Not a bad shot, but I'll explain how you miss the mark...

We can concretize your scenario fairly easily: let's say person A is hungry and person B has an apple. Person A would like to eat the apple. If person A simply eats the apple, then it is an act of theft and is immoral. But if A asks B if he can eat the apple, and B consents, then it is no longer theft.

The difference between whether the act is moral or immoral is consent. (You could substitute lots of stuff in the scenario, by the way, including sex and even death.) So the exchange of information is required not to make an immoral act a moral one, but to determine whether the act itself is moral or immoral.

If B says "no, that's my apple and I want to eat it myself", then for A to eat it would be immoral. A cannot delegate to person C the right to take the apple without B's consent, because A didn't have the moral right to do that in the first place.

The question itself doesn't pertain to a right like self-defense. It pertains primarily to taxes and regulations. Since you have no right to steal, you can't delegate to someone the right to steal on your behalf.

But your response does a great job of honing in on the difference between moral and immoral acts: consent. The exchange of information is necessary to establish consent and therefore the morality of given actions.

And in case anyone wants to walk down the road of ethics in emergencies, there are scenarios where consent can be obtained after the fact. Like pushing someone out of the way of a speeding bus -- an act which is rescue with consent, but assault without it.