The Persistence of Malice
Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker, Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change, technology and the future.
In addition to speaking at conferences worldwide, he's also written monthly columns for Municipal World and Computing Canada.
His goal is always to question what we think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities.
If you'd like permission to reprint any of Peter's articles, please contact him directly.
You can contact him at
pdejager@technobility.com
Or sign the Guest Book and he'll get back to you.
E-mail might seem a rather ephemeral product. Something comes into our
inbox, we read it, bang out a response, hit the send key and forget about
it. If you asked me how many e-mails I send out in a day, I’d have to
answer honestly that I have no idea. Yet, my computer knows. According to
my mail statistics, I sent out 3,973 emails last year, for an average of
about 13 messages per workday. (This is deceptively low, I also use
various online mail services, and participate in many additional forums on
a variety of topics.)
More to the point, my computer has stored every one of those e-mails and has been doing so for the past 20 years… I have about 80,000 messages on my machine… and somewhere they’re echoed on the computers of all the recipients worldwide.
Which is of course the issue. What we type at the screen isn’t ephemeral; it persists in not only our computers, but likely in the machines of all the recipients, and possibly several places in between.
An associate prompted this article with a little problem that has just risen up and bitten him in a sensitive area. Over the years he’s participated in a variety of e-mail lists. These are those mail lists that distribute a single email to everyone participating in the discussion group. It is not unusual for these groups to contain tens of thousands of members.
The topics discussed in these groups are sometimes of a very sensitive nature; employee problems, Union discussions, feedback on consultants and services, and even the pricing of products. From time to time too much information is provided, so much so that even an outsider can fill in the blanks and identify the specific situations under discussion.
These ‘open’ conversations by themselves should pose some concern. It’s not really possible for any one individual to know who exactly is reading the discussion. It is possible, that the person being discussed is actually watching the debate; potentially an embarrassing, if not legally ticklish, situation.
The difficulty is dramatically compounded if the archives of these discussions are then made accessible to a tool like www.google.com. Once this happens, then entering just a handful of keywords can lead anyone to conversations once considered private by the members of those e-mail discussions.
We can divide our online conversations into three categories, those that are totally harmless, those that are unethical, and those that bite back at the well intentioned.
If all our e-mails are overflowing with kindness, honey and high praise for anyone being discussed then there isn’t a problem with anyone reading our allegedly private tappings at the keyboard. So much for the first category, ‘nice’ e-mail isn’t the issue. (not too common either unfortunately)
The problem gets ugly when our e-mails fall into the second category. When they are tinged with malice or worse yet, legal wrongdoing. It’s these comments that people go searching for when there’s a lawsuit of libel to be won, proof of wrongdoing, or a person being pulled into a scandal.
Digging through old, and once forgotten, e-mails for incriminating evidence isn’t an uncommon or new occurrence. Oliver North was caught with his hands firmly in the Iran-Contra scandal when old e-mails were resurrected from Reagan administration files. More recent occurrences include any and all of the cases of corrupt governance, from Enron to other government scandals.
Avoiding this problem isn’t that difficult, it only takes a minimum level of discipline. Repeat after me; “E-mail is never private, it is always a public document, I’ll never write anything I wouldn’t mind everyone reading.”
If all our postings don't pass this simple test, then it’s time for some serious self examination, either that or start paying the lawyers a retainer now.
I’ve mentioned it before in this column, but it bears repeating. The transparency of action is our best defense against both unethical behavior, and any perception of unethical behavior. If we’re comfortable with the entire world, and specifically our clients and constituents, knowing exactly how we conduct business, then we’re very likely acting in an ethical manner.
The last category is the one that can trip up the innocent. A sincere and well intentioned effort to seek assistance from online peers can lead to unexpected embarrassment. If I’m trying to fix a HR situation, then it’s possible to provide too much information, enough to enable someone else to identify the players behind the screen. When that happens, things can go from bad to worse very quickly.
When we’re writing an e-mail about someone, it’s worthwhile always asking ourselves an additional question. What would that person think if they read what I’m writing? Would they react well or poorly to it? Would the situation go from bad to worse if they could read my public words?
If you think this is all overkill, that your e-mails are safe from prying or casual roving eyes, then you’re merely lucky… it hasn’t happened to you yet, or you don’t fully understand how data, that would include your e-mail, is protected from casual destruction, and as a by-product of that prudent action, is accessible to anyone with a need, or desire, to know.
Final thought. We should write so that if all that remains of us is our writing, then the world will have a gentle perception of our passing. That includes our e-mails as much as anything else we might scribble during our passage.
© 2006 Peter de Jager - Peter is a Keynote Speaker and consultant specializing in Change Management. You can contact and share your stories with him at Pdejager@technobility.com
For
reprint permissions click here.
I'd appreciate reading your comments
regarding this article... please take the time to respond.
Resources: