Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:37:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
230 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > Of course, I don't think *you* were excercising control because I don't
> > think it was your choice.
>
> That's how I see it, ya.
I disagree.
Well I am adding fuel here, and I'll say that I think you ought to do what
Lego asks when it's reasonable to do so, but it is always your "choice" to do
or not do something. Even if Lego came over to your house and pulled a gun,
(or had the sheriff do it in the course of enforcing a court order) you'd
still be choosing to go along.
In this case, you made a choice way earlier than that point, and saying your
hands are tied is disingenious. I would have made the same choice you did, but
I'd know and admit it was a choice.
To the other point that the Target info was public domain, being made by some.
I disagree. Target is lax, Lax, LAX in their procedures, but I can't imagine
that they actually WANT this info leaked, er that is, systematically disclosed
(1). I don't want to see Jorge get fired but if we talk about this too much
that is the sort of overreaction that can happen. In this case Lego asking you
to suppress is not realistic, the cat is out of the bag. Lorbaat is right
(darn it!), TLC doesn't quite get how information flows. But it's
understandable even if sublimely ridiculous.
Having said that, when you, Todd, say "I don't want LUGNET to be Leak Central"
that is exercising editorial control. Excising entire posts is a better way of
exercising it, but you still are. To not exercise editorial control you have
to go the whole way of saying that you will let anyone post anything. That is
the only defense against a suit if someone who you edit sues you. And none of
us want you not to exercise control. We tried that, it's called RTL and while
it has its place, it's not what we want here, thank you very much.
I am not a lawyer but I *have* dug into what it means to exercise editorial
control. You're doing it! Enforcing the T&Cs against profanity is doing it.
Enforcing group charters is doing it. Please don't stop doing it! Eyes open,
though. And don't worry about the suits, courts generally have been finding in
favor of orgs that do exercise control when they are sued, so they don't
happen much.
1 - there is a finding in information security that isolated facts often are
not considered very secret, but should be. A customer asking for one SKU's
worth of information is an isolated fact. Someone asking for one internal
phone number at a company or ageny is an isolated fact. Yet those same facts,
in aggregate can become quite sensitive. Info on ALL the SKUs is very useful
to competitors. Info on all the phone numbers at an agency can tell you who
the agency's head and department heads are, and can give a headhunter a lot of
stuff to work with in cherrypicking the best people out of it... Target may be
OK with giving away one item's worth to a customer, but those isolated facts,
taken together are probably not disclosable even under Target's written policy.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) I don't think that matters. Once information is public, any trade secret protection ends. And if Lego wanted trade secret protection in the first place, they should have made sure that Target made its employees know that they have a duty to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
