Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 21:36:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1818 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> Yep, and I'll respect that statement. But I certainly WON'T agree with it.
> Putting pics on an open website and then saying "hey don't look at those" is
> NOT the way to run a website. Don't put them there in the first place, if
> you don't want them viewed.
Well, it was apparantly an error on somebody's part, because the pics and
links are gone.
Honest curiosity, how does that affect the 'public info' thing?
I mean, I agree with most of the people around here, that if information is on
the public side of a firewall (or other security measure), then it's public,
NQAI. But what if the information was mistakenly released, as appears to be
the case here? I mean, it wasn't *intended* to be public, right?
There is a parallel here with media, a reporter (or a PR rep) makes public
info that should have remained private, and with most respectable media, there
will be an apology and/or a retraction (even if it's buried on page 17 of the
Boring Stuff section).
Brad's statement on the issue reads (to me) as more along the lines of a
'mistake protection policy' than a self-contradicting 'don't look at this
public stuff' statement. My brain translated that part as "We kindly ask the
fans of Lego not to air our dirty laundry for us"
YMMV
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
[trimmed .general, as this is likely to migrate away from Lego and towards
debate...please correct me if it drifts the other way :) ]
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
116 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
