quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Any confidentiality has to be agreed between two parties.

One side cannot decide something is confidential.

Anyway, this lady is living in cockoo land. And suddenly she was brought down to earth.

As I understand it, Australian privacy law only prevents the publishing of privileged information. Nothing in her email was privileged therefore wouldn't apply. Had she put a disclaimer on the bottom indicating that the email was privileged, she might have some recourse. Then again, no one accused her of rational planned thought.

No Email should be considered private unless it was encrypted.

John

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Smith:
I have to wonder why she expects any "right to privacy" when sending an unsolicited, uneducated, and hateful email to anyone on any subject. I also wonder why it is that a majority of left leaning liberals think they have the right to tell eveyone else what to do. If I dont like something I have the right to not associate myself with it. I dont however have the right to demand someone else does likewise. guess being liberal really isnt.

In Australia an email is regarded as a private communication by law.

But obviously this foolish woman similar to her Chancellor, do not understand this may not be the case in much of the rest of the world.

Just for comment as there may be no basis that Aus laws and New Zealand laws are the same.

When I receive business email from NZ (every day at least) at the bottom of their emails they have a standard footer that says:

CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify Company X immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Company X.

Saeed was the "intended recipient". The disclaimer doesn't apply to him. He can do with it what he wishes.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Palos:
I think any debate about the right to publish the original message can best be answered with a

Whom are you arguing with? I am NOT in disagreement. But SHEESH some of you guys need to swot up on BASIC reading skills ....

quote:

Originally posted by Big Bore Boar Hunter:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Any confidentiality has to be agreed between two parties.

One side cannot decide something is confidential.

Anyway, this lady is living in cockoo land. And suddenly she was brought down to earth.

As I understand it, Australian privacy law only prevents the publishing of privileged information. Nothing in her email was privileged therefore wouldn't apply. Had she put a disclaimer on the bottom indicating that the email was privileged, she might have some recourse. Then again, no one accused her of rational planned thought.

No Email should be considered private unless it was encrypted.

John

Blah Blah Blah

and the even more basic concept that Australian laws probably don't apply in Dubai, USA, NZ etc.

IMO Prof. Leith has no complaint, and I don't see what the fuss is over.

Would Saeed posting the e-mail in the forum not be tantamount to forwarding the e-mail to another person or persons?

Foot in mouth disease springs to mind here. You can not assault someone and then expect them to not fight back!

I have never laughed so hard in my life! I have been a hunter and gunsmith for over 20 years and I have never seen someone step in it as deep as Ms. Leith.

As was stated earlier, she not only stepped in it, but conflicted every aspect of her credentials in one fell swoop. wow!
And who says Hunters arn't educated? The responses she has received exhibit a use of language and humour, the likes of which, shes probably never encountered.

She didn't once raise the flag of defeat by saying you spelled her name wrong.....lol

Chuck

This thread is being hi-jacked!

There is no reason to discuss weather it should be here or not!

Why are we not sticking to the merits of the debate and rather we are debating weather we're entitled to the debate???

PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS POST The email was vicariously adressed for ALL of us........

quote:

Why are we not sticking to the merits of the debate and rather we are debating weather we're entitled to the debate???

If you're referring to me when I said this:

quote:

IMO Prof. Leith has no complaint, and I don't see what the fuss is over.

I mean what all the fuss is over on Prof. Leith's part when she complained about the confidentiality of her e-mail.
My point was if someone sends you an e-mail, you can forward it to whoever you want, at your discretion. I don't see how posting someone's e-mail in a forum is any different than forwarding it to others.

But it's not really my problem, so I'll butt out to avoid being a "hijacker."

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
Blah Blah Blah

and the even more basic concept that Australian laws probably don't apply in Dubai, USA, NZ etc.

Precisely! No probably about it in fact they don't!

quote:

Originally posted by someoldguy:

quote:

Why are we not sticking to the merits of the debate and rather we are debating weather we're entitled to the debate???

If you're referring to me when I said this:

quote:

IMO Prof. Leith has no complaint, and I don't see what the fuss is over.

I mean what all the fuss is over on Prof. Leith's part when she complained about the confidentiality of her e-mail.
My point was if someone sends you an e-mail, you can forward it to whoever you want, at your discretion. I don't see how posting someone's e-mail in a forum is any different than forwarding it to others.

But it's not really my problem, so I'll butt out to avoid being a "hijacker."

No, sorry not you. I generally meant US as a group. I spent an hour trying to Google Au as suggested by Nitrox, and all I found was laws relating to WORKPLACE privacy. Then I realised we were sidetracking the main issues, and in effect hi-jacking our collective opinion by debating a side issue.
I apologise for a roughly drafted response which was thus mis-interpreted

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Palos:
I spent an hour trying to Google Au as suggested by Nitrox, and all I found was laws relating to WORKPLACE privacy. ....

Ha ha, sorry. I mentioned google because I couldn't be bothered looking for it or explaining it.

We have all sorts of laws relating to privacy, here's a reference but as said a bit of a long bow to draw anyone claiming it applies in Dubai

http://www.privacy.gov.au/individuals

quote:

I apologise for a roughly drafted response which was thus mis-interpreted

It's okay, Stephen.

I am still on the side of Saeed and African hunters in general. I said it's not really my problem, and it really isn't. But I still feel like it's my problem because I support the activity of responsible hunting in general. Wish I could do more. Hell, I wish I could do *any*!

Dammit, it really looks like I'm hijacking the thread, doesn't it?
Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Any confidentiality has to be agreed between two parties.

One side cannot decide something is confidential.

Anyway, this lady is living in cockoo land. And suddenly she was brought down to earth.

I suggest, Saeed, that you invite her to accompany you on a hunt and follow it with a meal of the game just harvested.