unless the email makes some kind of implicit request to not be published
What does “implicit request” mean here? There are a lot of email conversations where no one writes a single word that’s alluding to ‘don’t share this’, but where it’s clearly discussing very sensitive stuff and (for that reason) no one expects it to be posted to Hacker News or whatever later.
Without having seen the emails, I’m guessing Leverage would have viewed their conversation with Alyssa as ‘obviously a thing we don’t want shared and don’t expect you to share’, and I’m guessing they’d confirm that now if asked?
I do think that our community is often too cautious about sharing stuff. But I’m a bit worried about the specific case of ‘normalizing big infodumps of private emails where no one technically said they didn’t want the emails shared’.
(Maybe if you said more about why it’s important in this specific case? The way you phrased it sort of made it sound like you think this should be the norm even for sensitive conversations where no one did anything terrible, but I assume that’s not your view.)
I don’t know, kind of complicated, enough that I could probably write a sequence on it, and not even sure I would have full introspective access into what I would feel comfortable labeling as an “implicit request”.
I could write some more detail, but it’s definitely a matter of degree, and the weaker the level of implicit request, the weaker the reason for sharing needs to be, with some caveats about adjusting for people’s communication skills, adversarial nature of the communication, adjusting for biases, etc.
I want to throw out that while I am usually SUPER on team “explicit communication norms”, the rule-nuances of the hardest cases might sometimes work best if they are a little chaotic & idiosyncratic.
I personally think there might be something mildly-beneficial and protective, about having “adversarial case detected” escape-clauses that vary considerably from person-to-person.
(Otherwise, a smart lawful adversary can reliably manipulate the shit out of things.)
What does “implicit request” mean here? There are a lot of email conversations where no one writes a single word that’s alluding to ‘don’t share this’, but where it’s clearly discussing very sensitive stuff and (for that reason) no one expects it to be posted to Hacker News or whatever later.
Without having seen the emails, I’m guessing Leverage would have viewed their conversation with Alyssa as ‘obviously a thing we don’t want shared and don’t expect you to share’, and I’m guessing they’d confirm that now if asked?
I do think that our community is often too cautious about sharing stuff. But I’m a bit worried about the specific case of ‘normalizing big infodumps of private emails where no one technically said they didn’t want the emails shared’.
(Maybe if you said more about why it’s important in this specific case? The way you phrased it sort of made it sound like you think this should be the norm even for sensitive conversations where no one did anything terrible, but I assume that’s not your view.)
I don’t know, kind of complicated, enough that I could probably write a sequence on it, and not even sure I would have full introspective access into what I would feel comfortable labeling as an “implicit request”.
I could write some more detail, but it’s definitely a matter of degree, and the weaker the level of implicit request, the weaker the reason for sharing needs to be, with some caveats about adjusting for people’s communication skills, adversarial nature of the communication, adjusting for biases, etc.
I want to throw out that while I am usually SUPER on team “explicit communication norms”, the rule-nuances of the hardest cases might sometimes work best if they are a little chaotic & idiosyncratic.
I personally think there might be something mildly-beneficial and protective, about having “adversarial case detected” escape-clauses that vary considerably from person-to-person.
(Otherwise, a smart lawful adversary can reliably manipulate the shit out of things.)