Agree ItsAllGoingToBeFine. Now the information is out you can't undo it. That's why this breech is bad.
This is a charity with a high profile and inability to govern itself properly. It's grown beyond its means and has sort to do this at a speed which it has deliberately sought without regard to its basic duty of care to those it was already serving. That's definitely a trustee issue. This is without considering the controversial nature of its work, which those running the charity absolutely should have considered.
What if some very genuinely transphobic individual or group got hold of that information with the intent of harming those children or their families? This is where vigilantism should be considered.
This, considering where the data is being shared, is now a very real concern.
What information is in those emails seems to contain a fair amount which is in the public interest for us to know and is stuff that I would love to discuss in terms of transparency, accountability, conflicts of interest, legal questions, manipulation of data for propaganda purposes and the political and commercial aims of the charity coming before those of the children concerned and it seems potentially at their expense due to their inability to give informed consent without duress to any of the things done in their name, on their behalf or to actually to them.
However, its mixed up with such personal information it makes me deeply uncomfortable as there isn't a public interest argument about a large amount of what has been leaked. And this exposes vulnerable people to all sorts of risks (not just transphobic abuse but also other Internet related crime).
I also think there is a certain degree of a problem in reporting anything in the emails, due to the nature of their source.
I think it's likely its been looked through at length but only certain things picked up - I note most of what was in the press related to a previous article and Mermaids response, so is possibly easier to argue the public interest case over. The rest perhaps will form background to future questions about the conduct of this charity and other organisations which can be researched from others sources, rather than be reported direct from this leak.
This is where I feel much more comfortable with journalists on a professional level who take an ethical and legal approach, rather than 'citizen journalism'. This is information which was not in the public domain with the consent or by the hand of those involved. 'Citizen journalists' and MNetters perhaps need to be careful over where they stand legally in these circumstances discussing what's in that data leak. I suspect there may well be legal questions over retention and storage of information you know to have been part of a data leak which has been reported to the ICO.
I don't know.
It's in someways a very frustrating situation, and I think a certain degree of caution needs to be exercised by anyone who says more than is in the Sunday Times article, for your own sake.
The argument on MN has always been very much about safeguarding of children, so this certainly needs to be reflected on too. The wider interest might be relevant, but at the expense of vulnerable children who have already been caught up in this horror show. A public interest argument isn't particularly strong if you place those you seek to help at risk because of your actions even if the intention is to help them in the longer term, unless you have the legal knowledge, professional experience or some kind of legal status to do so. Its one for professionals who know what they are doing, rather than anyone just well meaning and concerned as far as I'm concerned. It's a situation where more harm could be caused intentionally or unwittingly.
The Sunday Times has done the whistle low on this, and there are clearly follow up leads from this, which Mermaids aren't going to be able to avoid in the long term. I doubt it's just going to get left at what's been reported so far. Mermaids response really is the thing to keep a close eye on.