Comments on: Should you publish emails on your blog without the senders consent?

By: Deb Ng

Deb Ng — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:01:50 +0000

My general rule of thumb is if you don't have permission to publish, don't, even with emails.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:02:23 +0000

Legally speaking from a UK perspective at least, if someone sends you a letter (and in law an email is just a digital letter), as soon as it enters the postal system the letter is essentially the property of the recipient, you can do what you want with it. If you are a publisher (whether newspaper or blog) and someone sends you a letter, unless they specifically say NOT FOR PUBLICATION, you have free rein. And, even then, I don't think N4P or OFF THE RECORD are actually legally binding, although the correspondent may like to think so.

By: Vanessa

Vanessa — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:04:25 +0000

Generally no you shouldn't. It's not good web etiquette. It's like giving out someone's telephone number.

On the other hand, if it's about business, you should have an e-mail address exclusively for business use with the understanding it will be used in the context you mention.

If I pass out a business card am I offended when that person gives it to someone else without asking for my permission?

One site I've had for about six years, I know most of the subscribers pretty well now. When they send a comment or something they would like posted I never post the email or the name unless they have given prior permission. When I post it I include a blurb stating I do not post names or e-mails without permission. If they would like the information included it is up to them to let me know. I don't have time to send a request to ask.

With a business, a separate e-mail address is as appropriate as a separate phone line. E-mail is a tool used for personal and business contacts. You shouldn't leave anyone guessing which it is.

By: Sumesh

Sumesh — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:11:20 +0000

I was in a confusion early this year when I contemplated publishing an email from my (former) employer, but then decided to describe the email in my own words(as opposed to reproducing it). That way, readers will know the crux of the matter, and there won't be legal trouble (I think!).

As for the web, not every one has the time to sue TechCrunch and other blogs, though I'm pretty sure Arrington would've sued b5m if the oppposite(b5m leaking TC stuff) had happened

By: Mike Abundo

Mike Abundo — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:35:37 +0000

Yes -- especially when the email is proof of wrongdoing.

By: Jeremy Wright

Jeremy Wright — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:14:59 +0000

For the record, given the choice between someone like Mike excerpting and then putting the wrong spin on it, vs republishing the whole thing, I'd prefer the latter

By: Armen

Armen — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:27:55 +0000

This is interesting.

I've noticed more people adding disclaimers to their emails that state confidentiality, unless otherwise told. It's probably wise to be on the safe side I suppose.

By: David

David — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:20:16 +0000

I think he could have sufficiently reported on the facts listed within the e-mail without posting the full text of the e-mail. To do so was just rude.

By: Jeremy Wright

Jeremy Wright — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:21:02 +0000

For the record: this was an internal communication. Sent *only* to our team. Which contained a confidentiality and a legal notice against republication (making the copyright claim quite clear).

That said, in today’s media world you have to assume all communication will go public. However it wasn’t sent to TechCrunch by b5

By: Christie Adams

Christie Adams — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:39:44 +0000

I think real world rules apply-if someone tells you explicitly not to share the information, then you should keep it to yourself. Otherwise, you know that any information you share might get passed along.

And-as we're seeing here-sharing information can look bad on you, too. Bottom line: think it through before you post it up.

By: Jeremy Wright

Jeremy Wright — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:00:33 +0000

I took Erick's comments to mean it was emailed to them by someone else (ie: they didn't seek it out), which I think is accurate: someone leaked it to them

Not to say TechCrunch doesn't do such and such regularly, just that in this case I'm sure it was leaked to them (since we didn't send it directly, and I'm not sure waht Option C could be!)

By: Kevin Muldoon

Kevin Muldoon — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:53:44 +0000

Thanks for clarifying Jeremy. Erick Schonfeld suggested that you emailed it to them directly, this obviously changes the ballgame a little. By the sounds of it TechCrunch do this quite regularly,