Do you think it is acceptable for a special interest group to use the New Market Town’s distribution list of [resident] email addresses as a tool for sending said resident’s email regarding its own political agendas?
Background:
On October 8, 2009 an email from town resident, Clayton Magee was sent to the residents of New Market regarding information from the “Public Ethics in New Market” special interest group.
In response to receiving this email, I presented a complaint to the Town of New Market at the Town Council Meeting on October 14.
I stated my concerns regarding Mr. Magee’s [alleged] misuse of residents’ email addresses (including mine) by use of otherwise privileged information listed in the Town’s e-mail’s distribution for the “Public Ethics in New Market” political agenda.
Mr. Magee, spokesperson for “Public Ethics in New Market,” emphasized that there are Federal guidelines which allow him free use of email addresses. I believe that the email addresses contained in the cc: line of a [privileged and confidential] email are included as part of Town’s caveat use and distribution policy.
After all of this was presented at the meeting, Mayor Burhans said emphatically that the Town did not “give”(emphasis mine) the email distribution list to Mr. Magee. I believe that the context of his statement (for those who attended Wednesday’s meeting), was that the use of the word “give” derived meaning from the word definition itself as defined in Webster’s Dictionary, “to bestow by formal action;” bestow meaning to present as a gift, and not with permission or consent.
Discussions:
The bottom line is the Town’s distribution list was included—accidentally—in the cc: line in a prior to October 8themail; however, the caveat in the body of the email was also included. This suggests to me that the email addresses listed were to be considered private and confidential. When Mr. Magee used the email addresses for his own political agenda, it was certainly not something the Town would have authorized, by any means!
Yes, there was an accidental/unintentional distribution of the email addresses in the cc: line, and there may be arguments as to which information is protected and which is not, as far as public access beyond any caveat legal statement the Town could prescribe. However, to me, it all boils down to general ethical principles and issues surrounding a public citizen group’s ability to take information (i.e., email addresses) that is clearly considered “sensitive,” and use it for its own political gain and as a tool for sending a “spam” email.
In defending his actions, Mr. Magee and his “Public Ethics in New Market” group have, in my opinion, lost the ability to maintain the “highest trust” for its group and the residents of New Market.
Summary:
I believe the public needs to be made aware that this act, performed by the “Public Ethics in New Market,” may have initiated a [possible] precedence for internet spamming. As a message to those who wish to disregard this type of internet abuse, I would like to make it clear that any new emails I receive from this special interest group (or other related groups) will be treated with the same automatic status reduction to zero tolerance for levels of trust, as done with the current “Public Ethics in New Market” group. I hope that the rest of the town citizens adopt these actions as well.
John Murtagh
Resident of The Orchard