In this morning’s email stack was an unsolicited message from City Councilmember Tom Berg, actually a copy of a message addressed to Honolulu Weekly. Subject: BERG AT APEC EVENT.
This email consisted of a rambling series of accusations against the Honolulu Police Department and federal agents based on what Berg says is the “truth” of his experience at APEC. It also includes accusations against the Star-Advertiser and two of its columnists for “patently false” (Berg’s term) reporting.
Reached by phone this afternoon, Berg confirmed he had sent the email.
Berg, in the mail, said: “I am concerned for my safety….”
And then it adds this sentence:
THIS EMAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE AND ITS CONTENTS CANNOT BE SHARED OR PUBLISHED OR DISSEMINATED.
I would say this. If you really want something to be “confidential and private,” then I don’t think you should be sending it out unsolicited to others who have no such agreement with you.
Let me ask readers: Do you think I have any obligation whatsoever to Berg’s demand to keep his unsolicited email confidential?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Absolutely not.
Once you can verify it was Berg himself who is the author, you have no obligation to keep it confidential.
Confidentiality agreements usually require the consent of both parties. They cannot be unilaterally imposed, unless you are the government (e.g., Dept of Justice NSA letters).
http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=138465109
I think the above is a more compelling issue from city hall. Tom Berg is vocal about rail expenses and obviously not a favorite councilman in town.
I guess what you see & hear is only 10% of the “berg” so to speak. But large – even cloaked – doesn’t necessarily equate to good or powerful or pono, etc.
And a pol – for that matter anyone else – that is “only concerned for my own safety” is at best self-serving, at worse a narcissist not caring for others.
I guess given your concern and professional ethics you might want to verify that it came from him and is okay to disseminate or that you won’t be makin’ somethin’ illegally disclosed. This, if only to reduce the docket for our over-worked court system on what to me at least could be another trivial lawsuit!
I have noticed that there are quite a few people, especially, professionals such as attornies, insurance agents and the like, who have such a statement built in to their email signature. This signature block is added automatically to any email that the send out. I suspect that it is a CYA and that many probably have forgotten that it is there. I treat it as advisory but not legally binding.
Sounds like an Atomic Monkey story. That’s confidential, by the way.
I could never write as badly as Tom, and I’m a primate.
If you send me an e-mail, you have no confidentiality nor should ever expect it.
Legally, no, despite what some whacko would love to argue before Scalia!
Ethically, it’s up to you.
As it should be.
My short answer to your question is “no,” for the reasons given by others above (confidentiality requires mutual consent (not unilateral edict), email is, by definition, not confidential, etc.).
That being said, if you have some doubt about the email’s origin/authenticity, I think you should hold fire until that issue is resolved OR be clear right up front that the origin/authenticity has not been verified. Specifically, in the 1st paragraph you state that you received “an unsolicited message from City Councilmember Tom Berg” and in the 3rd you say “Berg says that . . . ” These are affirmative statements that the email was from Berg and that the statements were made by him.
However, in the 5th and 6th paragraphs you say, “I have to find out whether this is really from Councilman Berg” and “if it is from Berg . . . .” By that point, the barn door was open and the horse was long gone.
Of course, it sounds all too much like the Councilman from Ewa but I think the real question you should have asked (or at least asked yourself) is whether it was OK to “go to print” affirmatively attributing the statements to Berg without verification, not if doing so violated some pseudonymously imposed confidentiality restriction.
OR have clearly said up front “In this morning’s email stack was *WHAT PURPORTED TO BE* an unsolicited message from City Councilmember Tom Berg” and “*THE EMAIL APPEARING TO BE FROM* Berg says that . . . . “
Or just start all your posts off with “there’s a rumor going ’round….”
Author-nominees in order of precedence:
1) Eric Ryan
2) Keith Rollman
3) Tom Berg
Wasn’t me. Berg doesn’t need any help making an ass of himself.
Also, I’m the only one on your list of “suspects” that never had access to the email account that sent this thing.
Today’s post has been updated after I confirmed that the email was sent by Berg.
It’s a crazy email. Clearly from Berg.
Assuming it’s from Berg it actually is public information assuming the content touches on his council business. I am often astonished at how office holders write “confidential on documents they send via email like that overrides the sunshine law. If it were me I’d post the whole thing just because it almost demands it be confidential.
Well that pretty much hits the nail on the head. If it was sent from Berg’s Council email account, it’s a “government record” under the UIPA (“Freedom of Information Act”) (not the sunshine law, which covers meetings) and is presumed disclosable/public.
It was from a private email account and not from his council email.
Ian, if you ask Berg to verify the authenticity of the email, you might also ask if he’s the “CouncilmanBerg,” who pops up in the SA blogs. They’re pretty unhinged too, and I’ve been suspicious as to whether someone’s “helping” his reputation along.
It seems to me that the person claiming a right of ‘confidentiality’ has the burden of establishing it. so the inquiry would go something like. Assume the email is ‘legit’ in the sense that it is what is says it its. A communication from the person and the person ‘says’ it is confidential. The person receiving it can say “Prove it.” And wait for the ‘claimant’ to do so. In a way it isn’t your responsibility to establish ‘his’ claim of right. But no harm in being polite about it. heh heh.
Give Tommy a break, boyos. If we didn’t have him. we’d have to invent him.