h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, I am going to quote an email that Peta sent me saying she prefers it when h2g2 is nice and 'fluffy'.

You nasty spikey prickly people you!

*getting more worried every time I read this thread*

Ben

**** Still trying to balance on the fence, though - although I have an Ethic to keep to, which I will not compromise!****

My space has been amended to be clean and inoffensive. I hope everyone is satisfied with my catlike balance?

x x Fenny

I've got time for exactly one posting, so here it is...

Re: posting the contents of emails from BBC employees.

I'm an engineer. I regularly correspond with representatives of other companies in my professional capacity. Although all emails, letters and faxes I send out from work have a company confidentiality clause automatically appended, that clause applies *only* to misdirected mail - i.e. if YOU get it, and I didn't send it to you, you are legally obliged not to divulge that information if I meant it for someone else. It is worth saying that even the companies that use that disclaimer know that it is on dodgy legal ground, and I'm not sure if it's ever been tested in court. I have some vague memory of a newspaper (Guardian?) "accidentally" receiving a newsworthy fax, not intended for them and bearing just such a warning, which they then published - can anyone remember this? Anyway...

If I send confidential information to another person, it is "privileged" - that is, unless we have a *written* agreement to the contrary, and as long as it is addressed to them, they can do what they like with it. I *must*, therefore, abide by my employer's written policy, and never include any commercial or otherwise confidential information in *any* emails (personal or private ones included), or any other kind of correspondence for that matter (it applies to letters, faxes, telephone calls and text messaging as well).

The exception to this is in a case where the person to whom I am sending the email is either employed by the same company as me (a trivial case), or more importantly has signed a written confidentiality agreement which stipulates that corresponce from me (including but not limited to emails, letters and faxes) are to be treated as secret information which cannot be disclosed to third parties. Note that this applies also to emails I may send in a personal capacity from my home. If I were to send out secret information to a person who had not signed a legally binding confidentiality agreement, it could cost me my job. I must not, on pain of reprimand or sacking, say anything in any correspondence to bring my employer into disrepute. This is a common term of employment in most large organisations.

An analogy: If I receive a letter from my bank manager telling me I've gone overdrawn, that letter is confidential. The bank manager can't go around telling people I've gone overdrawn - as an employee of an organisation of which I am a customer, he has a duty of confidentiality to me. I, on the other hand, can go on national television with a two metre high blow-up copy of his letter and complain that I've got no cash if I wish. The letter was sent to me, the information in it is MINE. That's why banks are (usually) *very* careful about what they write in letters to customers. I have signed no agreement promising to keep what they say to me quiet, and they know it. The BBC is usually similarly careful what it says in personal correspondence with private individuals.

I am a customer of the BBC, and a paying customer at that. I have signed no confidentiality agreement with them, nor is one implied in their terms and conditions. If an employee of that company sends me an email, they should not send anything that they wouldn't want broadcast on national television at peak time, on Watchdog, say. (Note for non-UK residents: Watchdog is a popular BBC consumer affairs programme. Watchdog regularly broadcasts the contents of letters which would have arrived at the recipient's house in an envelope marked "Confidential", usually in the context of quizzing the sender on why they said what they said...) The duty of confidentiality is entirely on their side. I have no legal obligations to the organisation or its employees (apart from paying my contribution towards their wages if I own a TV set, of course...).

I would like somebody please to point out very specifically where in the moderation guidelines or the BBC's Terms and Conditions it says I can't share the complete contents of my email inbox with the whole world here or on my personal space or anywhere else if I so choose. I've read both very carefully, and nothing in either of them affects *or even mentions* my right to do that, assuming that there is nothing in my inbox which breaks house rules (e.g. race hate, links to porn or other unsuitable external sites, commercial advertising, etc.).

I'm confident that nobody is implying that an email from a BBC employee is likely to be in breach of the BBC's own rules, so posting the complete text of an email from one could not possibly be in breach of any term or condition.

On the other hand, someone *may* be implying that some BBC employees may consider that the contents of emails they have sent out may be less than acceptable for public viewing. If that is the case, I would seriously advise those employees to check their employment contracts. I can get reprimanded and/or sacked for bringing the company I work for into disrepute. I have a legal, written-and-signed-agreement-type responsibility to them to ensure I, as their employee and representative, protect their interests in all my correspondence, public *and* private.

If a rule is introduced soon (Friday, say...) to try to legitimise the prevention of the dissemination of information in emails from BBC employees in the absence of written or implied confidentiality agreements, one must seriously question what the BBC is trying to hide.

Let us be clear: in this context, to me, the BBC is no different than a bank. They make money out of me, in return I get a service. I agree to abide by certain rules to use that service (I don't post offensive material, I don't write bad cheques). The rules don't and can't include keeping secret the things they tell me.

Getting increasingly annoyed at the tone this is taking.

H.

Tube

Hoovooloo, you're missing a more fundamental issue: under UK law copyright automatically resides with the writer of a letter or email, not the recipient, so unless you're claiming an exemption under the fair use rules, confidentiality agreements are unnecessary and irrelevant.

I just talked to a woman who's working on a PhD comparing German, Hungarian and UK copyright laws and regulations.
Yes, BBC/H2G2 holds the copyright to whatever they write.
No, the copyright is not infringed. A) quoting the e-mail's not intended to create financial gain. B) stating that BBC/H2G2 wrote it leaves their copyright intact and C) a whole bunch of exemptions come into it as well, the fair use you mentioned, public interest ...

A line has to be drawn where the e-mail contains personal information provided to me by the BBC/H2G2 (like if Mark told me that he's madly in love with U########) to protect the person giving the info. But that is not the case for the messages here.
But that's not copyright either...

Tube

I'm speculating again, here....

Seems to me that if people deliberately post inappropriate language or other 'contraband' in this thread to make a point, they might be creating a valid reason for the whole thing to be deleted if that sort of thing continues here.

I've got the feeling that part of the PTB's job is to maintain h2g2 as a productive community, (not entirely sure exactly which direction they want it to take, though) and things which direct our efforts from the purpose of the site MIGHT be seen as counterproductive to the whole.

If that's the case, then the PTB don't have much choice other than to decline to engage in conversations about moderation when it takes too much of their time, especially if it means they can't properly accomplish the other aspects of their job description.

Also, last fall I remember seeing something where someone was posting emails from Mark, and that was not considered to be acceptable. Mark gave a reason, but I don't remember what it was. In the interest of keeping this place constructive, perhaps it would be best for someone to go ask the PTB if they'd mind emails being duplicated for everyone to see, since they don't have time to maintain the moderation help desk. Never know.... he might say yes. If it were ME, I probably would, as long as it was duplicated totally and exactly. Might be a problem to keep them in context, though... after all, they are sent out individually, to address specific issues....

Just some vague ramblings while I have my coffee, for what they're worth.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=130663&skip=20&show=20 for a more detailed discussion of the confidentiality thing, incl. MM's opintion.

It is the feeling that everything is being made up as they go along which is disturbing me. Re-active legislation is always bad.

***B

7rob7> "As I understand it, the people who make these decisions feel that 'The Forum That Dare Not Speak Its Name' is all the same things that the XXX'd post is, and so gets the same treatment."

Facts:
The XXX post is still visible on h2g2, twice, along with various 'translations'. Links to the FoLKZ mailing list have been hidden. Same treatment?

Different rules apply to BBC sites and sites the BBC links to. That is why BBC News can link to the Lib-Dem website, for example. Some of the rules on linked sites can be read at http://www.h2g2.com/houserules

> "In the interest of keeping this place constructive, perhaps it would be best for someone to go ask the PTB if they'd mind emails being duplicated for everyone to see [snip] Never know.... he might say yes"

And if you put a little red hat with a flying pig motif on a snowball, it'll last a long time in hell.

Hi all -

Lucinda: Absolutely not the same treatment! Hence my reference to 'irony' in my signature to that post. To use a virtually word-for-word description of the xxx'd post ("offensive", "defamatory", etc.) to describe the FolKZ forum – and then to use that description to ban the latter while retaining the former – strikes me as terribly ironic. Blundering, even.

-7rob7

Great thanks Ben. Can you give me the ISBN number for the book on 'Moderation and Editorial Policy in a Dotcom that Has Been Incorporated Into a State Owned Broadcasting Corporation' please? It would come in dead handy.

Oh god, Peta, if I knew the answers I would give them. :-/ All I can do is ask dumb questions. It would be really nice to have some Italics' comments on the issues raised in the "what is the bbc's interest in h2g2" thread. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=130228&skip=0&show=20 I know you need to respect the Beeb's confidentiality and keep quiet about internal battles and upcoming plans, but there is SO much uncertainty, and it is easy for us to forget that there are Powers Behind the Towers. My guess is that you guys are under pressures we don't know about. Mark's posting which I copied into that thread was very illuminating, so a few history lessons wouldn't go amis. *off to www.amazon.co.uk (;-)) to find that book* a piece of grit called Ben

I'm asking someone else *here* for a response on this. I'll get back to you on this one Ben if/when I hear anything. As you say, it might not be such a good idea for any company or corporation to reveal its plans online, but we try to be a very transparent and honest team whenever possible, so I'm off seeking information now. I'll get back to you.

Peta

"My guess is that you guys are under pressures we don't know about."

Best posting I've seen all week...

...which ties in with something I've been thinking about since yesterday evening.

Ben is right about re-active legislation. I've been reading this thread from the beginning and have the feeling people on both sides are being backed into corners and that possibly the PTBs haven't got over the events which have hit h2g2 in the last six months. Perhaps we shouldn't be forcing the immediate resolution of some of these issues? They are too important to just let go however ....

so I would like to suggest the idea of an adjournment of this thread, for say four?, six? weeks? to give everyone a bit of timeout, get some perspective, work out where this debate might go next, avoid Black Friday?

It's just a suggestion, take it or leave it as you all please, it's not really any of my business as I haven't entered the discussion, I've just been listening out of concern over what is happening. I'm usually wrong, and I always regret posting anything serious so why I'm doing this I don't know - shall I, shan't I press 'post'? If you're reading this I did and am wishing I hadn't and will be somewhat relieved if no one appears to have noticed.
Waz

Well, Waz, I am very glad you posted that; it strikes me as a wise and constructive suggestion.

You are right about people being backed into a corner, and you are right about the dangers of that. (One of the reasons I took a week off was to give events time to pass, and let the debate to move from the particular to the general. But it will obviously take longer than that.)

Taking it from first principles: I assume that we all have the good of h2g2 at heart, and that no-one actually wants to undermine h2g2?

Presumably everyone also wants as much freedom of speech as possible. (Though 'freedom of speech' cannot be relative; either we have freedom of speech, or we don't. On h2g2 we don't. No point in bitching about this, the beeb own the site and they impose the rules.)

So we have two debates: Are the rules reasonable? And are they correctly, fairly, wisely, applied? ('Maybe', and 'No', imho).

We also have a practical matter: what can changes can be brought about by debate and suggestion, and what is unchangable?

And a final and fundamental question: just what to the beeb intend to do with the site? What is their vision for h2g2?

I am also aware that the Italics are in a v difficult position: unable to talk about any - ahem - negotiations they are having with the Powers Behind the Towers, and taking unrestricted flack from us; they are partially silenced by their contracts of employment.

This is not to say that I think the decisions they have made have always been wise. I don't, bigtime, I don't.

Also it has become apparent that they will be much more guarded in off-site communication in the future, which is probably not that condusive to clear communications.

The problem is that events just keep happening. The lifetime ban, the recent one week's suspension (which I know nothing about, just that it has happened), the moderated FoLKZ link, the moderated email addy, (again, I haven't been there personally), the reactive legislation: this has the feeling of a situation which is out of control.

The fear is that we will have a purge, simply because emotions are high, and posts are being made in haste. (Me too).

I doubt if a 6 weeks cooling off period is practical, a lot of us have things we feel strongly about and want to say now, but it DOES seem like a good idea. Then it would be good to re-open the debate.

"Oh lord give me the strength to change the things I can,
the serenity to accept the things I cannot,
and the serenity to know the difference."

"I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." (Voltaire)

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. ...Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." (John Donne)

Ben

*sympathy for Italics, and everyone else*

Quickly, so I don't take up too much time.

Mark and Peta: Thanks for stopping by. One-sided conversations have a tendency to go nowhere useful.

Waz: Ditto what agcBen sez. Though I think it's still too soon to see clearly through the smoke, I would hope we could get something constructive going before six weeks goes by. Can only wait and see.

agcBen: I wouldn't and couldn't have put it better. Thank you.

-7rob7