Medlock and someone else's e-mails

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I'm really not clear on the law regarding misdirected emails, but I don't think he's under any obligation to notify unless there was a disclaimer attached to the email warning the recipient of the confidential nature of the communication.  The only reason you jokers are saying it's "unethical" is because you don't like his politics.  I really don't care one way or the other about the guy, but what constitutes "ethical behavior" is in the eye of the beholder unless you can prove he violated a law.

The contents of those emails were the intellectual property (sound familiar) of the city. Likely there is a city computer access policy that also reiterates that. We can only hope medlock didn't use hotmail as that opens a whole other can of worms.

[Aa5drvr]

dist2@tulsacouncil.org

Testing, Testing.

Chris did you get this?

[aoxamaxoa]

I don't have problems with Chris' politics even though I disagree with them at times. But, I do have a problem with accepting someone with no integrity who holds himself out there as credible.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I'm really not clear on the law regarding misdirected emails, but I don't think he's under any obligation to notify unless there was a disclaimer attached to the email warning the recipient of the confidential nature of the communication.  The only reason you jokers are saying it's "unethical" is because you don't like his politics.  I really don't care one way or the other about the guy, but what constitutes "ethical behavior" is in the eye of the beholder unless you can prove he violated a law.

The contents of those emails were the intellectual property (sound familiar) of the city. Likely there is a city computer access policy that also reiterates that. We can only hope medlock didn't use hotmail as that opens a whole other can of worms.

What IP right was violated?  The only right that might apply is copyright, but he hasn't violated that right either.

This really deals more with confidentiality and ownership of documents.  There may be policies that deal with what the city considers to be confidential info, but a quick review of the law in this area reinforces my initial thoughts, that unless there was a disclaimer they have no claim.  It's certianly attaches no criminal penalty.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

FB, interesting what you will come to the defense of and what you will rail against...

I'm just sayin'...

Wasn't one black eye today enough?  Coming back for the other eye now, are you?

Okay.  Here goes.

I think, within reasonable parameters, if my former employer email account continued to be forwarded to my personal email account, after a short period of time, I would contact my former employer with this information.  

That's what I would do.

However, the former employee is not REQUIRED to contact the former employer.

If there were a Financial aspect to this transaction, where former Councilor Medlock for instance continued to receive his salary or parking allowance in error, then I believe he would have a responsiblity to contact his employer.

A COPY of an e-mail?

No. There's no crime.

Despite the Lorton's World's histrionics, there was no INTERCEPTION of the message.

The original INTENDEE of the email did in fact continue to receive all Emails:

dist2@tulsacouncil.org

If your bank computer department configured your Outlook or Lotus Notes e-mail account to provide a automatic carbon copy to another email address, the problem would probably be solved when that user's individual account got revoked upon termination.

The generic email addresses used by the city meant they needed to be more on their toes.

And, being the City Goobermint, they weren't on their toes.

Medlock probably found the information humerous to continue to receive his old e-mail.

He however, could have put a stop to it, after a REASONABLE error period.

He was not, however, under any requirement, since he did not DO anything.  HE did not intercept anything.

And he simply didn'have to.

I think I would have.  But, that's just because I'm an old softie.

[guido911]

From now on, when I read/hear "sources say" from this guy (who is part of the news reporting media) I will wonder how and where he obtained the information.

[tim huntzinger]

Now I understand what that recall thing was all about.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

From now on, when I read/hear "sources say" from this guy (who is part of the news reporting media) I will wonder how and where he obtained the information.

The arch-evil nemesis of former City Councilor John Benjamin (now Bixby resident) are the local nattering, nay-sayers of negatism.

a.k.a. the Dissenters.  

There are more than a few to keep Medlock & Company fed with juicy insider news tidbits.

Emails from former constituents (and now neighbors) complaining about potholes would definitely not be big news.

I'm sure Mr. Medlock & Company will have plenty to talk about.

He's got some powerful enemies.

He also may have a few friends hereabouts.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

FB, interesting what you will come to the defense of and what you will rail against...

I'm just sayin'...

Wasn't one black eye today enough?  Coming back for the other eye now, are you?

Okay.  Here goes.

I think, within reasonable parameters, if my former employer email account continued to be forwarded to my personal email account, after a short period of time, I would contact my former employer with this information.  

That's what I would do.

However, the former employee is not REQUIRED to contact the former employer.

If there were a Financial aspect to this transaction, where former Councilor Medlock for instance continued to receive his salary or parking allowance in error, then I believe he would have a responsiblity to contact his employer.

A COPY of an e-mail?

No. There's no crime.

Despite the Lorton's World's histrionics, there was no INTERCEPTION of the message.

The original INTENDEE of the email did in fact continue to receive all Emails:

dist2@tulsacouncil.org

If your bank computer department configured your Outlook or Lotus Notes e-mail account to provide a automatic carbon copy to another email address, the problem would probably be solved when that user's individual account got revoked upon termination.

The generic email addresses used by the city meant they needed to be more on their toes.

And, being the City Goobermint, they weren't on their toes.

Medlock probably found the information humerous to continue to receive his old e-mail.

He however, could have put a stop to it, after a REASONABLE error period.

He was not, however, under any requirement, since he did not DO anything.  HE did not intercept anything.

And he simply didn'have to.

I think I would have.  But, that's just because I'm an old softie.

Lacking integrity is not criminal. It's a character flaw. Unfortunately, it's becoming more and more commonplace.

[Wrinkle]

Actually, the concept of Westcott being a mole solves all the incongruencies.

[Wilbur]

I agree the moral thing to do was call the council office and tell them to stop the emails from being forwarded.

But remember, he is receiving copies of emails that are open to the public.  Unfortunately, those of us in government have no privacy.  Thus, all our emails, instant messages, cell phone records, telephone records ........  are public record and available to anyone.

[RecycleMichael]

I agree with Wilbur.

The right thing to do was to notify someone at the city that you were getting e-mails that were not intended for you.

He didn't do that.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Simple forwarding.  Work email accounts are frequently forwarded to people so that they can work from home.  Especially when a company doesn't have a proper email exchange server that people can log onto at home or a replicating program.  I'm guessing the city isn't very technologically advanced...

                                               That is a scary thought considering what the head of IT makes annually.

[RecycleMichael]

More class envy, doubleA?

The city information technology person was not hired when this problem occured, but don't let facts get in your way of attacking innocent people.

[shadows]

I can't see what all the screaming is about.   There are disclaimers on the internet all the time that others can assess the e-mails.  A court of appeals sent a case back to the district court overruling a lower court on the  FOIA.  Since the address of the e-mail involve the city council which involves taxpayers funds, all information is subject to the FOIA, except the few exceptions exempted by law which the city is obligated to itemize.  

Thinking back when a city commissioner used the city copy machine to make some personal copies that cause quite an  upset; I relate this to what kind of personal messages are received and sent with city owned property? (computers)  The information, sent or received, would be relevant to the production of government, not to be hidden from the people.    

Having used the FOIA to obtain city information, it can be done but they will throw everything they can think of in the way before they release it.  I have had some good experience with that.

I would believe that he was under no obligation to cancel the forwarding as all information should have been limited to the public interest.  He may have needed to call and tell someone that the e-mails were cluttering up his hard drive and he was tired of deleting it.  

PS The ruling is published in today TW and should be of interest to all parties on this form.