LET'S TALK LEGALITIES

[Jo Blose]

There may be a crypto-related volley of private email exchanges currently in the public domain, touted as an interview. The interview is contained inside an analysis of an incident. Who the three participants are and where that information is, is not relevant.

What is important is at no time during the email exchange, did the "interviewer" seek permission to, or advise the "interviewees", the entire email exchange would be made public to the internet community's public viewing. This was no public forum this occurred on, no chat room, it was a private email exchange. No aliases were given, no permission sought from the interviewees, it was all screen captures of the emails, and there they are, up for the entire world to see - content, spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. In essence, it is a publication!

Let's see what Legal Aid Qld says about this:

When can I record a face to face conversation?

It is not illegal to record a face-to-face conversation that you are involved in but there may be restrictions on how you use it.

When can I tell somebody about a conversation or publish a conversation that was legally recorded?

If you were involved in a conversation that you legally recorded, it is illegal to communicate the conversation or publish it if you do not have the permission of the other people involved in the conversation. Penalties apply. You may be able to use it as evidence in court proceedings.

It is illegal to publish or communicate a private conversation that was listened to or recorded illegally. Penalties apply. Illegally obtained recordings cannot be used in evidence.

Now, as a crypto interviewer and interviewee myself, this is alarming!! As if it's not difficult enough as it is to reassure witnesses that interviews are protected and totally anonymous unless they consent to it being made public! I have private email exchanges, private message exchanges, telephone conversations, and face to face interviews with people in a crypto-related regard all the time. Everybody here does, to some extent!

Open for discussion is the ramifications this internet publication may have on A) The website hosting the publication, and B) the Interviewer. Nestle back deep into your armchairs folks, let's see who can find C) what the penalties to the hosting website may be, D) what the penalties to the Interviewer may be, E) how easy it is to initiate a legal proceeding against this type of dirty behaviour, and F) what that website should have done...

[NoPolys]

whoa..... I would be a bit hostile if I shared something I believed was in confidence. Having said that, very little on the information highway could ever be construed as "private".

Integrity seems to take a backseat to sensationalism... or something like that in this age of instant gratification

edit: Steve, make certain you have the NDA, Publication Release and Disclaimers all in a stack before you do anything, no matter which side of the microphone you're on.... I seem to remember there is a long historical precedence regarding statements, quotes, background and unattributed information. Of course, this was in a slightly different arena than the crypto world, I'm still attempting to get a grip on this....lol

[Mike Williams]

Hi Steve..

What is important is at no time during the email exchange, did the "interviewer" seek permission to, or advise the "interviewees", the entire email exchange would be made public to the internet community's public viewing.

If I was getting smashed in an email exchange...the last thing i would want to do is post the "chat" up in public...
But..if you are not very bright...(and have a bit of a problem....cough cough..) and cannot work even that out...then..post em up..
Re the main "interview"...that was for a major...magazine. ?.err..no..it was for a book "..er..no...for a large web site ?..er..no...a large chat board ?..er..no..
It was for a chat board for 6 people......
WOW....

Integrity seems to take a backseat to sensationalism

Your right on the money Nopolys..!