遺漏若しくは

03:39 Aug 31, 2015 

I would translate it as "leak" because 漏洩（遺漏）is used for both intentional leakage and accidental one.
Please refer to the link below: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/個人情報漏洩

故意の漏洩 or 意図的な漏洩 would be fine for a deliberate and premeditated leak. They generally connote maliciousness. If someone leaks "insider information" on ethical grounds, 内部告発 may be the word for it (provided the informant is an insider).
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/内部告発

02:01 Aug 31, 2015 

One last entry on this exchange, if you will allow. We all agree, I trust, that this query applied to a legal document.
As such the translation must remain absolutely neutral, i.e textually mirror-image, while doing its best to reflect the native take of what the author actually meant to convey.
Fortunately in this case, this can be achieved by faithfully rendering the components of this compound word. Would you be happy, PortCity and Cinefil-san, reconciling these two requirements with : "inadvertent leaks"?

One final question to our so precious native participants:
- What term(s) would Japanese professionals use to denote a deliberate and premeditated leak (whether performed maliciously or on ethical grounds), as opposed to one that might arise, as considered in this document, from a sheer oversight in confidential information management?

Thank you both for your valuable guidance. :-)

10:19 Aug 29, 2015 

I should have written more clearly. When I wrote "the 2 terms seem to be used interchangeably", that was for the meaning of "leakage". 遺漏 primarily means omission, and 漏洩 only means leakage, not omission. I assume people started to use 遺漏 for 漏洩 erroneously, and the usage somehow has spread over the years but has not been established enough to make it into dictionaries yet.

07:31 Aug 29, 2015 

So the tentative conclusion that emerges from this is that the type of leaks the confidentiality agreement mentions must then be is ‘accidental leaks’ arising from slack document filing and custody, poor security measures to guard against to document theft or electronic eavesdropping , careless ‘shop talk’ when socialising outside the work place, etc…
The final question is : should this type of leaks be qualified as above in the translation?
In our times of dodgy corporate governance, whistle-blowers and Wiki-Leak, the English term “leak” too also acquired very pro-active connotations. Could the term ‘leak’ then be interpreted that way from the agreement? Of course not; that latter meaning is so out of place in such a document that it is not even worth considering. The situational context alone is sufficient to settle the surface ambivalence of “leak” used on its own.
So we finally agree, Port City. Congratulations :-)

07:15 Aug 29, 2015 

Thank you, Port City, for your additional focus on 遺漏。
The 88k hits you quote for that term is in return to the contextual query "秘密情報、開示、遺漏、使用", right? Comparing this with 143k for "遺漏とは", and 1,630k for "遺漏" suggest that the original meaning of that term as "omission" is still quite well established and not quite ready to take the place of 漏洩. Nevertheless, :context is everything, and you are absolutely right to check your point against usage figures the way you did.
Now, perusing the first screen page of the 88k hits you bring to our attention does help understand how 遺漏 could , 5% of the times so far, shift from the meaning of ‘omission’ to that of ‘leak.’ How?
1/ The intermediate link bridging the two is ‘oversight’ (手落とし) and by extension, whatever mishap can occur as a result of that lack of attention (‘failing to keep the eye on the ball” as they often say Down Under)
2/ the leaks referred to in this batch are most of the time physical ones, but this certainly does not preclude a figurative use of that term.

12:14 Aug 28, 2015 

Thanks for what you have written. I understand what you mean, but for this particular term, I now suspect it's not an error that the author used 遺漏 instead of 漏洩. Seeing from the 2 links I mentioned earlier below, the term 遺漏 does seem to mean "leakage". With over 89,000 hits in the context of confidentiality undertaking, 遺漏 can't have been used by mistake. Nowadays, the 2 terms seem to be used interchangeably.

09:50 Aug 28, 2015 

This sums up the difference of views between our two cultures in this domain. I hope it can help participants and readers understand the divide we must find ways to close, as bridge-people with feet and hearts in both countries, when we serve the same specialised fields but are bound by very different rules of dealing with them. Exchanging views is never a waste of time. Eventually, and with good will, we are bound to read the other on the correct wave length. Thank you for your perseverance, reading this far, and Cheers to all. :-)

09:49 Aug 28, 2015 

5/ Now that is the text book Western approach. If applied in this rigid and myopic manner, as often occurs in dreadfully litigious countries, it can be quite counter-productive and profit only the lawyers feasting off such disputes all the way to the bank. In practice however, and if possible, nothing prevents the agent responsible for the translation from approaching both parties with your terminology variation proposal, Port City, and secure their joint initialised consent (or that of their respective lawyer in charge) of the English term you advocate, in the draft translation submitted. Without it, "omission" would have to stay until the original document is revised to clear this inappropriate term from its intended context.

6/ But I am confident that in the Japanese business and law environment, which values the support of lasting harmonious relationships rather than claims from fastidious individuals, pragmatism, broad-mindedness and common sense emerge from all sides to resolve such an issue with a minimum of fuss, and if it is raised as in 5/, it is no doubt readily and perhaps informally settled.

09:47 Aug 28, 2015 

PortCity, the point you make is quite logical and convincing. However, wouldn't the action you suggest (rendering「遺漏」as 'leak' not as 'omission'?) run counter to the professional conduct prescribed in the West when dealing documents such as this one. Why? Please consider this:
1/ this is a legal document.
2/ its function is to serve as the sole and final reference to adjudicate on any alleged breach of the confidentiality defined in that agreement.
3/ as such, the wording of its draft can be jointly edited by the parties concerned prior to joint signing, so it faithfully reflect their respective intents and conditions.
4/ Once signed however, because of 2/ above, the document has to be translated strictly as originally worded, and that means 'warts and all' if the agreement has been imperfectly drafted. There can be no textual inconsistency between the Japanese and the English versions of a legal document. This could seriously complicate the adjudication of respective responsibilities if a litigation arose from it.

10:59 Aug 27, 2015 

The question I raised is not about disclosure vs leak, but leak vs omission. I don't see a point in making sure that the person does not omit confidential information (from what?) when the whole topic is about keeping confidentiality. I believe the author used 遺漏 as 漏洩. That is my point. Maybe 遺漏 has acquired the meaning of leaking. I wouldn't be surprised about that because it contains 漏, which fundamentally means "leaking".

10:06 Aug 27, 2015 

Would concede you do have a point here. Disclosure and leak may have similar results, but differ in how each is performed (covertly and indirectly vs overtly directly, if irresponsibly). So this enumeration is not redundant. It itemises to prohibit them all possible ways of breaching the confidentiality agreed to. Seen from this angle your interpretation does make better sense than the rendering I supported without a challenge as you do.
Nevertheless, this valuable point you make cannot be part of the main body of the translation. It can only be entered as a translator's footnote. Don't agree? Thanks for your insightful contribution anyway :-)

08:44 Aug 27, 2015 

I've found some documents use 遺漏 instead of 漏洩 in the same context. But I still think they use it as 漏洩, not as omission.
Here is the link I referred to in my answer.
漏洩：https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1...
The below shows where 遺漏 is used in the same context: https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?source=search_app&gws_rd=cr,s...

I believe what the source text wants to say is that the person undertakes not to leak confidential information. The person further undertakes not to disclose the same (to any third party) or to use the same without the company's consent.
The company will never give a consent to leaking confidential information.

07:33 Aug 27, 2015 

Oops！Sorry, I was wrong! しない covers all three contract violations considered. So nothing unusual in this use of 'or'. Cheers.

07:16 Aug 27, 2015 

An interesting ' 若しくは syntax', in this piece of legalese. Common in this domain perhaps, but then cannot be translated literally as just 'or' dangling in the air, if what comes after that does not support the usual syntax .
If so, it has to be expanded to form a complete unit or else be rendered with a synonym performing the same function.
Would propose: or the like
, etc.
Don't agree?