Confidential???

RantWoman is supposed to be helping draft queries for an up coming event. RantWoman is not sure her efforts are a help but they are what RantWoman has gotten stuck on today.

Are our communications centered in the Divine presence and not laden down with vanity and vexation?

Do our communications speak clearly and simply, maintaining a single standard of truth?

If one is to speak of a single standard of truth before God, what is to be made of promises to or about specific people or situations?

What does it mean both to speak of challenges in a spirit of love and truth and to be careful of the reputations of others?

Is it a form of vanity to assume any single person is the only one afflicted with a problem or concern? How may we speak of realities which may afflict many individuals, to be true to common elements and respectful of individual peculiarities?

Is there anything about modern means of communications that changes how we respond to these queries?

Is our electronic presence orderly and consistent enough than one can gosh dang it find previous contributions to the electronic torrents when needed?


To heck with the queries, for now. RantWoman has gotten stuck on confidentiality. RantWoman is weighing the possibility that the old quip about "my work is so confidential I don't even know what I am doing" applies, but RantWoman must be true to such Light as has arrived so far.

One of the big things RantWoman does in her jobs, such as they are is to draft things like confidentiality policies and computer usage agreements. RantWoman kind of has definition brain anyway but perhaps this item will resonate for others as well. Or perhaps RantWoman will simply mark herself, as of today, as clearly and unambiguously beyond the pale and the world will at least have a clear idea with whom it is dealing, zones of challenge and even desired transformation.

Once upon a time, RantWoman started work as a technical contractor for a large organization in a business up to its eyeballs and beyond in oceans and buckets and endless floods of confidential data. RantWoman is aware that the practices listed here have changed substantially as has the legal environment affecting the organizations obligations. In the interest of confidentiality, RantWoman is not even identifying the economic sector the organization belongs to. RantWoman is simply going to note that she signed on a dotted line, showed up at work and was handed her job without any intersection with the concept of confidentiality. The subject did not even come up until RantWoman asked for a definition of what papers needed to go into the shred and which could go into the recycle container.

At the time, RantWoman figured her job was just to follow the rules, she just wanted to know the rules, but there was no one telling her the rules. Sometimes someone not doing what RantWoman considers their responsibility lands them instantly in the RantWoman rant zone. Nevertheless, saying any more about that exact situation would definitely be telling more of the truth than RantWoman considers necessary.

On the other hand, having worked in that economic sector, RantWoman at least understands some of the logic behind one Friend's hesitations about email. RantWoman understands the historical origins of these concerns. RantWoman demurs about email referring to events that have occurred in public before a large number of witnesses. Furthermore, RantWoman thinks that technology and practicalities other than what obtained during that Friend's working years very definitely put RantWoman's comfort level in a different place. Okay, RantWoman's comfort level is really different. So that means RantWoman gets both to muddle out more clearly what Light has arrived for her AND figure out how to approach the question of laboring over the issue.

In the blogosphere, in the Quaker blogosphere, in the world of search engines and vast electronic modernity, at least on RantWoman's blog, RantWoman is responsible for making the rules. RantWoman is seasoning a number of concerns in this realm.

One concern has to do with identifying people and organizations RantWoman refers to. Here are RantWoman's rules as of today:

RantWoman is aware of some Young Friends who refer to many Friends, including themselves and others by only their first names and last initial. RantWoman frequently refers to the face of the Divine appearing in specific human faces. RantWoman reminds her readers of her past as a Russian Literature Major. Characters may appear repeatedly and may or may not be referred to by the same name in different entries.

RantWoman uses noms de blog for many people in her Meeting. RantWoman has not really been promoting her blog in her Meeting and only hears from a few people. No one has commented unfavorably on this practice. One or two Friends have smiled when they recognize a fellow worshiper.

RantWoman acknowledges that some blog entries, especially early in her blog's history contain noms de blog which tell a little too much of the truth. RantWoman particularly has in mind one item which refers to a Friend's hidden disability. The Friend does not read blogs but from time to time talks fairly openly about her disability which is why RantWoman even knows of it. RantWoman has never talked directly with this Friend about whether she minds RantWoman's reference. However, after discussing the matter with others, RantWoman decided to change how that Friend is referred to but not to edit history.

Several members of RantWoman's Meeting hold official roles in various Quaker places. When RantWoman is referring to a person in his or her Quaker role RantWoman will use that person's full name; RantWoman reserves the right to refer to such Friends as are well known to her AND fall into the RantWoman rant zone outside their official positions by appropriate noms de blog. RantWoman thinks a single standard of Truth can sometimes be served by speaking honestly of behaviors or feelings or reactions, particularly as one does labors of the Spirit. RantWoman strives--with very uneven results--to be conscientious about not linking a Friend's real name with any RantWoman rants not related to the Friend's official role.

RantWoman includes all kinds of real, live links to authors, Weighty Friends, and figures widely publicized. RantWoman uses the same names as she receives the material with.

RantWoman has also been meditating about standards of confidentiality for activities such as spiritual sharing groups and general concerns of, as the query in our Faith and Practice says, being careful of the reputations of others. RantWoman is meditating about the questions because they have come up organically, not because, say, a topical committee has elaborated any guidelines to start from. RantWoman knows that her Meeting includes people who work in professions where specific standards of confidentiality are assumed. RantWoman also knows that people participate in activities such as 12-step programs or group therapy where some kind of standard for what is confidential gets spelled out fairly early in a group process. RantWoman THINKS that people have enough different life experiences that they should be able to agree among themselves about standards of confidentiality for different situations. RantWoman thinks this but means to collect some topical queries / practices in case people come to her for help.


Meanwhile, RantWoman means to put one of her search results digestion services to work to help her do some research about matters of definition and boundaries.


Some wonderful queries on confidentiality from Quaker spring 2009
http://www.quakerspring.org/queries-on-confidentiality-and-openness.php