original author could
not
> > control. I find that attitude worrying and unprofessional in the
extreme,
> > and if you can suggest any other reason for a confidentiality statement
of
> > this type I would be interested to know it.
> >
> > Secondly, it seems to make the ludicrous sounding suggestion that
> > the BBC has the power (or believes itself to have the power) to control
> what
> > I or anyone else do with the contents of their email inbox. I freely
admit
> I
> > am no legal expert, which is why I am writing to you. My understanding
of
> > the law in this area is that correspondence to me from the BBC is no
> > different than, say, a bank statement. That is to say, it is personal
and
> > confidential to me, and the employee writing/sending it is required to
> > maintain that confidentiality. However, if I choose to make it public, I
> am
> > at liberty to do so without seeking any permission from anyone. There
> seems
> > to me to be a basic misunderstanding on the part of the people involved,
> in
> > that they believe that confidentiality statements can protect them, the
> > employee, whereas I understand them to be there to protect me, the
> customer.
> > My insurance company cannot discuss my details with any Tom, Dick, or
> Harry,
> > but if I have a grievance with a letter they send me I can send it to
Ann
> > Robinson and ask that she broadcast the contents nationwide without fear
> of
> > legal action. How is BBC Online different?
> >
> > I would like you to confirm to me please that, if I should receive
> > an email with the above warning appended, I remain free to discuss it in
> > public, quoting verbatim if I choose to, as I could any other email from
> an
> > employee of any company or public service. The implication of this
warning
> > is that the BBC, or at least some portions of it, are attempting to
limit
> my
> > freedom of speech, in clear breach of the Human Rights act, among other
> > things.
> >
> > In summary:
> > (1) Is this wording in fact, as I have been told, exactly that
> > suggested by your department?
> > (2) Does it limit my right to discuss or quote verbatim, emails I
> > may receive from the BBC?
> > (3) If the answer to (2) is "Yes", can you explain in why and in
> > what way the BBC is different from any other organisation, in that it is
> > allowed to limit the conduct of its customers in this way?
> >
> > I would appreciate your expert legal advice on this matter, by email
> > or letter. Thank you.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > [my name and full postal address]
