Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:16:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
361 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> > Further, while it's true that the info in this instance is no longer secret,
> > there have been cases in the past of companies trying to put the genie back • in
> > the bottle (and in some cases, succeeding) by finding every copy and • returning
> > it to secret.
>
> And here is where the problem with not 'getting' the internet comes in.
> Plus, the information is now in quite a few people's brains (not mine --
> memory not good enough *grin*). Do they intend to wipe those clean?
We're not there, thank goodness, but again, drawing from memory, there have
been cases where *every* person who could be reasonably identified as having
seen it (a small number, less than 1000) was informed that the info was secret
and advised that they needed to be aware of the consequences of further
disclosure of illegally obtained info.
This was for stuff much much much more secret than next years toy range, mind
you.
Draw the analogy with fenced goods. You as the receiver are OK if you don't
know they are stolen. All you lose is the goods themselves when they are
returned. But once you've been apprised they are stolen you're an accessory if
you don't take steps to try to return them or if you pass them on to others.
Stuff etched in your brain can't be removed, but you can be forced to show
you've destroyed all printed copies all media all backups, and if you
disseminate, you get nailed. Again, for much more serious stuff than next
years toy range, but the precedent is there.
> Put another way -- Target is holding the bag, not LUGnet, yeah?
Since Todd excised it as quickly as he became aware that there was a problem,
yes, either Target or Jorge is, unless the (very unlikely) case is that TLC
did NOTHING to secure the info, not even the standard "reasonable and
customary" boilerplate.
> > about. Read your employment agreement, for example.
>
> Didn't have to sign anything like that. I work in academia, remember? :)
You don't have an employment agreement? Are you full time? It may have been
incorporated by reference.
> I certainly don't think that *Lego* made
> the best decision, though.
It would be the first time they made a less than perfect decision, too <GD&R>
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) And here is where the problem with not 'getting' the internet comes in. Plus, the information is now in quite a few people's brains (not mine -- memory not good enough *grin*). Do they intend to wipe those clean? (...) Put another way -- (...) (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
|
|
|
|
