Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 05:07:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
211 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> BTW, I removed the articles in good faith, as requested, with the
> understanding that they somehow violated TLC's privacy rights. IANAL, so
> I have to take it in good faith. If it does come to light that there were
> no legal grounds for the articles' removal, rest assured that the articles
> can be easily restored if needed.
I'm going to start by saying that I fully understand the Lugnet admins actions
in this case. It's far better for the relationship with LEGO to move quickly
and do what they request, and *then* follow up to see if it was right or not.
But at the same time, I can't stress enough how much I think you should
investigate whether or not this kind of thing is something LEGO can ask you to
do or not. I can't imagine that it could be within their rights to demand you
do so. I've seen several people refer to this information as "leaked", and I
have a real problem with that term. At no point was this information used in a
way that violates standard operating procedure for any of the entities
involved:
LEGO took the names and prices of the sets, and handed them to Target.
Target took the names and prices of the sets, and placed them into the
computer.
A Target employee, who has a position that enables him by Target's own
operational procedures to *use* said computer, including giving information
from it to customers, discovered the information. He then shared it with a
coupe hundred of Target's potential customers.
Now, the information above is accurate as far as Jorge has presented it. It's
possible he doesn't actually have the right to look in the computer. It's
possible that Target blew it and shouldn't have had the information in *their*
computer. But if all of the above are true, and LEGO doesn't want it to be,
then LEGO needs to change the way they do business, not ask all of us to "not
discuss it".
To me, this is just another example of a big company not understanding that
the way in which information flows has been irrevocably changed by the
internet. [1]
eric
1] I don't say things like this very often. I've been working on the internet
for about 5 years now, and frankly the thing bores the living heck out of me.
But there are certain truths about its effect on life that have to be faced up
to. Is my life actually *better* because I know what Star Wars sets are going
to be released in December? No, not really. But without the internet, I
wouldn't know it.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| From what I've seen of this information leak, it's a case of shutting the gate *after* the horse has bolted. If six million people suddenly knew WW3 was coming, but shouldn't have, because of some government department's stuff-up in transferring the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) I don't claim to know all or even many of the details, but I'll bet that no one person "blew it" and that it's the result of poor communication on a number of levels, most likely starting at the level between Target's lawyers and Target's (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) This is so far from editorial control that light from editorial control takes ten million years just to reach here. The reaons were purely _legal_ and by specific request from TLC. Editorial control would be if TLC requested removal of, say, (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
