Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction — Bridge Case vs. Case 89-7
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/100#Confidentiality_Expectation_Source-of-Information_Distinction_—_Bridge_Case_vs._Case_89-7
Properties
Instance of
ConfidentialityExpectationSource-of-InformationDistinctionPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ConfidentialityExpectationSource-of-InformationDistinctionPrinciple
Applied to
Engineer A Bridge Sub-Consultant Inspector
Public Agency Bridge Overhaul Client
Balancing with
Confidentiality Principle
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
The Board distinguishes between Case 89-7 (where the client directly conveyed code violations to Engineer A, generating a confidentiality expectation) and the present bridge case (where Engineer A independently discovered the wall defect through professional inspection, generating no genuine confidentiality expectation from the client or public agency).
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Interpretation
Because Engineer A's observation of the wall defect arose from his own professional inspection rather than from a client disclosure, the public agency could not have had a genuine expectation that Engineer A would suppress his own professional observations — weakening the confidentiality rationale for non-disclosure.
Invoked by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The absence of a confidentiality agreement and the independent-discovery character of the observation together reduce the confidentiality barrier to disclosure, though the speculative nature of the finding ultimately limits the disclosure obligation to verbal reporting through the chain rather than formal public authority notification.
Source Evidence
Source text
it is difficult for this Board to conclude that the client or the public agency could have had a genuine expectation of confidentiality, since nothing of a confidential nature was directly conveyed by the client or the public agency to Engineer A
Text references
in the present case, there is nothing to indicate under the facts that an agreement exists between any of the parties to maintain the confidentiality of all or part of any reports prepared by the engineer
it is clear that, unlike Case No. 89-7, which involved facts and circumstances that were openly conveyed directly to Engineer A from a client, in the present case, the circumstances bearing on the public safety were revealed to the engineer as part of the engineer's inspection and professional observations
it is difficult for this Board to conclude that the client or the public agency could have had a genuine expectation of confidentiality, since nothing of a confidential nature was directly conveyed by the client or the public agency to Engineer A
TTL
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/100#Confidentiality_Expectation_Source-of-Information_Distinction_—_Bridge_Case_vs._Case_89-7> a proeth:ConfidentialityExpectationSource-of-InformationDistinctionPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction — Bridge Case vs. Case 89-7" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A Bridge Sub-Consultant Inspector",
"Public Agency Bridge Overhaul Client" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Confidentiality Principle",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The Board distinguishes between Case 89-7 (where the client directly conveyed code violations to Engineer A, generating a confidentiality expectation) and the present bridge case (where Engineer A independently discovered the wall defect through professional inspection, generating no genuine confidentiality expectation from the client or public agency)." ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "100" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T08:35:55.643095+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "100" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T08:35:55.643095+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Because Engineer A's observation of the wall defect arose from his own professional inspection rather than from a client disclosure, the public agency could not have had a genuine expectation that Engineer A would suppress his own professional observations — weakening the confidentiality rationale for non-disclosure." ;
proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "it is difficult for this Board to conclude that the client or the public agency could have had a genuine expectation of confidentiality, since nothing of a confidential nature was directly conveyed by the client or the public agency to Engineer A" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The absence of a confidentiality agreement and the independent-discovery character of the observation together reduce the confidentiality barrier to disclosure, though the speculative nature of the finding ultimately limits the disclosure obligation to verbal reporting through the chain rather than formal public authority notification." ;
proeth:textreferences "in the present case, there is nothing to indicate under the facts that an agreement exists between any of the parties to maintain the confidentiality of all or part of any reports prepared by the engineer",
"it is clear that, unlike Case No. 89-7, which involved facts and circumstances that were openly conveyed directly to Engineer A from a client, in the present case, the circumstances bearing on the public safety were revealed to the engineer as part of the engineer's inspection and professional observations",
"it is difficult for this Board to conclude that the client or the public agency could have had a genuine expectation of confidentiality, since nothing of a confidential nature was directly conveyed by the client or the public agency to Engineer A" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 100 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T08:48:56.189223"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 100 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
100
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T08:35:55.643095+00:00
First case
100
Generated
2026-03-01T08:35:55.643095+00:00
Attributed to
Case 100 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T08:48:56.189223
Generated by
ProEthica Case 100 Extraction