[admin]

We want to be responsible in posts to the CardBoard. Although the law gives message boards much leniency in reposting information, we want to be responsible when quoting material from outside.

The three main keys are to attribute information to its original source, to excerpt appropriately, and to maintain privacy in cases in which the writer has a reasonable expectation of such.

Here are some guidelines for redistributing information. Very little is new; it's just a reminder:

Information available publicly on the Web

• Poster does not have an expectation of privacy
  
• Post only a relevant excerpt of the story, never the full article
  
• Use the Quotation feature (icon that looks like a cartoon speech bubble) to clearly illustrate what is borrowed material
  
• ALWAYS link to the original source

Tweets

• Tweets from unprotected accounts -- those that do not require permission to subscribe are all public
  
• Paste tweet, as well as a link to the source

Email

• Email writers have an expectation of privacy UNLESS: those emails are sent to a large group (Dear Season Ticket Holder, etc.) or the sender has explicitly encouraged the redistribution (Toby for Voldemort Campaign)
  
• Information from email messages sent to individuals, rather than to groups as outlined should never be posted in public areas of the CardBoard

[admin]

We want to be responsible in posts to the CardBoard. Although the law gives message boards much leniency in reposting information, we want to be responsible when quoting material from outside.

The three main keys are to attribute information to its original source, to excerpt appropriately, and to maintain privacy in cases in which the writer has a reasonable expectation of such.

Here are some guidelines for redistributing information. Very little is new; it's just a reminder:

Information available publicly on the Web

• Poster does not have an expectation of privacy
  
• Post only a relevant excerpt of the story, never the full article
  
• Use the Quotation feature (icon that looks like a cartoon speech bubble) to clearly illustrate what is borrowed material
  
• ALWAYS link to the original source

Tweets

• Tweets from unprotected accounts -- those that do not require permission to subscribe are all public
  
• Paste tweet, as well as a link to the source

Email

• Email writers have an expectation of privacy UNLESS: those emails are sent to a large group (Dear Season Ticket Holder, etc.) or the sender has explicitly encouraged the redistribution (Toby for Voldemort Campaign)
  
• Information from email messages sent to individuals, rather than to groups as outlined should never be posted in public areas of the CardBoard

[M T]

I appreciate that attempt to set standards to avoid (usually unintentional) illegal or improper behavior by posters.

Email....or the sender has explicitly encouraged the rebroadcasting

I suggest "encouraged" be changed to "permitted".  I would also suggest that "rebroadcasting" be changed to "further distribution."

Email....Information from email messages sent to individuals, rather than to groups as outlined should never be posted in public areas of the CardBoard

This seems to contradict the second disjunct of bullet 1 under Email.  The first disjunct is about email to large groups, but the second would seem to include email messages sent to individuals.  Can you please clarify this?

---

Email writers have an expectation of privacy

I AM NO LAWYER, but I thought that the prevailing usage is that the recipient of an email (or a letter) has possession and usually can do with it pretty much what they want.  The writer, as I understand it, has a copyright.  Beyond that, unless you have a prior agreement in place (such as confidentiality of business communications involving your company, an agreement with some content provider, etc.) or the content is such that you could reasonably know that distributing it further is in violation of the law or some legal order, I thought the writer of an email had no real expectation of privacy from the recipients.  [I do believe that you have an reasonable expectation of privacy of that content except for the recipients and whomever the recipients may redistribute it to (recursively) -- again limited by whatever prior agreements you may have.  In other words, a sysadmin snooping into email (either in the recipient's stored mail, or as it is being transmitted) is wrong.] 

In most circumstances, I think people should (but are generally not required to) treat received email as something that should not be exposed without permission of the author, and I am happy to comply with rules at this site that content of email can not be shared unless there was clearly no expectation of privacy (either it was sent to a large group or the writer has given permission for its release).

I will also remind people that what you make public on the Internet will likely remain public for the rest of your life.  Emails (to a mailing list) I sent 30 years ago can be found through Google.  Consider what your grandchildren will think before you say anything that could be construed as negative or in any way inappropriate.

[M T]

I appreciate that attempt to set standards to avoid (usually unintentional) illegal or improper behavior by posters.

Email....or the sender has explicitly encouraged the rebroadcasting

I suggest "encouraged" be changed to "permitted".  I would also suggest that "rebroadcasting" be changed to "further distribution."

Email....Information from email messages sent to individuals, rather than to groups as outlined should never be posted in public areas of the CardBoard

This seems to contradict the second disjunct of bullet 1 under Email.  The first disjunct is about email to large groups, but the second would seem to include email messages sent to individuals.  Can you please clarify this?

---

Email writers have an expectation of privacy

I AM NO LAWYER, but I thought that the prevailing usage is that the recipient of an email (or a letter) has possession and usually can do with it pretty much what they want.  The writer, as I understand it, has a copyright.  Beyond that, unless you have a prior agreement in place (such as confidentiality of business communications involving your company, an agreement with some content provider, etc.) or the content is such that you could reasonably know that distributing it further is in violation of the law or some legal order, I thought the writer of an email had no real expectation of privacy from the recipients.  [I do believe that you have an reasonable expectation of privacy of that content except for the recipients and whomever the recipients may redistribute it to (recursively) -- again limited by whatever prior agreements you may have.  In other words, a sysadmin snooping into email (either in the recipient's stored mail, or as it is being transmitted) is wrong.] 

In most circumstances, I think people should (but are generally not required to) treat received email as something that should not be exposed without permission of the author, and I am happy to comply with rules at this site that content of email can not be shared unless there was clearly no expectation of privacy (either it was sent to a large group or the writer has given permission for its release).

I will also remind people that what you make public on the Internet will likely remain public for the rest of your life.  Emails (to a mailing list) I sent 30 years ago can be found through Google.  Consider what your grandchildren will think before you say anything that could be construed as negative or in any way inappropriate.

[admin]

Thanks for your comments, MT. I have changed "rebroadcasting" to "redistribution."

Generally, the gist of the rest of the message is this. Although we technically have the right to republish information from an email, the sender may have chosen that medium because he or she expected a level of privacy. So, I'm requesting that posters use discretion when disseminating information they receive in emails. I think you said it much better than I did:

People should (but are generally not required to) treat received email as something that should not be exposed without permission of the author...[or] unless there was clearly no expectation of privacy (either it was sent to a large group or the writer has given permission for its release).

[admin]

Thanks for your comments, MT. I have changed "rebroadcasting" to "redistribution."

Generally, the gist of the rest of the message is this. Although we technically have the right to republish information from an email, the sender may have chosen that medium because he or she expected a level of privacy. So, I'm requesting that posters use discretion when disseminating information they receive in emails. I think you said it much better than I did:

People should (but are generally not required to) treat received email as something that should not be exposed without permission of the author...[or] unless there was clearly no expectation of privacy (either it was sent to a large group or the writer has given permission for its release).