Even the so called good guys...ugly hobby?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am sure all of us have said things in emails that, if taken out of context and published on message boards, would not make us look pretty. This is not to excuse Kevin (although I continue to be highly skeptical he actually did anything along the lines he was speaking about) but to make a broader point that I don't think people should publish private emails, even if their intentions are good.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am not condemning John by any means, I understand this is a matter on which people have legitimate differences of opinion, I am merely stating my own.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sure all of us have said things in emails that, if taken out of context and published on message boards, would not make us look pretty.

The entire email string was revealed; nothing was taken out of context.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In this particular case, sure, but that doesn't change my view of the wisdom of the rule (which this forum has) against publication.

And I quote
Things you can not post about

Personal information about people including but not limited to: Phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, etc, unless given permission ...Personal emails should not be posted on the board.

[calvindog]

Except it wasn't a private email that was published; it was an email that was released by Elkins to someone other than the sender.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Did Kevin authorize it to be released? If not, he still has an expectation of privacy which HE did not waive.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I write something to my lawyer, in confidence. The lawyer breaches the privilege and forwards it to a third party. The third party, knowing the original communication was intended to remain confidential, nevertheless publishes it without my permission. I have no right to be POd at the third party, as well as my lawyer?

[Abravefan11]

Double Post

[Abravefan11]

I'm certainly not trying to argue with a lawyer, but....

I feel that the rule about posting private emails is much like laws we have on our books protecting citizens privacy.

In 99% of cases the law (or rule in this case) is for the protection of the good people. 1% of the time the law protects the bad people. But for the betterment of the majority we can't pick and choose when we use the rule.

[calvindog]

Except that it Kevin's email was not a privileged communication between an attorney and a client and thus does not deserve the protection you describe.

A better analogy would be the issue of the disclosure of psychiatric records of a victim/witness in a criminal case. They are obviously protected from disclosure to a defense lawyer -- unless the records bear on the witness's state of mind or credibility -- and then they are fair game, the point being that the defendant's right to cross-examine trumps any privacy rights of the witness. Similarly, as Leon argued here and most would agree, the revelation of Kevin's stated claim of defrauding Net 54 members by releasing altered cards into the hobby trumps any pseudo-privacy right he might have.