Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Applied in Case 82-2 Contrast
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#Confidentiality_Expectation_Source-of-Information_Distinction_Applied_in_Case_82-2_Contrast
Properties
Instance of
ConfidentialityExpectationSource-of-InformationDistinctionPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ConfidentialityExpectationSource-of-InformationDistinctionPrinciple
Applied to
Determination of whether Section III.4 confidentiality obligation applies to Engineer A's possession of code violation information
Balancing with
Public Welfare Paramount
Concrete expression
The Board distinguishes the present case from Case 82-2 by reference to the source of the confidential information: in Case 82-2 the engineer discovered information through independent inspection (no client transmission), so Section III.4 did not apply; in the present case the client transmitted the information directly, so Section III.4 is fully engaged.
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Interpretation
The confidentiality obligation's applicability turns on whether the client affirmatively transmitted the information to the engineer; independently discovered information does not carry the same confidentiality expectation.
Invoked by
Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The source-of-information distinction determines which confidentiality framework applies, but even the stronger client-transmission confidentiality is overridden by the public safety paramount obligation.
Source Evidence
Source text
In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer. However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case.
Text references
However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A.
In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.
Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client.
TTL
@prefix case84: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#> .
@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#> .
case84:Confidentiality_Expectation_Source-of-Information_Distinction_Applied_in_Case_82-2_Contrast a proeth:ConfidentialityExpectationSource-of-InformationDistinctionPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Applied in Case 82-2 Contrast" ;
proeth:appliedto "Determination of whether Section III.4 confidentiality obligation applies to Engineer A's possession of code violation information" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Public Welfare Paramount" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The Board distinguishes the present case from Case 82-2 by reference to the source of the confidential information: in Case 82-2 the engineer discovered information through independent inspection (no client transmission), so Section III.4 did not apply; in the present case the client transmitted the information directly, so Section III.4 is fully engaged." ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "84" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "84" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The confidentiality obligation's applicability turns on whether the client affirmatively transmitted the information to the engineer; independently discovered information does not carry the same confidentiality expectation." ;
proeth:invokedby "Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Confidentiality Expectation Source-of-Information Distinction Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer. However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A. Therefore, it would appear that Section III.4. should be involved in our consideration of this case." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The source-of-information distinction determines which confidentiality framework applies, but even the stronger client-transmission confidentiality is overridden by the public safety paramount obligation." ;
proeth:textreferences "However, under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A.",
"In Case 82-2, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.",
"Section III.4. necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 84 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T13:56:58.173620"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 84 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
84
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
First case
84
Generated
2026-03-01T13:44:42.213436+00:00
Attributed to
Case 84 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T13:56:58.173620
Generated by
ProEthica Case 84 Extraction