| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] | Confidentiality with using Google Translate Thread poster: May Chen
|
|---|
«Strikes me this discussion is, in fact, not so much about confidentiality per se, but whether the use of GT etc. constitutes disclosure.»
If you are not authorized by the client, it constitutes disclosure, yes.
Disclose. To bring into view by uncovering: to expose, to make known; to lay bare; to reveal to knowledge; to free from secrecy or ignorance, or make know. (Black's Law Dictionary)
It does not matter if after 20 years you can prove that nobody ha... See more «Strikes me this discussion is, in fact, not so much about confidentiality per se, but whether the use of GT etc. constitutes disclosure.»
If you are not authorized by the client, it constitutes disclosure, yes.
Disclose. To bring into view by uncovering: to expose, to make known; to lay bare; to reveal to knowledge; to free from secrecy or ignorance, or make know. (Black's Law Dictionary)
It does not matter if after 20 years you can prove that nobody has ever read what you put "there" because what is not permitted is the *mere action* of putting documents "there." It does not matter how GT works. It does not matter what happens in GT. Even if God's Notary Public guarantees that our clients' files (they are the clients' files and not ours) have never been touched or read, what is illegal is our unilateral decision to incorporate a fourth party.
In most commercial exchanges in the T&I world, there are three parties:
1) client
2) us
3) email
Client is who defines that he (first party) will send the original by email (which can result in leaks, yes) and that we (second party) will return the translation by email (which can result in leaks, yes). In both cases, the third party is the Internet provider.
Any fourth party should have our client's approval.
Au ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Aurora Humarán wrote:
«Strikes me this discussion is, in fact, not so much about confidentiality per se, but whether the use of GT etc. constitutes disclosure.»
If you are not authorized by the client, it constitutes disclosure, yes.
Disclose. To bring into view by uncovering: to expose, to make known; to lay bare; to reveal to knowledge; to free from secrecy or ignorance, or make know. (Black's Law Dictionary)
I think for the purposes of this discussion, we should be clear that disclosure can be either authorised or unauthorised, and "disclosure" itself does not, in fact, require one *not* to be authorised by the client. So, at the risk of sounding very disagreeable, I don't think the bit in bold is relevant to disclosure. Although it clearly is to confidentiality breaches.
A breach of confidentiality requires disclosure inter alia (e.g. it would then require that disclosure not to be authorised). Not all disclosures are confidentiality breaches (e.g. if they are authorised. Or not actually disclosures at all!).
And we need to be careful with yoiking dictionary definitions. I would say some of those descriptions require there to be another party - "bring into view" requires someone to perceive it; to "make known" requires another person to know the information subsequently. Some of them don't require another party, e.g. to expose or lay bare, and some might even argue that those that do not require another party might apply equally well to just opening a document on a computer.
What, then, is your view of my scenario - if I read out my confidential source text in the forest, but no-one hears it, is that disclosure?
(I think I would say no, it isn't.)
FWIW, I don't use GT because I don't trust Google. I read its T&C as essentially saying "we do what the **** we like, when we like" and even if they didn't say that, I wouldn't trust the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. I did try it once, on something already published online (a butchered version of my work, i.e. not the translation I submitted, then appeared on Lingee) and it saved me lots of typing time so I quite like the idea of MT, just not the implementation. I don't trust any of them. Not Google, not Bing, not anyone! Hence, AFAIAC, using it is disclosure, or runs an uncontrolled risk of disclosure, more accurately.
My guess is that those using it either do not see it as disclosure (which is a stance I can appreciate, but disagree with), or only use it for information in the public domain
| | | | | Little Red Translating Hood | Oct 10, 2012 |
Hi, Charlie!
«I think for the purposes of this discussion, we should be clear that disclosure can be either authorised or unauthorised»
Of course. Sorry for taking it for granted that we were talking about unauthorised disclosure.
«at the risk of sounding very disagreeable, I don't think the bit in bold is relevant to disclosure. Although it clearly is to confidentiality breaches.»
Well... The two concepts go together here: in the p... See more Hi, Charlie!
«I think for the purposes of this discussion, we should be clear that disclosure can be either authorised or unauthorised»
Of course. Sorry for taking it for granted that we were talking about unauthorised disclosure.
«at the risk of sounding very disagreeable, I don't think the bit in bold is relevant to disclosure. Although it clearly is to confidentiality breaches.»
Well... The two concepts go together here: in the pattern I described (a customary one) if you disclose to a fourth party without your client's authorization, you are breaching confidentiality. The verb to disclose is always present in clauses on confidentiality.
«I would say some of those descriptions require there to be another party - "bring into view" requires someone to perceive it; to "make known" requires another person to know the information subsequently.»
Google is that new party (a lawyer would be now starting a discussion about the definition of 'party' ).
«What, then, is your view of my scenario - if I read out my confidential source text in the forest, but no-one hears it, is that disclosure? (I think I would say no, it isn't.)»
You are trying to compare a forest with Google, right? Though I have studied law at the university, am not a lawyer, so mine will be a legal translator's opinion. As I understand it, that would be disclosure, yes. Should I ever be in that position (it's difficult to imagine why I would be in that position, but let's do it!) of feeling the urge to read my client's document in a forest, I think I would refrain from doing it as... somebody might be listening to me. (Let's remember that you put me in the forest scenario, Charlie! ).
I can also think that whenever I leave my monitor with a translation on the screen, the lady that cleans my house is a fourth party, so should I turn off the monitor every time I go to the loo, even if this lady hasn't given evidence of being a pirate in her 20 years with me and cannot read without her glasses?
We can think of really weird scenarios, but... what for? For the sake of intellectual exercise? Let's do it. But these cases do not change the fact that translators cannot use online MT for the reasons explained. Most of our translation assignments follow the pattern I described. Have I been in other situations? Yes. A client called me once, and told me he would come to my office, would give me a handwritten document (two pages), would wait for me to translate it (!!!), and instructed me not to use a computer, but to translate with a pen on a sheet of paper.
Regarding use of MT, I have used GT, Bing, Tradukka and similar babies to have an idea of what I am talking about every time I lecture on MT and post-editing. I have never used online MT for my professional translations, of course.
Will I ever use offline MT? (i.e., what happens in my PC stays in my PC) I don't know. I might. Regarding the translators in my team, I have no objections if they use offline MT. It's just another tool (as Trados, Dragon, etc.).
Cheers!
Au ▲ Collapse
| | | | | That is exactly it | Oct 10, 2012 |
Aurora Humarán wrote: if you disclose to a fourth party without your client's authorization, you are breaching confidentiality. The verb to disclose is always present in clauses on confidentiality. «I would say some of those descriptions require there to be another party - "bring into view" requires someone to perceive it; to "make known" requires another person to know the information subsequently.» Google is that new party (a lawyer would be now starting a discussion about the definition of 'party' ).
And that, I presume, is the nub and crux. While Google clearly has legal personality and all that stuff, can something be disclosed in any meaningful sense if a natural person is not aware of it?
As I said, I'm very much in the position of not using GT just in case someone, a natural person, should ever come to read the material (be it someone at Google or because some automated mechanism spews it out to someone else), but I can appreciate the other view (which requires you to believe what Google say, which I don't, and even if I think it's wrong, which I do).
«What, then, is your view of my scenario - if I read out my confidential source text in the forest, but no-one hears it, is that disclosure? (I think I would say no, it isn't.)» You are trying to compare a forest with Google, right? Though I have studied law at the university, am not a lawyer, so mine will be a legal translator's opinion. As I understand it, that would be disclosure, yes. Should I ever be in that position (it's difficult to imagine why I would be in that position, but let's do it!) of feeling the urge to read my client's document in a forest, I think I would refrain from doing it as... somebody might be listening to me. (Let's remember that you put me in the forest scenario, Charlie! ).
Yeah, but if someone did hear you, then I'd agree with you. This is the hypothetical scenario where you can someone be absolutely certain that no-one heard. And of course differs from Google in that once you've finished speaking, any potential disclosure is ended. Anything Google gets can last forever....!
I can also think that whenever I leave my monitor with a translation on the screen, the lady that cleans my house is a fourth party, so should I turn off the monitor every time I go to the loo, even if this lady hasn't given evidence of being a pirate in her 20 years with me and cannot read without her glasses?
Me too. Not that I've got a cleaner, mind...!
[/quote]We can think of really weird scenarios, but... what for? For the sake of intellectual exercise? Let's do it. [/quote]
Yup, just to toss ideas around. See where it leads. I was actually thinking of blogging on the subject today, but then some work came in that I had to do today (hurrah!).
Meanwhile, searching for anything that might resolve whether the forest scenario would or would not be ruled as "disclosure" in court, I was reminded of the point (and further to my own reason for not using GT, which is as a precaution just in case a natural person sees it), in England and Wales, you (the "owner" of the information) can take out an injunction in anticipation of future disclosure. So I would certainly say that anyone in England or Wales who uses GT for confidential stuff is potentially leaving themselves open to that, at least.
| | |
|
|
|
| This is the point | Oct 11, 2012 |
Charlie Bavington wrote:
So I would certainly say that anyone in England or Wales who uses GT for confidential stuff is potentially leaving themselves open to that, at least.
Confidential stuff. AU says everything is confidential.
I think "I like to eat potatoes" is not confidential. If I say "Mr. Bean like to eat potatoes", start to be confidential. It is also not the same to upload documents into GT than to copy phrases into it, if you get a good translation, for sure that phrase has been translated by someone somewhere. An it is impossible for Google to know if this is part of the judicial problems of Mr. Bean with WeightWatchers...
[Edited at 2012-10-11 16:56 GMT]
| | | | | It is not for us to judge what is confidential | Oct 11, 2012 |
Fernando Toledo wrote:
I think "I like to eat potatoes" is not confidential. If I say "Mr. Bean like to eat potatoes", start to be confidential. It is also not the same to upload documents into GT than to copy phrases into it, if you get a good translation, for sure that phrase has been translated by someone somewhere. An it is impossible for Google to know if this is part of the judicial problems of Mr. Bean with WeightWatchers...
To me, we are not the ones to judge what can or cannot be confidential for a customer at a certain moment in time. If a customer says we should treat their stuff as confidential, and we sign an agreement in that sense, then we should... or if we cannot accept that, we should stop working for that customer.
| | | |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote: To me, we are not the ones to judge what can or cannot be confidential for a customer at a certain moment in time. If a customer says we should treat their stuff as confidential, and we sign an agreement in that sense, then we should... or if we cannot accept that, we should stop working for that customer.
we are not the ones to judge
GT says for german: wir sind nicht diejenigen, die zu beurteilen.
Am I breaking your confidence... or any of the 35.100 confidentialities that use this phrase on the net (Google search)?
It must be a point where confidentiality start, if not, we can not use internet, Google search, Kudoz, etc.
[Edited at 2012-10-11 19:40 GMT]
| | | | DavidHardy
Local time: 20:42
Portuguese to English
| Disclosure:why stop at MT - what about TMs? | Oct 11, 2012 |
A couple of comments.
1. Why stop at Machine Translation and not also apply the logic to Translation Memories?
If I use a match in a translation memory from one client in a translation for another client is it disclosure? Whilst you could argue it has remained private in the translator's personal TM, it surely goes public if it is used in another client's translation. If so, is it disclosure at 90% matching level, 80%, etc.
2. If an agency sends a freelancer a... See more A couple of comments.
1. Why stop at Machine Translation and not also apply the logic to Translation Memories?
If I use a match in a translation memory from one client in a translation for another client is it disclosure? Whilst you could argue it has remained private in the translator's personal TM, it surely goes public if it is used in another client's translation. If so, is it disclosure at 90% matching level, 80%, etc.
2. If an agency sends a freelancer a TM as part of a package, does that constitute disclosure of other clients' work?
3. Why stop at MT and TMs? If I translate a cutting edge technological article and end up having to translate terms into a language for the first time, do they remain confidential? For how long? Isn't there even an interest in "getting the terms out there" to "mark the territory"?
3. Google DOES use user data in some of its services. Google Flu Trends is based on text input into the Google Search box. The hypothesis (academically proved btw) is that incidence of flu in a community can be linked to certain searches for flu (or dengue fever now) in that community. I do not know if the FAQ conditions are different to GT (haven't Google done some standardization of conditions recently?).
4. I have not read every word of this thread, but correct me if I am wrong but I have not read the word redaction so far. Is there a difference between using GT etc all the time and occasional uses for linguistic puzzles which have been redacted, but where the linguistic puzzle still remains? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 21:42
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
DavidHardy wrote:
1. If I use a match in a translation memory from one client in a translation for another client is it disclosure?
No, because the source text is already in the possession of the client who sent it to you.
2. If an agency sends a freelancer a TM as part of a package, does that constitute disclosure of other clients' work?
I think this is an important point -- even if you regard your translations as your property (i.e. your copyright), which would make it acceptable for you to use your TM from one client for work for another client, you can't claim the same for translations or TMs that clients sent to you. If you translate a segment, you can say that that translation is yours, but if you combine your own translations with that of the client (i.e. if your TM also contains segments that you did not translate yourself), then you can't use the "it is my translation" argument to justify using one client's materials for another client's work.
But that has nothing to do with disclosure, IMO. It has to do with copyright.
3. If I translate a cutting edge technological article and end up having to translate terms into a language for the first time, do they remain confidential? For how long?
This is a very good point, and a sad one too. I often wish I had the liberty to share terminology from one client's work with other translators who work for other clients on similar jobs, because it would benefit all clients if their texts are translated using the same terminology.
However, I'm quite strict on that -- I only share terminology that was discussed in a public forum. If a client has a private forum for its translators, and someone on that forum comes up with a brilliant solution to a long-standing translation problem, I keep mum about it in the public forum (at least until the client's product becomes public)... even though I think it is extremely silly to do so.
4. Is there a difference between using GT etc all the time and occasional uses for linguistic puzzles which have been redacted, but where the linguistic puzzle still remains?
I think that that is the same as asking a question about it on a public forum, e.g. on KudoZ. Either the client agrees with you that it is a normal part of your job to ask terminological questions in a public place, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then it means that the client must be satisfied with a guess translation (perhaps clients should be made aware of this, then).
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Confidentiality with using Google Translate | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
