| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Frank Filz writes:
> Sorry I missed the part about being suggestions to TLC. I do still see some
> problem with #3. I'm not sure what all the ramifications of publishing a
> private communication when public communication has been made.
I'd better check on that. As far as I'm aware, it's not illegal to publish
a private communication, just rude (assuming it doesn't contain any sensitive
information, of course).
> I think your goal here is to make it clear that TLC isn't exerting any
> backhanded pressure on you (by requiring them to be up front about their
> request).
Yes, for CYA reasons and out of respect for the community.
> I do still see possibility that they might want to communicate more detail
> to you in private than they want to detail publicly.
I have no problem with more details as long as they're vague and they don't
give me any sensitive information. I don't ever want to be told anything that
I'm not supposed to share, unless I've signed an NDA. I like things done or
said publicly, if at all possible. If it's not possible, and it doesn't
apply to me directly, I don't want to hear it. For example, I heard something
from Brad at our FTF meeting in July which he didn't ask me not to share but
which I know that if I did share, would probably make a certain person in the
community look bad for not having shared it already himself, given its deeper
implications. I really wish I hadn't heard it. I hope that makes sense.
> If you are going to
> force them to say everything publicly, you may be more likely to force
> them to court action.
No, I certainly don't want to make LEGO feel that their hand is being forced.
I hope they voluntarily choose to go about things more openly in the future.
Not being given permission to post a copy of a private email which embodied
a formal legal request to remove other peoples' posts is a thorn in my side,
to be sure, but I suppose in the final analysis, it's part of my "job" to
endure thorns like that from time to time.
> To construct an example, lets say I was going to hold a meeting at my mom's
> house, and asked people to e-mail me for directions or somesuch. Then someone
> posts the directions, and for urgency, I decide to post publicly "please do
> not propagate the directions to our meeting place." I also at the same time
> send e-mail to you explaining that I need to have the directions removed
> because my mom values her privacy, including the privacy to not have her
> address publicly announced. I am providing this extra detail to you to clarify
> the request so you can understand the seriousness (i.e. were not just dealing
> with MY privacy, but someone else's who isn't even connected with Lugnet). If
> you post this e-mail publicly, you are creating an additional violation of my
> mom's privacy.
No no no no no, I wouldn't do that. And I don't think anyone would fault you
for requiring removal privately. LEGO is a very special case. They should be
held to stricter standards. If I removed something at your request based on
violation-of-privacy grounds, I would make it clear that's why the message was
removed, but I wouldn't post a copy of your message. Again, the list I posted
for Brad was suggestions for Brad/LEGO, not site policy for LUGNET.
> [...] (i.e. if you intend #3 to ONLY be how you handle
> TLC communications, and any other communications will be dealt with on their
> own merits, then that's cool, perhaps this is indeed what you intended since
> there is significance to your wanting to make it clear just what TLC is
> requesting of you in these situations).
Yes, that's it in a nutshell.
> However, with all of this said, I still strongly reccomend you seek counsel
> from a lawyer. It is clear that you will continually have to deal with
> situations where innapropriate material gets posted, and that you will have
> to respond to direct requests to remove that material. If you don't handle
> these requests consistently, that is where you will really open yourself up
> to lawsuits.
Hmm. Good points.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: So where is Brad's answer to the 2001 info?
|
| In lugnet.lego.direct, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) which (...) <snip> (...) Sorry I missed the part about being suggestions to TLC. I do still see some problem with #3. I'm not sure what all the ramifications of publishing a private (...) (26 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
