最初由 Sedona 发布：
回复：My explaination to Sedona
First of all, please accept my apology because of too strong the tone of my previous post.
I reacted out of professionalism; everyone of us in dealing with our clients must observe the rule of confidentiality.
I reacted also out of cultural clash. My post has nothing against you, but the clash that some of us, immigrants from China including myself, would disclose a case in the public in such a manner.
You don't have a file opened, but it doesn't mean you have no obligation to keep their information confidential. You, as an employee of SBT, had an informal encounter with the couple, and thus have an obligation to keep your mouth shut. Your access to the information because of SBT. Whether you are at work or not, you wear their hat.
Sorry to say that, but if you were one of my staff, you shall be disciplined, without no hesitation.
I know the details of a few very high profile discussions in 51 in the past 6 months, but I never mentioned their names, never talked about their details and never said I knew them.
Confidentiality is more than names.
This is a lesson for Chinese Canadians. To survive in Canada, we need to know their rules.
这个贴子要顶。
很遗憾看到楼主会对如此重要的东西不在意。在他们找到你的SBT哪怕只是一个咨询，他们就是你们的客户，如何可以认为“she (Mrs. Ma) wasn't even our client before getting official response from director of local office after firing internal review.”？
楼主对 CONFIDENTIALITY 的认识如此薄弱在她一开始贴子中的这一段就表露出来了：
“我当时非常同情他们的处境，也尝试帮助他们跟local office的社工进行联系，但是local office的办公人员不是休假不在，就是提出要求让我得到老两口正式授权，再传真授权书，等等等等，然后才可以代表他们进一步讨论案子具体细节。总而言之一堆人为障碍（我个人看法）。”
楼主认为代表别人办事要授权（至少在这件事上）是“一堆人为障碍”，换句话说，如果楼主有权管理这个CASE，她就可以不需要别人（一个象楼主一样热心要帮忙的人）出具授权书，而谈论和代表别人处理与那CASE有关的东西？
我相信 Sedona 只是提醒楼主要真正明白这一点。This is a serious issue.
回复
daydreaming
2007-05-01 17:57
举报
0
最初由 Sedona 发布：
You don't have a file opened, but it doesn't mean you have no obligation to keep their information confidential. You, as an employee of SBT, had an informal encounter with the couple, and thus have an obligation to keep your mouth shut. Your access to the information because of SBT. Whether you are at work or not, you wear their hat.
Regarding this point, I agree! Even if we don't have a file opened for the people we provided services to, still, we have the obligations to keep it absolutely confidential!!!
However, please understand the differences we are experiencing and allow some os uf some more time to adapt to the system here. Rome was not built over a day!
最初由 有感而发 发布：
My explaination to Sedona
Talking about protecting individual's personal information, Sedona is correct. We do have responsibility to keep all the case information unleashed unless authorized. Luckily I always have this in mind before posting the previous article. However I don't think I have violated any Legislation or Regulation.
First of all, she (Mrs. Ma) wasn't even our client before getting official response from director of local office after firing internal review. Since she didn't have the case number assigned when those activities took place, there is no way to "disclose" our clients' info.
Secondly, some background I have mentioned in that article is just general information. There isn't any personal information released. I haven't talked about any actual name from any party except hers. Also this exception is only because 51.ca has posted her name so everyone who is talking about this issue has known that already prior to my posting.
What I am trying to say here is that I do respect Canadian Laws and Regulations. So I don't think I could have established a bad example to anybody. By the way, I don't know what Sedona means by "Chinese Canadians". What I can say is that I am still holding Chinese citizenship even I have been staying here long enough to be allowed to apply for Canadian citizenship. The reason is that I don't want to pursue anything else at a cost of my status in my home country. However it doesn't mean I can't be a good resident here.
I know I will be responsible for any consequences caused by the action that I have taken. If by any chance I am in trouble because of that posting, I won't come to 51.ca and complain. However if someone keeps on being arrogant to unfortunate people without offering his/her actual help to them, I will.
Regarding the conversation between the case workers and me at that time, I don't think it was so important to be recalled again here. I do understand that written consent is a must for delegation. However sometimes there are alternative ways for solving problem without going too far. In my understanding if people are intend to solve the problem, they will try to make things simple and straight forward. Otherwise they will do it in a totally different way.
I agree with Sedona that there won't be any lawyer here in Canada who can be free of charge to provide legal assistance. Somebody has to pay for that and it is way too costly. If the goal of filing a lawsuit is to appeal a court order made for a case with murder involved, I won't be suprised to hear that the expense may reach millions. That is why I am not really optimized about the possible result Mrs. Ma may get at the end. Better let the lost one laid in peace back home.
First of all, please accept my apology because of too strong the tone of my previous post.
I reacted out of professionalism; everyone of us in dealing with our clients must observe the rule of confidentiality.
I reacted also out of cultural clash. My post has nothing against you, but the clash that some of us, immigrants from China including myself, would disclose a case in the public in such a manner.
You don't have a file opened, but it doesn't mean you have no obligation to keep their information confidential. You, as an employee of SBT, had an informal encounter with the couple, and thus have an obligation to keep your mouth shut. Your access to the information because of SBT. Whether you are at work or not, you wear their hat.
Sorry to say that, but if you were one of my staff, you shall be disciplined, without no hesitation.
I know the details of a few very high profile discussions in 51 in the past 6 months, but I never mentioned their names, never talked about their details and never said I knew them.
Confidentiality is more than names.
This is a lesson for Chinese Canadians. To survive in Canada, we need to know their rules.
Talking about protecting individual's personal information, Sedona is correct. We do have responsibility to keep all the case information unleashed unless authorized. Luckily I always have this in mind before posting the previous article. However I don't think I have violated any Legislation or Regulation.
First of all, she (Mrs. Ma) wasn't even our client before getting official response from director of local office after firing internal review. Since she didn't have the case number assigned when those activities took place, there is no way to "disclose" our clients' info.
Secondly, some background I have mentioned in that article is just general information. There isn't any personal information released. I haven't talked about any actual name from any party except hers. Also this exception is only because 51.ca has posted her name so everyone who is talking about this issue has known that already prior to my posting.
What I am trying to say here is that I do respect Canadian Laws and Regulations. So I don't think I could have established a bad example to anybody. By the way, I don't know what Sedona means by "Chinese Canadians". What I can say is that I am still holding Chinese citizenship even I have been staying here long enough to be allowed to apply for Canadian citizenship. The reason is that I don't want to pursue anything else at a cost of my status in my home country. However it doesn't mean I can't be a good resident here.
I know I will be responsible for any consequences caused by the action that I have taken. If by any chance I am in trouble because of that posting, I won't come to 51.ca and complain. However if someone keeps on being arrogant to unfortunate people without offering his/her actual help to them, I will.
Regarding the conversation between the case workers and me at that time, I don't think it was so important to be recalled again here. I do understand that written consent is a must for delegation. However sometimes there are alternative ways for solving problem without going too far. In my understanding if people are intend to solve the problem, they will try to make things simple and straight forward. Otherwise they will do it in a totally different way.
I agree with Sedona that there won't be any lawyer here in Canada who can be free of charge to provide legal assistance. Somebody has to pay for that and it is way too costly. If the goal of filing a lawsuit is to appeal a court order made for a case with murder involved, I won't be suprised to hear that the expense may reach millions. That is why I am not really optimized about the possible result Mrs. Ma may get at the end. Better let the lost one laid in peace back home.
马秀英：我们的梦想就是能够讨个说法(第9集)