inluminent

I work at a company where the stated email policy is effectively:

“We can read your email at any time for any reason, and furthermore, can decide to fire you if we don’t like what we read.”

I hate that policy, but live with it, because in exchange for that priviledge they pay me. But the question of public email is even more interesting to me.

In case you don’t read Ben Hammersley’s weblog, I thought I’d point out that he’s been toying with the idea of publishing his email as a public RSS feed for a couple of days.

Ben is a journalist, and there has been a lot of talk recently in that realm about ‘full disclosure’ to the public. Many writers get many perks such as free hardware and/or software for reviewing, free trips to press junkets, and more. The question seems to be ’should writers have to disclose this sort of information’ to the public, which leads us down a more slippery slope of ’should a writer have to disclose everything to the public?’

I’d have to answer “no.”

I don’t want to know where writers got their background information, especially if that will close down those sources of information, which is what Ben’s sources told him will happen (effectively) if he publishes his email in RSS a public RSS feed.

He’s decided not to publish it, so that he continues to get his information from inside sources. I applaud his decision, as it helps me learn more, through him, from his sources.

That’s the job of journalism. Inform … but not too much