Subject:
|
Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Aug 2000 22:48:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
242 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> [...]
> 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".
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 computer people. If you assume that Target probably can't
reasonably put the info into their computer and subsequently ask their
employees never to reveal the info, then the conclusion would be that Target
shouldn't have placed the info into their computers in the first place.
If I had to guess, given everything I've heard so far, I would guess that
Target (as a corporate entity) is in violation of their contract with LEGO
by having allowed Jorge to have access to and disclose information which they
were supposed to have held confidential. Note: This is partially an
educated guess but also speculation -- so take it with a grain of salt.
The basic idea here is this: Let's not assume a priori that LEGO is the one
at fault for the leak -- even remotely. Who knows, it *might* be true, but
I doubt it, so I don't think we should assume it. Certainly they can take
(and I think are taking) steps to try to decrease the probability of this
type of leak occuring again in the future, but really, if it's in the
agreement with retailers that the information is sensitive, then it's the
responsibility of the retailer to do whatever it needs to do to ensure that
its staff doesn't disclose, even accidentally, the sensitive info.
--Todd
p.s. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) Sorry, but here we're going to have to disagree. If Lego and Target have an agreement (which is starting to become apparent), then someone is responsible for the fact that the info got out. If Jorge signed something when he was hired saying (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Pruning not good for the trees
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
